Who gets a seat at the table? UN climate talks face criticism for visa delays and limited public engagement
Who gets a seat at the table – This week, the global spotlight turns to Bonn, Germany, as diplomats, scientists, and activists convene for the 64th session of the Subsidiary Bodies (SB64) under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The gathering marks the first major round of climate negotiations since COP30 in Belém, Brazil, where 200 nations struggled to agree on a clear path to eliminate reliance on fossil fuels. Despite growing urgency, the summit in Bonn has drawn sharp criticism for its apparent exclusion of civil society voices and logistical hurdles that hinder access to key discussions.
The shrinking space for civic participation
As the talks unfold from June 8 to June 18, stakeholders are pushing for concrete steps to translate political pledges into actionable strategies across adaptation, energy transition, food systems, land use, and trade. Yet, concerns are mounting over the shrinking opportunities for the public to engage directly in these high-stakes negotiations. Mohamed Adow, founder and director of Power Shift Africa, a climate research group, has highlighted the growing disconnect between the climate process and the communities most affected by it.
“Climate negotiations affect billions of people, but most cannot be in the room,” Adow tells Euronews Earth. “Civil society press briefings are a vital link between the decision-makers and the people they claim to represent. When these slots are cut, it’s not just about information—it’s about power.”
For the past 30 years, the Climate Action Network (CAN), a coalition of over 2,500 civil society organizations spanning more than 150 countries, has relied on daily press briefings at UN climate events to share updates with media and the public. However, at SB64 in Bonn, CAN was granted only five opportunities to hold press conferences during the entire session—a stark contrast to its usual role. Adow, who shared this concern on LinkedIn, described the decision as a “deliberate narrowing of civic space,” emphasizing how it undermines transparency.
The issue has gained traction online, prompting the UNFCCC to adjust its approach. In response to public backlash, the organization recently allocated two additional press slots to CAN during the Bonn talks. Still, advocates argue that the reduction in civic access reflects a broader trend. Dr. Ketakandriana “Ke” Rafitoson, Executive Director of the Resource Justice Network, underscores the importance of these briefings for accountability.
“Civil society briefings are one of the few ways the public can understand what’s happening inside complex negotiations,” Rafitoson explains. “Cutting this space risks weakening trust in multilateral efforts, especially when the most vulnerable communities are left unheard.”
Rafitoson’s warning aligns with broader frustrations about the imbalance in who influences the climate agenda. While African delegations, Pacific island representatives, and frontline communities often face visa delays, border restrictions, or high costs to attend, wealthier nations’ participants typically arrive with minimal obstacles. “It’s not just about being quiet—it’s about being excluded,” says Baboucarr Nyang of CAN Africa. “A controlled space is necessary, but when it becomes a closed one, it’s a problem.”
The rise of fossil fuel lobbying
Meanwhile, the presence of industry representatives at these events is increasing. A 2025 report by the Kick Big Polluters Out (KBPO) coalition reveals that one in every 25 attendees at COP30 was a fossil fuel lobbyist, representing a 12% rise compared to the 2024 talks in Baku, Azerbaijan. This marks the highest concentration of oil and gas advocates at a COP summit since the coalition began tracking participants in 2021.
KBPO’s findings highlight a shift in the dynamics of climate diplomacy, with corporate interests gaining greater influence. The UNFCCC has not yet released the number of lobbyists attending this week’s SB64 talks, but the coalition’s data suggests a pattern of corporate dominance. Adow warns that this trend could further marginalize civil society voices.
“When access for civil society is reduced, it’s not only NGOs that lose out,” Adow says. “Journalists, citizens, and communities worldwide lose a crucial lens into the negotiations. The principle at stake is whether independent voices have a regular platform in the UN climate process.”
The debate over civic space extends beyond access to press briefings. Critics argue that the current system favors well-funded entities while stifling grassroots participation. Nyang points out that while negotiations need structure, the exclusion of underrepresented groups—particularly those from the Global South—has become a systemic issue.
A recent analysis by KBPO also reveals a troubling disparity in funding. While fossil fuel lobbyists are increasingly present, many civil society organizations struggle with financial constraints. For instance, journalists from developing countries often face high travel costs and limited resources, making it difficult to cover the talks effectively. Adow notes that this exclusion is not accidental but rather a calculated effort to limit scrutiny.
Despite these challenges, the summit in Bonn remains a critical moment for shaping the future of global climate action. With the world demanding tangible progress, the UNFCCC faces pressure to balance efficiency with inclusivity. The success of the Santa Marta conference earlier this year, where civil society led a significant push for fossil fuel phase-out, demonstrates the potential of alternative forums.
Rebuilding trust through inclusivity
For the climate talks to achieve their goals, advocates stress the need to restore civic participation. Nyang argues that a just transition—key to addressing climate impacts equitably—requires voices from those directly affected. “If the UN climate process is serious about justice, it must protect the space for communities to speak,” he says.
Rafitoson adds that the reduction in press access has real consequences. Without independent reporting, the public risks being left in the dark about decisions that could reshape their lives. The coalition is calling for a reevaluation of how access is managed, arguing that it’s a fundamental test of the UNFCCC’s commitment to inclusive governance.
As the Bonn talks progress, the issue of access will likely remain a focal point. With the climate crisis intensifying, the need for diverse perspectives has never been greater. The UNFCCC must address these concerns to ensure its process remains a true reflection of global priorities.
In the end, the question of who gets a seat at the table is not just about physical presence. It’s about whether the climate negotiations will continue to exclude the very people they aim to protect. As Adow puts it, the debate is about power, transparency, and the future of multilateralism.
