The Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War brought together more than 200 of the world’s most authoritative figures on peace and artificial intelligence. Here the 'The Rome Declaration for a Disarmed and Disarming Peace' was signed in the main council chamber in Rome's city hall Campidoglio. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan

By Ariel F. Dumont
ROME, Jul 24 2026 (IPS)

After two days of debate at an international conference devoted to the challenges of artificial intelligence (AI), nuclear war and global security, Nobel laureates, former heads of state and government, scientists, human rights defenders, religious leaders and representatives of civil society adopted a joint declaration, calling for it to be based on human dignity.

Inspired by Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica Humanitas and signed in the halls of the Capitol, Rome’s city hall, this text states that artificial intelligence cannot be left solely to military or commercial interests. It also calls for international cooperation based on human dignity, the development of global AI governance and the continuation of efforts towards nuclear disarmament.

As major powers are investing increasingly substantial sums in the development of AI, participants considered that humanity stands at a genuine crossroads. The choices that will be made will have a decisive impact not only on tomorrow’s geopolitical balances but also on the future and place of human beings in a world where decisions could increasingly be entrusted to artificial intelligence.

This point was highlighted by Rome’s mayor, Roberto Gualtieri, the master of ceremonies of this meeting, organised by the Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War, who described it as historic.

The declaration, named “The Rome Declaration for a Disarmed and Disarming Peace”, was signed on Thursday, July 16.

For Rome’s mayor, “the crucial issue, both at the global and local levels, is technological development, which must be inspired by fundamental ethical principles: respect for individuals, equality among human beings and democratic responsibility in the name of the common good.”

Gualtieri also stressed that today, more than ever, “the world needs an international coalition capable of promoting a new model of development combining economic growth, social justice, human rights and environmental protection”, thus echoing Pope Leo XIV’s call for “a disarmed and disarming peace”.

A few hours earlier, Agnès Callamard, secretary general of Amnesty International, had warned against the development of autonomous weapons.

“The idea that decisions to kill could be made by machines is repugnant to us.”

Delegates at the Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War pose in the main council chamber in Rome’s city hall Campidoglio. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan

According to Callamard, the danger does not lie in an artificial intelligence that would suddenly become conscious but rather in the decision to delegate to it responsibilities that belong exclusively to moral judgement.

“It is not that the machine decides that it will become the boss; it is we who programme these systems,” she explained.

For the head of Amnesty International, the growing integration of AI into military operations represents a major change. These systems can already analyse enormous quantities of data, identify targets and recommend strikes, while gradually reducing the need for human intervention.

Beyond autonomous weapons, the Callamard reminded the world that it must pay close attention to the implications of the progressive integration of AI into what the military calls, in its jargon, the “kill chain”, meaning the process from target identification to the conduct of an operation.

“Even when a human being officially retains the final decision, the growing dependence on automated systems profoundly changes the way military operations are prepared and conducted,” Callamard stated, adding that these technologies rely on immense volumes of data that may themselves be altered.

“Analyses and recommendations can be biased because they are based on data that themselves carry these biases. We must remain attentive to the risks arising from erroneous or discriminatory decisions in contexts where the consequences can be irreversible.”

Another danger: the multiplication of force. Thanks to artificial intelligence, a single operator could simultaneously supervise dozens, or even hundreds, of drones or other autonomous systems, considerably increasing military capabilities.

“These technological developments are taking place within a broader context of strategic competition between states. We are living in a period when many governments are seeking military hegemony,” Callamard concluded.

Beyond military issues, several speakers also insisted on the geopolitical consequences of this technological revolution. Romano Prodi, former president of the European Commission and former Italian prime minister, estimated that the growing rivalry between the United States and China considerably complicates the emergence of genuine international regulation.

In an increasingly fragmented world, Prodi warned, no nation will be able to address alone the challenges linked to artificial intelligence, global security or the control of ever more powerful technologies.

These words anticipated the essence of the final declaration, according to which international cooperation is now an indispensable condition for preventing artificial intelligence from fuelling a new arms race and widening geopolitical fractures.

The discussions also focused on the economic and social consequences of this technological revolution. In the world of work, the sudden arrival of AI is already raising many concerns, particularly regarding the professional future of younger generations and the profound transformation of several professions in the coming years.

The programme brought together a number of leading international figures, including Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former Chief Advisor to Bangladesh Muhammad Yunus; Yoshiyuki Nagaoka, Executive Director of the Office of Public Affairs at Soka Gakkai; Filipino journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa; Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard; and several scientists and nuclear experts.

Research published by King’s College London shows that a study carried out on hundreds of millions of job advertisements across 39 countries reveals an average 6.1% decline in job offers in professions most exposed to automation, while the remaining positions require increasingly specialised skills.

Ultimately, what will remain of this conference and of the Rome Declaration? The main point to remember is that participants accept the development of artificial intelligence and do not believe it should frighten us. On the contrary, they consider that this technology can become a powerful driver of progress – provided, however, that it remains at the service of humanity. The ball is therefore in the court of states and their leaders, who must above all place human dignity at the forefront.

The real question is no longer only what artificial intelligence will make possible, but rather what limits societies and humanity as a whole will choose to set for it before the imperatives of power permanently override collective responsibility.

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Global Nobel Laureates at the Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War held last week in Rome. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan.

By Ariel F. Dumont
BORGO LAUDATO SI’, Italy, Jul 21 2026 (IPS)

“I’m sorry, Dave. I’m afraid I can’t do that.” By bringing the supercomputer HAL 9000 to life in his 1968 film 2001: A Space Odyssey, American director Stanley Kubrick created one of the most powerful symbols of the fear of artificial intelligence (AI) escaping human control.

Fifty-eight years later, that question is more relevant than ever. It was precisely this issue that brought together more than 200 international figures for three days of discussions in the exceptional setting of Borgo Laudato Si’, located within the papal summer residence at Castel Gandolfo, where Pope Leo XIV is currently staying.

Organised by the Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War, the conference set out to reflect on “the future of international security, the governance of emerging technologies, disarmament and the building of an economy of peace”.

Yoshiyuki Nagaoka, Executive Director, Office of Public Affairs at Soka Gakkai. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan

The programme brought together a number of leading international figures, including former Italian Prime Minister and former President of the European Commission Romano Prodi; Nobel Peace Prize laureate and former Chief Advisor to Bangladesh Muhammad Yunus; Yoshiyuki Nagaoka, Executive Director of the Office of Public Affairs at Soka Gakkai; Filipino journalist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Maria Ressa; Amnesty International Secretary General Agnès Callamard; and several scientists and nuclear experts.

The assembly was officially opened by Monsignor Fabio Baggio, under-secretary of the Dicastery for Promoting Integral Human Development.

In his welcoming address, he immediately established the central thread of the discussions by stressing that “peace is not simply the absence of war but an order founded on justice, mutual trust, respect for the rule of law and the inviolable dignity of every human being.”

The central idea was clear: regulating artificial intelligence has become imperative if peace – and ultimately humanity’s very survival – is to be preserved. AI is now integrated into military systems, dramatically increasing the risks of proliferation, cyber warfare and high-intensity conflicts, with the potential to undermine global stability and respect for ethical principles.

Although the speakers sometimes differed in their analyses, reflecting their diverse backgrounds, they all converged on one essential conclusion. Artificial intelligence should not be feared, but that certainly does not mean it should be given free rein until it becomes another HAL 9000. On the contrary, most participants stressed the urgent need to establish safeguards before potential abuses become impossible to control.

Karen Hallberg, Argentine physicist and president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri/INPS Japan

This concern was voiced in particular by Karen Hallberg, the Argentine physicist specialising in condensed matter and president of the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs. AI, she argued, is a “dual-use” technology, much like nuclear energy itself. While nuclear fission has led to extraordinary advances in energy production and medicine, it has also made atomic weapons possible.

“Artificial intelligence has the same ambivalence. It can certainly contribute to scientific research, medicine and even the monitoring of international commitments. However, its integration into nuclear weapons systems could usher in a period of dangerous uncertainty,” she warned.

Hallberg also stressed that one of the greatest risks would be to allow algorithms to intervene in processes related to the command and control of nuclear weapons – for instance, analysing satellite imagery, interpreting military situations or contributing to decisions whose consequences could prove irreversible for the future of humanity.

“I am not afraid; I am concerned. And it is precisely this concern that should give us the determination to act before it is too late,” she said, calling on governments to apply the precautionary principle before technology outpaces political regulation and leads to an irreversible drift.

A concern that Nagaoka shares, albeit from a different perspective, is that artificial intelligence is not inherently dangerous. Everything, he argued, depends on how humanity chooses to use it.

“The question ultimately comes back to humanity itself, which has the choice of becoming either more selfish or more compassionate.”

Nagaoka placed particular emphasis on the responsibility of younger generations, who are growing up in an environment where digital tools occupy an ever greater place and where the risk of isolation continues to increase. Humanity’s greatest challenge, therefore, is not to reject AI but to learn how to use it without abandoning the uniquely human capacity for judgement.

Peace is not simply the absence of war but an order founded on justice, mutual trust, respect for the rule of law and the inviolable dignity of every human being.
“We must preserve our conscience and our wisdom when making decisions,” he said, reminding participants that education and critical thinking will remain the best safeguards against a technology capable of influencing both individual and collective choices.

“I recently heard on television the story of an 86-year-old Japanese woman faced with the painful decision of ending life support for her seriously ill husband. She chose to seek advice from ChatGPT rather than from her family.”

For Nagaoka, the issue is not to condemn such a choice but rather to reflect on these new forms of dialogue emerging in societies where machines may increasingly become trusted interlocutors at the most important moments of human existence.

This reflection on human responsibility echoed the concerns raised by Maria Ressa, winner of the 2021 Nobel Peace Prize for her defence of freedom of expression and her fight against disinformation.

Throughout the discussions, she repeatedly highlighted the risks AI poses to the future of democracy, including the accelerating spread of false information, the large-scale manipulation of public opinion and the concentration of power in the hands of a limited number of technology companies.

“AI is not simply an issue of innovation. It concerns the very functioning of democratic societies,” Ressa insisted.

But it was undoubtedly Yunus who delivered the conference’s most far-reaching criticism by shifting the debate onto economic ground. The Bangladeshi economist, founder of the Grameen Bank and recipient of the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize offered a profoundly humanist critique that challenged the very foundations of AI’s use within contemporary capitalism.

“The main problem is not simply the possible disappearance of certain jobs, but the growing concentration of wealth,” Yunus said.

Artificial intelligence, he warned, risks reinforcing a model in which a handful of companies control technologies, data and income, while an ever larger share of the population is excluded from economic participation.

“It could deprive people of their livelihoods, their dignity and their ability to remain independent,” he argued.

The future, he said, cannot be an economy in which artificial intelligence replaces human beings. Instead, it must be based on participation, entrepreneurship and the sharing of opportunities.

His message to political leaders around the world was unequivocal: AI must not become an instrument for concentrating power but rather a tool placed at the service of everyone.

And now what? At the end of these discussions, one certainty emerges: there can be no turning back. Artificial intelligence is now part of our world. Humanity should not fear it, nor should it regard it as tomorrow’s greatest enemy. But several fundamental questions remain unanswered: Who will control this technology, according to what rules, and in the service of what kind of society?

More than half a century after HAL 9000, the real threat may not be that a machine could become human. It may be that human beings gradually renounce what defines them most: their capacity to decide, to judge and to assume responsibility for their own choices.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres addresses the opening session of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, Geneva, Switzerland. Credit: UN Photo/Irina Popa

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 20 2026 (IPS)

Throughout July 2026, various United Nations (UN) bodies and global experts have underscored the need for increased comprehensive artificial intelligence (AI) governance. Although AI yields significant potential gains for global development, persistent structural barriers continue to impede equitable access and deepen the digital divide.

From July 6 to 7, the UN convened the first session of the Global Dialogue on AI Governance, featuring a presentation of the inaugural report of the Independent International Scientific Panel on AI. The conference included testimonies from global experts and leaders who emphasized the rapidly accelerating nature of AI, warning that without adequate guardrails and transparency measures, entire communities risk falling behind.

“Artificial intelligence is advancing at runaway speed. A technology that can reshape economies, transform the world of work, sway elections and tilt the balance of security is being deployed faster than anyone— including the people building it— can keep up,” said UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres at the Opening Session of the dialogue on July 6th.

“The technologies we trust most— in aviation, in medicine, in nuclear energy and beyond— earned that trust because we acted to hold their makers to account. If AI is to be powerful, it must be governed. If AI is to be trusted, those who build it must be accountable. If AI is to be global, it must be fair. And if AI is to serve the future, it must not consume the future,” he added.

According to Guterres, AI holds immense potential to accelerate medical advancements, revolutionize educational systems, strengthen food production, and revitalize local economies, all of which would drive progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Despite this, widening gaps in development have been recorded across communities in lower-income countries, particularly in the Global South.

On July 17, Guterres spoke at the World AI Conference (WAIC) in Shanghai, urging governments and stakeholders to invest in international cooperation and monitoring efforts to ensure equitable access to AI’s benefits. Guterres noted that an alarming “one-third of humanity” remains offline, with the vast majority of technical expertise and investment disproportionately concentrated in only a few countries and companies

“Hundreds of billions of dollars of private investment flood into artificial intelligence – while many developing countries receive just a trickle,” said Guterres. “AI risks pushing the world towards even greater inequalities … greater divides in income, in opportunity, in security … greater gaps between North and South.”

At WAIC, Guterres outlined three main priorities that are to be taken in advancing global AI governance: making AI more environmentally sustainable, establishing critical safety guardrails, and expanding capacity across developing countries. Underscoring the need for AI testing and risk management to be firmly based in the principles of international law, he confirmed that over 20 countries, including China, have agreed to contribute to a UN-supported Global Network for Exchange and Cooperation on AI Capacity Building to assist developing countries navigate this transition.

Throughout the conference, many UN experts emphasized that human rights must remain the cornerstone of all AI decision-making processes, ensuring that final judgments are always made by human beings. Guterres also called for major AI companies to disclose their environmental footprints and commit to a full transition to renewable energy by 2030.

AI has the potential to accelerate the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy by optimizing power efficiency and significantly reducing waste. Several nations, including China, are already leveraging these technologies to increase their annual reliance on renewable energy.

Several developing countries in the Pacific have taken steps to reclaim agency over AI, implementing frameworks that prioritize sustainability and ensure that they remain in control regarding the technology’s development and use. For example, the Kingdom of Tonga has expanded commercial 5G access and conducted a Digital Readiness Assessment to examine risks and potential gains when coordinating governance strategies. Similar assessments have been undertaken across Samoa, Vanuatu, and Fiji.

The Kingdom of Tonga is reshaping its government services around a digital-first model by implementing AI tools that will assist citizens in interacting with the state in their own language. In Kiribati, AI monitoring technologies in fisheries have helped in recovering approximately US$2 million in illegal fishing fines.

“These are real wins, but they are wins within a system the Pacific did not design. The region already knows what it means to be on the wrong side of a divergence, in climate, in trade, in debt vulnerability,” said Kanni Wignaraja, UN Assistant Secretary-General and UNDP Regional Director for Asia and the Pacific.

“AI follows the same logic at greater speed. The difference is that the rules of AI are still being written, which means the divergence is not yet locked in. That window will not stay open for long. The time for the Pacific to shape the outcome is now, not once the frameworks are agreed, and the tools are already being deployed.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Delegates at the 11th Annual Global Conference on Energy Efficiency, organised by the International Energy Agency (IEA). Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Jul 20 2026 (IPS)

As geopolitical tensions, rising electricity demand and climate pressures reshape the global energy landscape, more than 600 energy ministers, chief executives, financial leaders and policy experts gathered in Montreal, deliberating upon how to deliver at an unprecedented scale.

The 11th Annual Global Conference on Energy Efficiency, organised by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on July 7, focused on transforming a global commitment into practical action. Delegates sought ways to meet an ambitious international target of doubling the annual rate of energy efficiency improvements by 2030, a goal widely viewed as essential for strengthening energy security while cutting greenhouse gas emissions.

Speaking during the conference, IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol described energy efficiency as the world’s “first fuel”, calling it the fastest, cheapest and cleanest resource available to countries seeking greater resilience amid growing uncertainty.

Birol reminded delegates that the global energy system has experienced only three major disruptions in recent decades. The oil crises of 1973 and 1979 fundamentally reshaped global energy policy. More recently, the supply chain disruptions following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine exposed the vulnerability of international energy markets.

Against that backdrop, he argued, improving efficiency is no longer simply an environmental objective but a matter of national security and economic stability. Growing geopolitical risks around strategic shipping routes, including the Strait of Hormuz, reinforce the urgency of reducing dependence on volatile energy supplies.

“We are in an age of rapid technological change,” Birol said, urging governments and industries to move beyond declarations and begin implementing large-scale solutions.

Throughout the two-day conference, participants repeatedly emphasised that technology alone will not deliver the transformation. Success, they said, depends on closer cooperation between governments, investors and private industry.

One of the conference’s central outcomes was the launch of the Montreal Collaboration Framework, an initiative designed to strengthen coordination between policymakers, financial institutions and businesses. The framework aims to overcome one of the biggest barriers facing energy efficiency projects, fragmented decision-making that often prevents otherwise viable investments from moving forward.

Executives participating in CEO roundtables acknowledged that many companies continue to pursue isolated efficiency upgrades that deliver only modest savings. Such projects frequently fail to attract significant investment because their financial returns appear too limited when evaluated individually.

Industry leaders instead advocated bundling multiple efficiency improvements into larger investment packages.

Rather than replacing a single motor or upgrading one heating system, companies can combine electricity savings, industrial heat recovery, cooling improvements and digital monitoring into integrated projects that generate stronger financial returns and attract institutional financing.

Another recurring theme was the growing importance of data.

Representatives from major industrial technology companies including Schneider Electric and Danfoss argued that many businesses still rely on broad estimates of their energy consumption instead of detailed operational information.

Without precise data, they warned, companies struggle to identify where the greatest efficiency gains can be achieved.

Delegates highlighted artificial intelligence, predictive analytics and digital monitoring systems as increasingly important tools for optimising industrial operations, reducing waste and lowering operating costs.

Representatives from Deutsche Bank argued that traditional investment decisions remain too heavily focused on initial capital expenditure. Instead, investors should assess projects through the lens of total cost of ownership, accounting for decades of lower energy bills, maintenance savings and reduced operational risks.

Such an approach, participants said, makes many efficiency investments substantially more attractive than they initially appear.

The conference also examined one of the energy transition’s newest challenges.

Rapid growth in artificial intelligence and digital services is driving an unprecedented expansion of data centres, creating soaring electricity demand worldwide.

Rather than viewing AI solely as a source of higher consumption, delegates argued that technological innovation can help solve its own energy challenge.

Companies showcased advanced cooling technologies, including liquid cooling and evaporative systems, capable of dramatically reducing the electricity needed to maintain modern data centres.

These innovations, participants said, demonstrate that rising digital demand does not necessarily have to translate into proportionally higher energy consumption.

Beyond technology and finance, speakers repeatedly stressed that energy efficiency must also serve broader social goals.

Yasmin Abraham, representing the Kambo Energy Group, reminded delegates that low-income communities often experience the highest energy costs while having the fewest resources to improve efficiency.

“Communities know the challenge,” she said. “Communities are closest to that challenge but furthest from the resources.”

Governments, she argued, must ensure that efficiency programmes reach vulnerable households rather than benefiting only wealthier consumers and large corporations.

Canada used the conference to announce an expansion of its Canada Greener Homes Affordability Program, which will provide energy efficiency retrofits to approximately 35,000 low- and middle-income households without upfront costs.

Officials described the initiative as an example of how public policy can reduce emissions while improving affordability and living conditions for ordinary families.

Despite widespread optimism, delegates acknowledged that achieving the 2030 efficiency target remains a formidable challenge.

Global energy demand continues to grow as economies expand, industries electrify and artificial intelligence accelerates electricity consumption. Meeting climate commitments while ensuring affordable and reliable energy will require unprecedented coordination across governments, financial institutions and private industry.

Still, the prevailing mood in Montreal remained pragmatic rather than pessimistic.

Participants agreed that the technical solutions largely exist. What has often been missing is coordinated implementation, sufficient investment and political determination.

By the conference’s conclusion, delegates appeared united around a common conviction that energy efficiency should no longer be treated as a secondary climate policy but as the foundation of future energy systems.

“With the launch of the Montreal Collaboration Framework and renewed commitments from governments, industry and financial institutions, the conference sought to transform efficiency from an often overlooked policy objective into the central pillar of global energy security, economic competitiveness and climate action,” Abraham said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A conceptual illustration of the Global Nobel Laureates Assembly at Castel Gandolfo, where Nobel laureates, AI experts, religious leaders and civil society representatives will confront the intertwined risks of artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons and war while seeking a new architecture for peace. Credit: INPS Japan

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
VATICAN CITY, Jul 13 2026 (IPS)

More than eight decades after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ushered humanity into the nuclear age, the world is confronting another technological revolution whose consequences extend far beyond science and industry.

Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on AI and Nuclear War

Against this backdrop, more than 200 participants — including around 30 Nobel laureates and representatives of Nobel Prize-winning organizations, former heads of state and government, leading artificial intelligence researchers, scientists, Catholic figures and civil society representatives — are set to gather from July 14 to 16 at Borgo Laudato Si’ in the Pontifical Gardens of Castel Gandolfo.

The Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War will bring together some of the world’s most prominent voices in science, technology, peacebuilding and ethics to consider one of the defining questions of the twenty-first century:

Can artificial intelligence become a force for peace, or will it deepen the dangers of war in an already unstable nuclear age?

The three-day gathering will conclude in Rome on July 16 with the presentation of the Rome Declaration for an Unarmed and Disarming Peace, intended to set out principles and recommendations for addressing artificial intelligence, nuclear weapons, autonomous weapons, digital governance and emerging models of technological development.

Source: Progressive Hub

The timing of the Assembly is no coincidence.

The international security environment has become increasingly fragile. Russia’s war in Ukraine has shaken Europe’s post-Cold War security order. Conflicts in the Middle East have heightened fears of wider regional escalation. Relations among the major powers have deteriorated, while nuclear rhetoric has returned to international politics with an intensity not seen for decades.

At the same time, all nine nuclear-armed states are modernizing or expanding their arsenals. Many of the arms-control arrangements that once helped manage strategic rivalry have weakened, expired or become politically paralyzed. Channels of communication among adversaries have narrowed, increasing the danger of misunderstanding and miscalculation.

Artificial intelligence is entering this volatile environment at extraordinary speed.

AI systems can already process vast quantities of intelligence, identify patterns, assist military planning, strengthen cyber capabilities and accelerate decisions that once required hours or days of human deliberation. They may eventually provide new tools for crisis prevention, verification and early warning.

But those same capabilities could also make crises more dangerous.

Artificial intelligence may shorten the time available to political and military leaders during emergencies. It may generate unreliable or misleading assessments, magnify disinformation, increase the vulnerability of command systems to cyberattacks and encourage states to delegate more authority to automated technologies.

A conceptual illustration of world leaders confronting the growing influence of artificial intelligence on military power and nuclear decision-making, as technological advances threaten to outpace political judgment and international governance. Credit: INPS Japan

The central concern is not necessarily that a machine will independently decide to launch a nuclear weapon. The more immediate danger is that AI-generated information, predictions or recommendations could influence human decision-makers during moments of extreme pressure, when information is incomplete and the consequences of error are irreversible.

Humanity is therefore confronting a challenge unlike any it has faced before.

The question is no longer simply how nuclear weapons should be controlled. It is also how the relationship between artificial intelligence, military power and nuclear decision-making should be governed before technological developments outpace political judgment.

Pope Leo XIV, photographed in October 2025 during an audience with President of Brazil Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the Vatican Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The choice of the Vatican as host is deeply symbolic.

The Holy See commands no nuclear arsenal and exercises little conventional military power. Yet it maintains diplomatic relations with most of the world’s states and has long sought to place human dignity, moral responsibility and the protection of civilians at the center of debates about war and peace.

The Assembly is being held at Borgo Laudato Si’, an educational and ecological center established in the gardens of the papal residence at Castel Gandolfo. According to the organizers, the meeting is inspired by Pope Leo XIV’s encyclical Magnifica humanitas, devoted to the protection of the human person in the age of artificial intelligence.

Its guiding vision — an “Unarmed and Disarming Peace” — suggests a concept of peace that goes beyond the absence of war.

An unarmed peace rejects the assumption that security can be permanently sustained through ever-greater military force. A disarming peace seeks not only the reduction of weapons but also the transformation of the political fears, rivalries and economic structures that perpetuate militarization.

This approach broadens the discussion beyond questions of technological safety.

It asks what kind of society humanity wishes to build as increasingly powerful systems reshape politics, economics, communication and warfare. It also raises a deeper ethical question: whether innovation will remain subordinate to human dignity, or whether human beings will gradually be subordinated to the technologies they create.

Beyond Governments

Perhaps the Assembly’s most significant feature is its recognition that governments alone can no longer govern all the technologies shaping the future.

During the Cold War, nuclear diplomacy belonged primarily to states. Agreements such as the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty were negotiated among governments because states controlled nuclear arsenals, delivery systems and the materials needed to build them.

Artificial intelligence presents a fundamentally different reality.

Many of the world’s most advanced AI systems are being developed by private companies, universities and research laboratories. Technology firms possess computing resources, data and specialized expertise that rival or exceed the capacities of many governments. Decisions made inside corporate research divisions can have global political, social and security consequences.

Effective governance will therefore require more than traditional diplomacy.

It will require sustained cooperation among states, technology companies, scientists, universities, international institutions, religious communities and civil society.

That is precisely why the Assembly will bring together Nobel laureates, AI companies, leading universities and research institutions, nuclear disarmament organizations, Catholic figures centered around the Vatican, and civil society organizations, including Soka Gakkai, a Buddhist-based movement engaged in peacebuilding, dialogue and nuclear abolition.

Global Nobel Laureates Assembly on Artificial Intelligence and Nuclear War

Participants and supporting institutions include representatives associated with OpenAI, Google DeepMind, Anthropic and AARU, as well as the Nobel Women’s Initiative, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, the Pugwash Conferences on Science and World Affairs, the Yunus Center and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Universities and research institutions from Europe, Asia, North America and Australia are also expected to take part.

The significance of this gathering lies not simply in the prominence of those attending, but in the diversity of the communities represented.

Instead of relying exclusively on governments, the Assembly reflects an emerging model of global governance in which science, technology, ethics, religion and civil society seek common ground in addressing shared existential risks.

From Warheads to Algorithms

For much of the nuclear age, arms-control negotiations focused on physical objects: warheads, missiles, bombers, submarines, nuclear materials and testing facilities.

The AI age introduces a different set of challenges.

Algorithms are less visible than missiles. Software can be modified rapidly. Data can cross national borders almost instantaneously. Commercial systems developed for peaceful purposes can also have military applications. Verification, accountability and transparency become far more difficult when the relevant technologies are embedded in code, networks and privately controlled computing infrastructure.

This means that future arms-control and security frameworks may need to govern not only weapons but also the digital systems that inform, guide or accelerate their use.

Questions that once appeared theoretical are becoming increasingly urgent.

Should artificial intelligence ever be integrated into nuclear command-and-control systems? What level of human oversight must be maintained over autonomous weapons? How should states respond when AI systems produce conflicting warnings during a crisis? Can private technology companies be held accountable when their products are adapted for military purposes? And what international institutions are capable of establishing credible safeguards?

The Assembly cannot resolve all these questions in three days.

But by placing nuclear experts, Nobel laureates, AI developers, scholars, religious figures and peace advocates in the same forum, it may help establish a common vocabulary for debates that have until now often taken place in isolation from one another.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, signed 20 September 2017 by 50 United Nations member states. Credit: UN Photo / Paulo Filgueiras

History suggests that humanity has repeatedly responded to existential threats by creating new ideas, institutions and norms.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto of 1955 warned that nuclear weapons had placed the survival of the human species in jeopardy. The first Pugwash Conference in 1957 opened channels of communication among scientists divided by the Cold War. The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty later became the central framework of the international nuclear order.

The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, adopted in 2017, further strengthened the humanitarian and moral challenge to nuclear deterrence by declaring nuclear weapons incompatible with international humanitarian principles.

Whether the Global Nobel Laureates Assembly will eventually be regarded as part of that historical lineage remains uncertain.

Declarations issued at international conferences rarely transform policy overnight. They may lack legal force, enforcement mechanisms or immediate political support. Their language can be aspirational, and their influence may not become visible for years.

Yet declarations can also change the terms of international debate.

The Russell-Einstein Manifesto did not eliminate nuclear weapons, but it helped inspire a movement. The first Pugwash meeting did not end the Cold War, but it established relationships that later contributed to arms-control diplomacy. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was not initially binding, yet it became a foundational reference for international law and political legitimacy.

The importance of the Rome Declaration may therefore depend less on whether it produces immediate agreements than on whether it begins a sustained process involving governments, technology companies, universities, international organizations and civil society.

The larger question is whether it can help create norms before dangerous practices become entrenched.

Looking Toward the Rome Declaration

Palazzo Senatorio　Credit: Di Tournasol7 – Opera propria, CC BY-SA 4.0

The document is intended to address the age of artificial intelligence, nuclear and autonomous weapons, new digital protocols and emerging models of digital development. According to the organizers, it will seek to promote international security based on cooperation, human dignity, integral development and peace among peoples.

The critical test will be whether the Declaration moves beyond broad ethical appeals.

Will it call for meaningful human control over nuclear and autonomous weapons systems? Will it propose restrictions on the role of AI in nuclear decision-making? Will it outline responsibilities for private AI companies? Will it recommend new international monitoring, dialogue or verification mechanisms? And will it establish a continuing process capable of translating principles into policy?

The answers will determine whether the meeting remains primarily symbolic or becomes the starting point of a broader “Rome Process” on artificial intelligence, nuclear risk and human security.

More than eight decades after Hiroshima and Nagasaki, humanity once again faces technologies capable of reshaping the future of civilization.

Nuclear weapons remain the most immediate means by which human beings could destroy their own societies. Artificial intelligence, meanwhile, is beginning to influence the speed, complexity and character of the decisions that could determine whether those weapons are ever used.

The defining challenge is therefore no longer simply whether humanity can control nuclear arms.

It is whether humanity can build institutions capable of ensuring that artificial intelligence strengthens human judgment rather than displacing it, reduces the danger of catastrophic error rather than magnifying it, and serves peace rather than war.

The answer will not emerge from three days of deliberation at Castel Gandolfo.

But the conversation beginning there may help shape international debates over technology, security and human responsibility for years to come.

Credit: UN photo

INPS Japan will report from Castel Gandolfo and Rome during the Assembly and will publish follow-up analysis after the Rome Declaration is presented on July 16. This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A child's painting of a fawn at the Conference Centre of Samarkand, where the Eighth GEF Assembly was held last month. The Bukhara deer, a species once pushed to the edge of survival by habitat loss and poaching, are now protected and introduced to the Zarafshan National Nature Park. Credit: ISD/ENB | Danny Skilton

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jul 7 2026 (IPS)

For most of the Eighth Global Environmental Facility (GEF) Assembly last month, the atmosphere inside Samarkand’s sprawling Congress Centre echoed a growing confidence of global environmental policymakers.

Delegates darted between plenary halls and side events discussing biodiversity targets, climate adaptation and ecosystem restoration. PowerPoint charts displayed shrinking forests. Investment bankers touted new financing tools. Smartly dressed bartenders served coffee in perfect air-conditioned comfort.

Yet despite this spectre of environmental diplomacy, a hard question lingered: How to mobilise private money when public coffers can no longer provide?

To many, the answer was blended finance.

The question became even more tangible on a humid Saturday morning when a group of delegates boarded low-emission coaches to Zarafshan National Nature Park on the outskirts of the ancient Silk Road city.

The excursion, many delegates later affirmed, offered a glimpse of a successful conservation model.

Walking through one of Central Asia’s surviving tugai forests – a riverside ecosystem that once stretched across much of the region – delegates witnessed the recovery of the Bukhara deer, a species once pushed to the edge of survival by habitat loss and poaching.

Wide-eyed delegates watched as rangers briskly hurled bundles of fresh forage, while several deer emerged from the reeds with the ease of animals that had learned to trust their caretakers.

A ranger works in an enclosure at the Zarafshan National Natural Park, one of Uzbekistan’s newest protected areas established to conserve the fragile riparian forests of the Zarafshan River and recover threatened wildlife, including the iconic Bukhara deer. The park illustrates the type of landscape where blended finance could help bridge funding gaps for ecosystem restoration, sustainable tourism and community livelihoods, provided investments deliver measurable conservation outcomes. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

For conservationists, the scene was a tangible sign of ecological recovery in a parched Uzbek steppe. For financiers, it carried a different meaning—evidence that restoration requires sustained investment long after donor attention has shifted elsewhere.

That tension – between ecological reality and financial logic – ran through nearly every conversation in Samarkand, where the GEF’s Eighth Assembly signalled a deeper shift toward blended finance as a core conservation funding model.

The GEF’s new replenishment cycle, dubbed GEF-9, will secure at least $3.9 billion in donor commitments through 2030. But the more consequential shift lies in its architecture, with a target of using roughly a quarter of the resources to crowd in private capital alongside public and concessional finance.

GEF officials explain that the institution’s approach differs from other blended finance initiatives by targeting only investments where markets have clearly failed.

“It is worth stating clearly at the outset that GEF’s own approach to blended finance has been deliberately targeted and highly catalytic,” Avril Benchimol, Senior Blended Finance Specialist at the GEF, told IPS. “By design, GEF’s concessional resources have been directed at transactions where market failure is demonstrable – frontier areas such as circular economy, nature-based solutions, conservation finance, and sustainable agriculture in challenging markets where private capital does not flow without a catalytic push.”

Samuel Wangwe, senior researcher at the Economic and Social Research Foundation, said this shift towards more blended finance initiatives reflects a broader transformation in development thinking.

“Blended finance is essentially an attempt to stretch scarce public resources further by bringing in private capital. That logic is understandable in today’s fiscal environment, but it does not remove the underlying development constraints that many countries face,” he said.

The logic is rooted in a fiscal reality widely acknowledged across development finance institutions: public budgets are insufficient to meet global environmental needs, with annual financing gaps for biodiversity and climate resilience running into hundreds of billions of dollars.

Blended finance is intended to bridge that gap by using public capital to absorb early-stage risk, improving the risk-return profile of projects that would not be viable for commercial investors.

A park ranger guides delegates through one of Uzbekistan’s protected landscapes, explaining ongoing conservation and restoration efforts. The visit highlighted how long-term biodiversity protection depends not only on strong environmental policies but also on innovative financing mechanisms capable of attracting private capital while safeguarding public conservation objectives. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

But Wangwe warned that the effectiveness of this model depends heavily on institutional strength.

“You cannot financialise ecosystems without strong governance systems. Where land rights are unclear or enforcement is weak, the risk does not disappear—it is simply priced differently, often at a higher cost to the country.”

The timing reflects broader strain in global public finance. Many donor governments face rising debt burdens, domestic political pressures and competing priorities from defence to healthcare. Development assistance budgets, once expected to expand alongside climate commitments, are instead substantially shrinking.

In that constrained environment, multilateral institutions are under pressure to demonstrate leverage – how much private capital can be mobilised per unit of public spending. As a result, blended finance has shifted from a niche development tool to a central pillar of environmental action, offering policymakers a politically palatable narrative: scarce public funds are not being reduced, but multiplied.

Wangwe, however, cautioned against over-reliance on this narrative.

“There is a tendency now to focus on how much money can be leveraged, rather than how effectively institutions can absorb and manage that investment. But without institutional depth, leverage becomes a hollow metric.”

GEF argues that its own experience suggests carefully structured concessional finance can mobilise substantially larger private investment than broader market averages.

“The concern about additionality is legitimate at the system level, and GEF takes it seriously as part of the broader conversation,” Benchimol said.

“GEF’s own mobilisation ratios have consistently outperformed the [market] average, in part because of the deliberate application of a minimum concessionality principle—using only as much concessional support as is necessary to make a transaction viable, and no more.”

Yet the promise of scale masks a more selective reality. Institutional investors – pension funds, insurers and asset managers – do not allocate capital based on environmental urgency. They respond to predictable revenue streams and manageable risk.

That distinction matters. Renewable energy projects increasingly fit that profile, offering long-term contracts and stable cash flows. Many conservation activities do not.

Ecosystem restoration, biodiversity protection and watershed management often generate public goods that are difficult to monetise. A restored forest may reduce carbon emissions and stabilise rainfall patterns, but it does not always produce direct financial returns.

As a result, blended finance works best where environmental projects can be partially ‘financialised’ – through carbon credits, ecotourism revenues or infrastructure-linked returns. Pure conservation projects remain harder to structure in bankable form.

Nowhere is this mismatch more visible than in Africa. The continent holds some of the world’s most critical biodiversity assets, from the Congo Basin to East Africa’s savannahs, yet continues to attract a relatively small share of global private environmental finance.

Contrary to common assumptions, the binding constraint is not global liquidity. Trillions of dollars sit in institutional portfolios seeking yield.

As Wangwe put it, “Africa is not short of opportunities. It is short of bankable structures that meet investor expectations. That gap is not technical alone—it is institutional and political.”

The result is a structural imbalance: countries with stronger institutions attract disproportionate flows of blended finance, while those facing the most severe environmental degradation remain dependent on grants and concessional funding.

GEF acknowledges that imbalance remains a genuine weakness of blended finance globally.

“The GEF fully shares the concern that blended finance instruments have not always reached the countries and communities with the greatest need,” Benchimol said.

“The concentration of blended finance flows in middle-income and relatively more bankable markets is a documented challenge, and addressing it is a priority as GEF shapes its future programming.”

This dynamic brings governance to the centre of the debate. Blended finance does not eliminate institutional risk; it re-prices it.

Guarantees, first-loss capital and concessional tranches can improve project economics, but they cannot substitute for credible legal systems or stable regulatory frameworks.

In practice, blended finance tends to cluster in environments where governance already functions relatively well. Where institutions are weaker, transaction costs rise and investor appetite declines.

That creates an uncomfortable implication: the places most in need of environmental investment are often the least able to attract it.

Wangwe added that this dynamic risks deepening inequality in conservation finance.

“If local communities are only seen as beneficiaries rather than stakeholders in financial structures, then blended finance risks repeating the same extractive patterns we have seen in other sectors, just under a greener label.”

GEF says future financing models must become far more country-led.

“Equity in blended finance requires genuine country ownership and voice—ensuring that recipient governments are partners in the design of financial structures rather than passive recipients of externally defined solutions,” Benchimol said.

Beyond technical design lies a more political question: who ultimately controls environmental assets as they become financialised?

Blended finance structures distribute risk and returns among governments, investors and local communities. But those distributions are not neutral.

Critics warn that conservation could increasingly resemble an investment class, where financial returns flow outward while ecological and social costs remain local.

“There is a risk that conservation becomes an asset class without community ownership,” Wangwe said. “That would replicate extractive dynamics under a green label.”

Despite its market-orientated framing, blended finance does not reduce the role of public institutions. It reconfigures it.

Governments and development agencies continue to provide first-loss capital, guarantees, project preparation funding and regulatory support. Without these interventions, most blended-finance transactions would not be viable.

Public finance, in other words, is not replaced – it is embedded deeper in deal structures, even as its presence becomes less visible in headline figures.

Wangwe stressed that this reality is often overlooked.

“The idea that private capital will replace public finance is misleading. In reality, public money is doing more of the heavy lifting than the rhetoric suggests – it is just now embedded deeper in the transaction structure.”

That raises a critical risk: if public spending is cut on the assumption that private capital will fill the gap, the entire model could weaken.

Closing the assembly, GEF interim CEO Claude Gascon noted that the model relies on cooperation and shared purpose.

He stressed the GEF was built on the understanding that no one can meet global environmental challenges alone and that it brings together countries, conventions, IPLCs, civil society, the private sector, and other stakeholders to deliver global environmental benefits.

“We need banks, institutional investors, corporations, and innovators to engage at a fundamentally different level. We need them not only to finance transition but also to shape it responsibly. We need business models that reward stewardship, not short-term extraction; disclosure and accountability systems that value long-term resilience; and governance frameworks that make environmental performance central to business success. The private sector has extraordinary reach, influence, and ingenuity. But with that influence comes responsibility.”

Back in Zarafshan National Nature Park, the Bukhara deer eventually retreated into the reeds as the delegation prepared to leave. The moment was brief, almost incidental, yet it underscored a central contradiction in global environmental finance.

Capital can accelerate conservation outcomes. It can reduce risk, improve coordination and expand funding. But it cannot substitute for the institutional and ecological conditions that determine whether recovery endures.

As delegates returned to Samarkand, optimism about blended finance remained intact. So did its central uncertainty.

For Africa, Wangwe argued, the challenge is not simply attracting investment but building the systems that can sustain it.

“The real test is not the volume of private investment mobilised, but whether ecosystems are restored, livelihoods are protected, and institutions are strengthened enough to sustain those gains beyond donor cycles.”

Despite the uncertainties, GEF says it intends to deepen – not scale back – its use of blended finance.

“GEF-9 is targeting 25% of GEF Trust Fund resources for blended finance, signalling a deliberate scaling of this approach – grounded in the conviction that blended finance, when properly structured and targeted, is not a subsidy for investments that markets would have made anyway, but a catalytic lever for investments that would not have happened at all,” Benchimol said.

The success of GEF-9 will therefore not be measured by how much private capital is mobilised but by where it flows – and whether it translates into lasting ecological recovery.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

UN Secretary-General António Guterres (left) and Volker Türk, United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (right). They have called for the universal abolition of the death penalty. Credit: UN Photo/Violaine Martin

By Shuli Wong
UNITED NATIONS, Jul 3 2026 (IPS)

While the movement for the universal abolition of the death penalty advances, this progress “cannot be taken for granted,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres as he greeted the 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty.

In his video message, Mr. Guterres said, “the death penalty does not deliver justice. It is an inhumane form of punishment. It puts innocent lives at risk. And it has no place in the 21st century.” Worldwide, the push for abolition has gained momentum, with the Secretary-General reaffirming the UN’s full commitment to universal abolition “firmly and without exception.”

The 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, taking place in Paris between June 30th and July 2, 2026, convenes governments, UN officials, legal professionals, journalists, and activists to discuss concrete steps to reform and ultimately abolish the death penalty. The Congress is organised by ECPM (Together Against the Death Penalty), a leading French NGO that began campaigning for universal abolition in 2000 and has organised all 9 World Congresses Against the Death Penalty. The Congress is sponsored by France, and the European Union and Switzerland are co-sponsors.

At the opening of the 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty, the UN Human Rights Commissioner, Volker Türk, further underscored the UN’s staunch position on universal abolition. In his opening remarks, Volker Türk urged “all States, everywhere, to join the overwhelming, and principled, global consensus that use of the death penalty must end, everywhere, for all offenses.”

France’s president, Emmanuel Macron, mirrored Mr. Türk’s remarks, speaking at the Congress to the fact that “the death penalty has never made a society safer.”

“Never, because it does not act as a deterrent. It’s crazy. It has been demonstrated, observed and measured. The death penalty has never had the deterrent effect that certain, often authoritarian, authorities who defend it would like to attribute to it,” said Macron.

Prior to the start of the Congress, the European Union (EU) put forth a statement to the UN Human Rights Council on June 18, highlighting how capital punishment is a discriminatory practice that violates the inalienable right to life. The statement stressed how the death penalty is incompatible with human dignity and called for a moratorium by states as the first step towards abolition.

The EU Statement reiterates the key points from a May 21st statement from 41 Members of the Inter-Regional Task Force on the Moratorium on the use of the Death Penalty. While more than two-thirds of UN member states have abolished the death penalty in law or in practice, there has been a recent and significant increase in executions among the few retentionist states. The signatories of the statement emphasized how the 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty represents an immense opportunity to reaffirm the global commitment to universal abolition.

Within the retentionist states, recent data from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) highlights an alarming spike in capital punishment. These increases were due to executions for drug-related violations for crimes that people committed as children and offences that did not meet the ‘most serious crimes’ criteria. Examples of actions by retentionist states include Iran, with over 1,500 individuals executed in 2025, 47 percent of which related to drug offences. Israel, which has set forth a series of legislative proposals introducing mandatory capital punishment provisions that would apply only to Palestinians. Other countries, including the United States, Somalia and Singapore, have also seen increases in executions.

While these numbers are startling, there has been immense progress towards abolition. 170 countries have either abolished or introduced a moratorium on the death penalty in law and/or in practice. Some states that have not yet fully abolished the death penalty but have taken encouraging steps to limit capital punishment include Vietnam, Pakistan, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Malaysia, and Kyrgyzstan.

These trends confirm that abolition is a core testament of the international community’s commitment to human rights and upholding international law. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which has been ratified by 175 states, guarantees the “inherent right to life” and that the death penalty may “be imposed only for the most serious crimes in accordance with the law” for the countries that have not yet abolished it. The 9th World Congress Against the Death Penalty presents an opportunity to take concrete steps towards the path of abolition, with the full support of the UN and Secretary-General António Guterres behind the Congress.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A UN Peacebuilding Week Event held in Egypt’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations, New York. Credit: Maximilian Malawista

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 30 2026 (IPS)

As the United Nations held its first-ever Peacebuilding Week (June 22-26), UN officials and developmental partners gathered at Egypt’s Permanent Mission on June 23 to hold a dialogue on the main question that emerged from the 2025 Peacebuilding Architecture Review (PBAR): “How can global commitments to peacebuilding translate into tangible results on the ground?”

This event, hosted by Egypt at the sidelines of Peacebuilding Week, titled “Strengthening National Peace Infrastructures in Africa: Lessons Learned and the Way Forward,” brought together representatives from African governments and regional organizations, as well as members of the UN system, to discuss how nationally-owned institutions can mitigate and prevent conflict, manage effects and sustain peace long after such situations have ended.

To open the event, Egypt’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, Ihab Moustafa Awad Moustafa, emphasized that the 2025 PBAR negotiations repeatedly asserted a fundamental concern: ensuring that policy discussions in New York produce measurable impact on the ground, whether in Africa or in any other peacekeeping sites.

“One of the clearest answers that emerged during those discussions was the need to strengthen national capacities and institutions,” Moustafa said. “We are serious about peacebuilding, sustaining peace, and primarily prevention. We must invest in national peace infrastructure.”

The PBAR, which was adopted in November of 2025, reaffirmed that nationally led and nationally owned endeavors remain at the core of sustainable peace. The PBAR actively calls on Member States, regional organizations, development partners, international financial institutions, and the UN system to strengthen the institutions capable of preventing conflict, fostering social cohesion, and managing risk.

Throughout the discussion, speakers agreed that contemporary conflicts are rooted in security threats but also pointed to institutional fragility, governance deficits, and declining trust of public institutions between citizens as an additional threat.

Brian James Williams, Chief of the Peacebuilding Fund at the Peacebuilding and Peace Support Office (PBPSO), explained that the review provides a clear mandate for the international community to follow nationally identified priorities.

“Prevention and sustaining peace need stronger national capacities, stronger institutions and better alignment of international support behind those national priorities,” Williams said.

Williams detailed the UN Peacebuilding Fund’s increasingly important role in helping governments operationalize existing national mechanisms, rather than creating new parallel structures. Williams cited examples such as support for peace and reconciliation committees in Chad and local peacebuilding mechanisms in the Central African Republic.

“These committees bring together administrative authorities, traditional and religious leaders, women, young, and marginalized groups,” Williams said, relaying the efforts to connect national peace architectures with local institutions and provincial actors.

Participants of the dialogue repeatedly emphasized that national ownership must extend beyond central governments. Effective peace infrastructures require civil society organizations; participation of local authorities, women, youth, religious leaders, and representatives of the community; and capability of identifying tensions or risks before they can escalate into violence.

Permanent Representative of Nigeria to the United Nations, Ibrahim F. Jimoh, highlighted his country’s model to strengthen peacebuilding through institutions such as the Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution and through reintegration, demobilization, disarmament, and reconciliation programs tailored to specific local conditions.

“Such infrastructures provide the framework through which countries can anticipate risks, address grievances, and support recovery,” Jimoh said. “Their effectiveness depends on inclusive participation, institutional resilience, and strong national ownership.”

Sierra Leone, Ghana, Côte d’Ivoire, and The Gambia also shared examples where local mediation structures, national peace councils, reconciliation commissions, and traditional institutions of justice have contributed to conflict prevention and social cohesion.

Jacqueline Seck, Chief of Staff, Office of the Under-Secretary-General for Political and Peacebuilding Affairs (DPPA), pointed to Ghana’s Peace Council as an example of nationally owned institutions providing trusted platforms to have dialogue, mediation, and electoral conflict prevention. Similarly, in The Gambia and Sierra Leone, the role of dedicated peace institutions in helping support post-conflict reconciliation and manage political tensions was discussed.

Among the major challenges, financing emerged as a recurring topic throughout the duration of the dialogue. While the catalytic role of the Peacebuilding Fund was praised by the speakers, many emphasized that sustained peace ultimately requires a long-term political commitment to peace as well as continuous domestic investment.

Williams warned that developing institutions often takes a lot of time and is a gradual process.

“Institutions take time to develop,” he said. “Results often require support at a certain scale, across the country, and across different parts of an institution to make meaningful impact.”

Throughout the discussion, participants pointed to a broader shift in peacebuilding strategy, from responding to crises after violence has already erupted to investing in preventative institutions designed to address risks before conflict happens.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Farmer-turned-fishermen from the local indigenous community are fishing in the Dumboor lake in north-eastern India. At the Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly, a project was approved involving three communities across India, including Dumboor Lake. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
DUMBOORNAGAR, India and SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 24 2026 (IPS)

At dawn, when the waters of Dumboor Lake lie still under a pale grey sky, Santo Chakma, 63, nudges his narrow wooden boat into a reservoir that swallowed his childhood.

The lake is a growing attraction for tourists who come here in search of beauty and tranquillity, with dozens of islands scattered across a vast expanse of water. But for Chakma, the lake reflects a past erased.

“Once, these were rice fields. My father and my grandfather cultivated rice,” he says quietly. “But now we catch fish because there is no land.”

Spread across 41 square kilometres in Tripura’s Gomati basin, Dumboor Lake is now known for its 48 small islands and a growing tourism economy. But beneath its surface lies the submerged Raima–Saima valley – once a fertile agricultural landscape that sustained indigenous communities for generations.

That landscape disappeared in 1974, when the Gumti Hydroelectric Dam transformed the Gomati River into a reservoir, displacing thousands of people, mostly from indigenous tribes such as the Chakma, Reang, and Tripuri.

From Farmers to Fishers

In villages like West Gandecherra – a lakeside village – elderly people carry the memories of their old days in their hearts.

“The Gumti (Gomati) River was our lifeline,” recalls Phulorani Tripura, an elderly resident. “We used to sail bamboo rafts.”

Across the region, communities tie bamboo in large bundles and throw them upstream. The river carries the bundles down and people travel on them using these bundles as their rafts. For days, they live on these bamboo rafts, sleeping on them and selling produce from their farms, such as homemade butter and peppers, until they reach a market where the bamboo is sold.

“Water was not our livelihood – it wasn’t our way of living,” Chakma reminisces.

That world collapsed after the dam was built as farmland, homes, and markets were submerged. Families were relocated to uplands, where agriculture proved unreliable. Many eventually returned to the lake – not as traders or farmers, but as fishers.

Today, nearly 5,000 families depend on the lake’s fisheries, navigating livelihoods born out of displacement rather than choice.

An Increasingly Fragile Livelihood

Every morning, lines of small boats move out across Dumboor. By afternoon, they return with their catch, which is often smaller than in previous years. Fish diversity has declined due to overfishing, reduced stocking, and ecological stress.

“Earlier, fish were plentiful. We caught big fish like rahu (Labeo rohita), katla (South Asian carp) and gojal (channa marulius). If we sold one fish weighing 4-5 kg, it would be enough money for a whole week. Now we catch more small fish, which sell for less and also don’t stay fresh for long, which brings even less. So, now we work harder for less,” says Sushil Chakma, a fisherman, untangling his net.

Economic pressures add another layer of strain. Fishing licences cost up to ₹10,000, while government-fixed prices can be lower than 1 dime (US) per kilogram, leaving fishers dependent on middlemen.

“The government charges us, but the benefits don’t reach us,” Chakma says.

There are also constant safety risks due to erratic weather, fluctuating water levels, and fragile bamboo fishing platforms – known locally as ‘mancha’ – which have led to repeated fatalities.

“We call these platforms ‘mancha’, and we often hear that one has broken and fishermen have drowned,” says Bryn Tiprasa, a youth originally from East Gandecherra village near the lake, now living in Agartala, about 120 kilometres away.

“In fact, only last month, a fisherman died like that. Two years ago, four fishermen died in a single incident. Will this project consider addressing these kinds of problems? We don’t know yet.”

Tourism Grows, but Locals Miss Inclusion

Dumboor has increasingly been promoted as a tourism destination, with sites like Coconut Island attracting visitors for boating and festivals.

The Government of India has invested significantly in developing tourism infrastructure around the lake. But locals say these efforts prioritise visitors over indigenous communities whose livelihoods depend on the lake.

“The big businesses are not ours,” says a local boat operator. “We build boats ourselves, take loans, and earn only during the season.”

Some residents also report losing access to land and resources because private aquaculture or tourism ventures lease parts of the reservoir.

For communities already displaced once, these developments revive a familiar fear: marginalisation in the name of development.

Environmental pressures are also compounding these challenges. Invasive species such as Mikania micrantha (locally referred to as ‘Pichash’) due to erratic rainfall and changing water levels have disrupted fish breeding cycles and degraded ecosystems around the lake.

Despite supporting thousands of livelihoods, Dumboor Lake still lacks a comprehensive management plan.

“We depend on the lake, but no one manages it properly,” says a cooperative member. “How long can this continue?”

A New GEF-Backed Project Enters the Picture

Amid these overlapping pressures, a new biodiversity initiative supported by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is drawing cautious attention.

The project – Conservation of Biodiversity, its Sustainable Use, and Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits in India (CONSERVE) – was approved at the 6th Global Biodiversity Framework Fund Council meeting, held under the framework of the Eighth GEF Assembly.

Backed by USD 13.8 million and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank, the project aims to strengthen community-led conservation while ensuring fair sharing of benefits.

At its core is a shift toward recognising Indigenous communities as key custodians of ecosystems – a long-standing demand in regions like Dumboor.

However, details of how the project will work on the ground and what it will specifically deliver for Dumboor’s fishers are not yet clear.

This uncertainty shapes local reactions: hopeful, but cautious.

Potential – and Unanswered – Questions

The initiative is expected to involve at least 25,000 people across project areas in governance and decision-making, including women.

For communities in Dumboor, this could mean,

• recognition of traditional knowledge
• participation in resource management
• access to financial support and new livelihood models
• improved ecosystem sustainability.

It also reflects the GEF’s growing emphasis on blended finance approaches – combining public and multilateral funds with other sources – to support environmental outcomes alongside community development.

Some, however, say the project needs greater transparency.

“How will local women be integrated into this project? What will be the means and level of women’s access to finance and opportunities to play a leadership role? These are some of the questions,” says a member of the CBD Woman’s Caucus who participated in the GEF global council.

According to the GEF, several gender-specific targets are included in the project design, ensuring that women will make up 50% of the estimated 25,000 beneficiaries and at least 40% of the beneficiaries of an Access and Benefit-Sharing financial mechanism that will be implemented as part of the project.

For residents, the real test lies in implementation.

“Most of this money might just go into big pockets and not to the locals,” says Tiprasa. “A lot of projects are launched in the region, but few bring actual benefit.”

He adds that many interventions fail because they do not account for local realities.

“The projects do not always consider the local challenges, so not all solutions help improve their conditions.”

Despite scepticism, some residents see promise in the project’s stated focus on community participation.

“We have always lived with this lake,” says Santo Reang, a local resident. “But no one asked us how to manage it.”

“This time, if they involve us properly, things can change,” adds Niranjan Debbarma, a fisher cooperative member. “We understand this lake better than anyone.”

The GEF noted that the GBFF recently developed one of the most stringent and progressive guidelines to ensure that Tribal Peoples and local communities are in the driver’s seat when designing and implementing every project and will act as bona fide partners in identifying priorities and implementing the project.

A Fragile Turning Point

For decades, Dumboor’s indigenous communities have adjusted to realities imposed from the outside – shifting from land to water and from stable agriculture to precarious fishing.

Now, with a new GEF-backed project on the horizon, change is possible – one that could finally recognise both the lake’s ecological importance and the people who depend on it.

But in Dumboor, hope is never uncomplicated.

For those who have lost land once before, the question is not just whether change will come but whether it will finally include them.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

« James Alix Michel warns that without real finance and precaution, ocean pledges risk remaining only on paper. »

Now that the lights have dimmed in Mombasa and the delegations have gone home, a simple but necessary question remains: did the first Our Ocean Conference on African soil truly move the world from promises to protection? The conference was indeed the first held in Africa, under the theme “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future,” with a stated focus on culture, communities, livelihoods, marine protection, climate resilience and sustainable blue economies.

James Alix Michel

For African coastal states and Small Island Developing States (SIDS) – or, as they are better understood, Large Ocean States – this is not an academic debate. It is about the future of economies, food security, cultures and dignity, because the ocean underpins trade, tourism, livelihoods and resilience across the continent and among island nations.

Seychelles has long argued that prosperity depends on a healthy ocean. That conviction helped shape the blue economy approach in Seychelles and the South-West Indian Ocean, and it has been expressed in practical policy through marine spatial planning and the legal protection of 30 percent of Seychelles’ Exclusive Economic Zone, roughly 410,000 square kilometres.

Mombasa offered a chance to bring that blue economy vision onto the African and global stage in a new way. The conference theme captured what is at stake: Africa’s seas and coasts are central to its history and hopes, and they stand on the frontline of climate change, overfishing and pollution.

During OOC11, leaders and ocean champions repeatedly called for the world to “make 30×30 real” – to ensure that the pledge to protect at least 30 percent of the ocean by 2030 translates into real outcomes for biodiversity and for coastal communities, not just new lines on a map. That shift from declarations to implementation is welcome, because paper protection alone will not restore fish stocks, strengthen reefs or secure coastal livelihoods.

But leadership is measured not only in the strength of statements. It is measured in the courage to say no when the risks are too great, and in the willingness to share fairly the costs of global stewardship.

On deep-sea mining, the precautionary voice is louder than ever. A growing number of governments support a moratorium, ban or precautionary pause, and one widely cited 2026 account linked to the earlier Seychelles-led call said more than 40 countries now support a pause. Other sources show the coalition has grown steadily over time, with additional countries publicly backing precautionary approaches as scientific concern has deepened.

That trend matters because the scientific and governance uncertainties remain profound. Advocates for caution argue that opening the deep ocean to industrial mining before its ecosystems are properly understood risks damage that could be widespread, long-lasting and irreversible, which is why calls for a pause remain central to responsible ocean policy.

Mombasa added to the political pressure for caution, but it did not resolve the issue. There is still no clear, binding global decision to pause exploitation in the deep ocean, and that leaves a shadow over the very blue economy future that African states and SIDS are being encouraged to build.

On 30×30, declarations and new marine protected areas continue to multiply. Yet too often, protection remains on paper: boundaries are drawn, but boats and budgets are not; management plans exist, but monitoring and enforcement are weak or absent. The gap between legal designation and effective protection remains one of the defining weaknesses of current ocean policy.

For SIDS that have already placed vast areas of their Exclusive Economic Zones under protection, the reality is stark. Seychelles has already legally protected 30 percent of its EEZ and exceeded earlier global marine protection benchmarks, but the long-term cost of managing such large areas is high and continuing. This is precisely where global ambition begins to collide with unequal capacity.

That is why the current architecture for financing ocean protection is not fit for purpose. SIDS are repeatedly asked to safeguard globally significant marine spaces, yet access to international funding often remains constrained by income classifications that do not reflect vulnerability, exposure, or the global value of these protected waters. Without predictable financing for science, surveillance, enforcement and community engagement, even the most celebrated MPA announcements risk remaining partial victories.

It is neither fair nor sustainable to expect a few small nations, with limited populations and fiscal space, to carry the long-term costs of managing huge marine areas largely for the world’s benefit. If the international community wants 30×30 to succeed, it must match moral expectation with material support.

So what should be the message after Mombasa? What would it mean, in practice, to make 30×30 real and to honour the theme “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future”?

First, every new square kilometre of protected ocean must be backed by the means to protect it. That means clear objectives, robust management plans, trained personnel, and the technologies and partnerships needed for effective monitoring and enforcement.

Second, a precautionary pause on deep-sea mining must be secured. This is not anti-development; it is responsible leadership in a time of profound uncertainty, and it reflects the growing international view that exploitation should not proceed before science and governance can guarantee protection from irreversible harm.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, a new compact of fairness in the ocean is needed. If SIDS and African coastal states are being asked to safeguard a disproportionate share of the world’s blue heritage, then the international community must share proportionately in the responsibility to finance and sustain that protection.

From Victoria to Mombasa, from Seychelles to the African mainland and beyond, the message remains unchanged: the ocean is not for sacrifice. It is for stewardship. It is for people. And it is for a common future.

OOC11 helped shift the conversation. It amplified Africa’s voice, elevated the concerns of SIDS, and underlined the need to move from promises to protection. But the journey is far from over. History will not judge the world by the elegance of its communiqués. It will judge by the state of the seas, the resilience of coastal communities, and the legacy left to those who will inherit this blue planet.

James Alix Michel is the former President of the Republic of Seychelles and founder of the James Michel Foundation.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Opening ceremony of RightsCon 2025 in Taipei, Taiwan. Credit: Equality Now

By S. Mona Sinha and Mrinalini Dayal
NEW YORK, Jun 19 2026 (IPS)

RightsCon, the world’s leading summit on human rights in the digital age, has served for over a decade as a vital global gathering, bringing together civil society, academics, technologists, policymakers, and the private sector in cross-border collaboration. The abrupt cancellation of RightsCon 2026, following intervention by Zambia’s government just days before the convening was due to commence in Lusaka, should concern us all.

Worryingly, this is not an isolated disruption. It reflects a deeply troubling global pattern of shrinking civic space alongside a rapidly growing, well-resourced, and increasingly networked transnational anti-rights movement. We are calling on civil society, donors, the media, and democratic governments to take a strong stand against these coordinated efforts to undermine human rights and the forums that uphold them.

S. Mona Sinha

On May 1, RightsCon organiser and host Access Now released a statement announcing the summit, scheduled to run between May 5 and 8, could not proceed after Zambia announced it was postponing the event to ensure it “aligns with Zambia’s national values, policy priorities, and broader public interest.”

Access Now reported that on April 27, one day after the Zambian Ministry of Technology and Science had endorsed RightsCon, government officials told organisers that diplomats from China were pressuring Zambia because Taiwanese civil society participants were planning to attend. Zambia’s new conditions for allowing the conference to proceed included select topics being moderated and the exclusion of some participants, including Taiwanese civil society representatives.

Access Now has called this interference “transnational repression” and a deliberate effort to project authoritarian preferences across borders and shrink civic spheres.

Mrinalini Dayal

Digital rights advocacy is essential to advancing gender equality. That is why Equality Now co-founded the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights (AUDRi), a global campaign working toward a digital future where everyone can enjoy equal rights to safety, freedom, and dignity.

Equality Now and AUDRi were looking forward to returning to RightsCon to reconnect with allies and forge new relationships. Over 500 sessions were scheduled, including two by Equality Now on co-creating solutions to online safety and privacy challenges, and addressing the exclusion of women from artificial intelligence development and other emerging technologies.

Activists have spent months preparing, from developing proposals and collaborating with partners to organising funding, travel, and logistics. Significant time, energy, and resources have been invested that cannot be recouped.

RightsCon is one of the few annual, in-person opportunities where smaller frontline organisations meet potential funders. Locally led groups, particularly those in the Global Majority already grappling with funding cuts and rising competition for limited resources, will be hardest hit by the lost networking, visibility, and donor engagement that sustains their work.

Beyond this substantial loss is the deeply troubling shutting down of a vital locus for dialogue and collective action, alongside a growing anxiety that this will not be the last such disruption of an essential global forum.

RightsCon: a unique mix of diverse voices

RightsCon is the only global, civil society-led convening focused on the intersection of technology and human rights. Other international gatherings on the internet, emerging technologies, and digital governance are generally complex, exclusionary multilateral processes dominated by governments and the tech companies whose products and power are meant to be scrutinised.

Discussions about digital harms, inequality, and the future of our online world are often relegated to the margins or excluded completely, despite their far-reaching consequences. In contrast, RightsCon is where activists set the agenda, and lived experience is central.

Participants working towards safer, inclusive digital futures can share insights and learn from others’ successes and challenges across diverse contexts. The summit’s activist spirit prioritises voices often excluded elsewhere: women and girls, LGBTQI+ communities, Indigenous peoples, and those resisting surveillance and authoritarian rule.

Holding RightsCon in Zambia was a deliberate choice by Access Now intended to lower barriers to participation. For people from Global Majority countries, visa requirements and travel costs to Europe or North America are routinely insurmountable, and increasingly restrictive visa policies are making access evermore difficult. Equality Now staff have been unable to attend UN gatherings in New York for exactly this reason.

The impacts of widespread exclusion from attending consultative and decision-making settings cannot be overstated. That Zambia’s government sought to justify postponing RightsCon on visa grounds, saying some speakers and participants were “subject to pending administrative and security clearances”, is a stark illustration of how bureaucratic levers can be wielded to stifle dissent.

Tech-facilitated gender-based violence

In an increasingly digital world, women and girls face distinct and escalating threats to their rights, safety, privacy, and freedom. The rapid advance of technologies is opening new frontiers for human traffickers, coercers and abusers, but existing legal systems everywhere are ill-equipped to handle these multi-jurisdictional harms.

At RightsCon 2026, we were going to jointly explore legal solutions to the explosion of tech-facilitated gender-based violence. Online violence is rarely, if ever, confined to a ‘virtual’ space; it follows women and girls into their homes and workplaces, and often involves real-world harm including physical violence.

Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence risk deepening existing inequalities and amplifying misinformation and bias, while expanding surveillance and online exploitation and abuse place fundamental rights and freedoms at risk.

Without civil society-led convenings that centre human rights in digital technologies, it becomes harder to build the intersectional, integrated, responsive movements needed to defend online rights, especially for marginalised communities.

That is precisely why losing this moment hurts so much, and why the issues that RightsCon sought to elevate, including those that governments seek to suppress, must be debated in the global spotlight. At Equality Now and AUDRi, we are planning alternative ways to hold conversations with even wider audiences than a conference format allows. We will not be deterred.

Standing against the pushback on human rights

Equality Now has been tracking the pushback against human rights advocates globally, particularly those working on gender equality and against misogyny and gender-based violence. Even knowing how organised that pushback has become, it is devastating to watch RightsCon become a casualty of it.

The cancellation and the speed of it set a worrying precedent for future international human rights convening. No forum is truly safe from political scrutiny, interference, or silencing.

This is the moment for a coordinated response. Funders must step up to prioritise digital rights and engage with organisations at the convergence of human and digital rights and development. Regional gatherings and alternative spaces need resourcing to replace this year’s RightsCon.

Democratic governments need to defend the right to assemble across borders and scrutinise international pressure that may have shaped RightsCon’s cancellation.

To our peers across the digital rights community: we stand with you. Silencing one convening will not silence the movements behind it. We will continue to organise, collaborate, and defend the freedoms and human rights at stake, because the price of allowing authoritarian pressure to determine who gets to participate, speak, and assemble is simply too high.

S. Mona Sinha, Chief Executive Officer, Equality Now, and Mrinalini Dayal, Global Coordinator of the Alliance for Universal Digital Rights (AUDRi)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A rare glimpse of a snow leopard prowling through the high-altitude wilderness of Kangchendzonga National Park, captured by a trail camera. Credit: WWF/Sikkim

By Diwash Gahatraj
SIKKIM, India, Jun 17 2026 (IPS)

The tea arrives before the conversation starts. Jayanta Mukhia sets two cups on the wooden table and pulls up a chair across from the couple who arrived that afternoon with trekking poles and rucksacks. They have come to walk the Goechala trail into the heart of Khangchendzonga National Park in India. They will leave in two days. Before they go, she has something to tell them.

Jayanta asks if they know what happens to the garbage they carry in. Some of it comes back out. Some of it does not. In the high pastures above Yuksom, a town in West Sikkim, the trail climbs toward the glaciers, and plastic bags caught in the rocks stay there through winter. Army camps, tourists, and trekking groups – they all leave something behind. That waste feeds dogs that follow the trails running through the same corridors where snow leopards move at night.

Jayanta Mukhia outside the Chungda Hidden Family Homestay in Yuksom, West Sikkim. Credit: Diwash Gahatraj/IPS

Her husband, Chungda Sherpa, started the Chungda Hidden Family Homestay in Yuksom in 2012, when he was still a trekking guide who knew every switchback on the Goechala route. Today he handles the bookings, the outreach, and the digital presence that brings guests from cities they have never visited. Jayanta runs everything else, the kitchen, the guests, the conversations at the wooden table, and the quiet insistence that every person who sleeps under her roof leaves the park cleaner than they found it.

“The homestay earns between eight and ten lakhs (about USD 8,400 to 10,500) a year. That income exists because the park exists,” she says.

According to Tshering Uden of the Khangchendzonga Conservation Committee, Yuksom has 15 hotels, 25 homestays and more than 21 travel agencies registered under the local Panchayat, all of whose income depends directly on Khangchendzonga’s ecological health. Their collective livelihood runs on the same high-altitude corridors where Sikkim’s 21 snow leopards live.

A hiker admires the view in the Khangchendzonga National Park. Credit: Tshering Uden, KCC.

Guardian of the High-Altitude

Known locally as Saagey, the snow leopard is revered as a sacred guardian of the high-altitude ecosystem in Sikkimese Buddhist tradition, its conservation inseparable from the beliefs and pastoral lifestyles of the communities that share its landscape. Khangchendzonga National Park, inscribed as India’s first mixed natural and cultural UNESCO World Heritage Site in 2016, sits at the heart of this landscape.

India’s first national snow leopard population assessment surveyed the Trans-Himalayan region between 2019 and 2023, deploying camera traps at nearly 2,000 locations across about 120,000 square kilometres and counting 718 snow leopards across six Himalayan states and union territories. Sikkim recorded 21, a modest figure in a rugged landscape where the cats share space with herders, trekkers and Dzo transporters. The SECURE Himalaya project, supported by the Global Environment Facility, helped make that count possible by building community-based monitoring capacity across the high mountains, demonstrating that conservation works best when local communities are invested in it.

This is a hyperlocal account of what that investment built in one corner of a much larger effort.

Buddhist stupas covered in flags serve as a spiritual landmark on high-altitude trekking trails, such as those leading to Mount Kanchenjunga. Credit: Tshering Uden, KCC

SECURE Himalaya ran for nearly seven years across four Himalayan states: Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Sikkim and the Union Territory of Ladakh. In Sikkim, it focused on the Khangchendzonga-Upper Teesta landscape – roughly 4,000 square kilometres from Khangchendzonga National Park down to the upper catchment of the Teesta River. Backed by a GEF grant of USD 11.5 million and over USD 60 million in co-financing from the Government of India, the funding went into four interconnected areas: conserving key biodiversity zones, securing sustainable community livelihoods, reducing human-wildlife conflict, and building knowledge systems for long-term landscape management.

In Sikkim, this translated into camera trap networks, community patrol volunteers, women’s handicraft enterprises, and waste management systems all designed around a single argument: that communities with an economic stake in a healthy landscape will protect it.

The project received a Highly Satisfactory rating from independent evaluators for results, relevance and efficiency. Khangchendzonga National Park recorded one of the largest improvements in management effectiveness across all project sites.

One of the project’s most practical interventions targeted feral dogs, which had become a dominant predator in North Sikkim, chasing snow leopards from their kills and hunting the blue sheep and pika the cats depend on. “The project worked with army establishments in Sikkim to set up biodigester facilities in strategic locations to manage food waste from army camps, which helped directly address the feral dog problem,” says Ruchi Pant, who oversaw SECURE Himalaya’s reporting at UNDP India. “The army subsequently scaled up these biodigesters using their own resources.” The initiative has continued independently, one of several project interventions that continues even though the project’s funding has ended.

Young volunteers were trained as Himal Rakshaks, protectors of the Himalaya, to set camera traps, patrol Khangchendzonga National Park and report sightings. The Sikkim Forest Department has since integrated them into its regular operations, with volunteers supporting fire line management and routine monitoring alongside forest guards. The State Biodiversity Board has constituted 196 Biodiversity Management Committees across Sikkim, many of them women-led, operating under the Biological Diversity Act 2002.

Nedup Bhutia’s dzo loaded with trekking supplies at the Yuksom trailhead, West Sikkim, ready for the Goechala trek into Khangchendzonga National Park. Credit: Diwash Gahatraj/IPS

In Yuksom, the results were visible in ways the community could measure. The KCC trained trekking guides, porters and tourism operators to monitor trails, manage waste and report wildlife sightings. The project’s midterm review cited its zero-waste management model as a national best practice. In 2022, the programme was formally handed over to the Yuksam Gram Panchayat Unit and now runs under the Block Administrative Centre, according to Tshering Uden — a concrete example of the institutional transition the project was designed to achieve. Blue sheep, rarely seen in the national park before the project, are now a regular presence on the slopes. More blue sheep means a more reliable prey base for snow leopards, and fewer reasons for the cats to come down and take livestock.

“Before the project we only heard about snow leopards in our area,” says Tshering Uden. “Now we have picture evidence.”

Tents in the valley of the Khangchendzonga National Park. The zero-waste aspect of its zero-waste management model, including from visitors to the park, has been cited as a national best practice. Credit: Tshering Uden, KCC

A Shift in Mindset

Udai Gurung of the Sikkim Forest Department says the project changed the department’s fundamental orientation. “The biggest shift was conceptual,” he says. “The forest department moved from a protection-centric model to a landscape-level, coexistence-based approach.”

The project ended in 2024. GEF funding was always designed to be temporary and not a permanent handhold but a spark for something that continues under its own momentum. By that measure, the terminal evaluation rated the project highly satisfactory for results, relevance and efficiency, while assessing sustainability as moderately likely, noting that targets were met in full and, in some instances, exceeded.

The long-term expectation, consistent with how all GEF projects are designed, is that technical capacity and systems developed under the project are handed over to the government to carry forward.

In Sikkim, that transition is underway. Gurung identifies the slow release of funds as the single biggest structural challenge throughout implementation, not a shortage of money, but a bureaucratic delay in releasing funds already allocated. In high-altitude Sikkim, where the working season is a matter of weeks, entire field seasons were lost waiting for approvals. “Capacity exists,” he says, “but long-term sustainability will require consistent financial and institutional support.”

That support now rests primarily with local and state authorities. The Himal Rakshaks operate within the Sikkim Forest Department. The BMCs sit under the State Biodiversity Board. The zero-waste programme runs under the Yuksam Block Administrative Centre.

Jayanta Mukhia outside the Chungda Hidden Family Homestay in Yuksom, West Sikkim. Credit: Diwash Gahatraj/IPS

Women in North Sikkim continue weaving nettle fibre and accessing premium markets independently.

In May 2023, Sikkim announced its first biodiversity heritage site – Tunkyong Dho – a sacred lake in Dzongu supported by the local biodiversity management committee. UNDP remains involved at a smaller scale through the German IKI ICCA programme, a portion of which continues to support the Himalayan landscape.

The most concrete unfinished work is the compensation system for herders. Pema Yangden Lepcha, a researcher and project associate at the Ashoka Trust for Research in Ecology and the Environment’s Himalaya Initiative in Gangtok, has spent months talking to yak herders in North Sikkim.

Herders there recently told her they had lost five yaks to snow leopard predation. An adult yak costs between 80,000 and 100,000 rupees. Government compensation is a fraction of that, and most predation happens on Forest Department land where herders are often told the department cannot help.

“They have a very negative attitude toward snow leopards,” Pema says, “and often feel a strong urge to retaliate.” Closing that gap so that herders who bear the cost of coexistence are fairly compensated is the single most urgent task for the local authorities now responsible for this landscape.

Nedup Bhutia’s dzo loaded with trekking supplies at the Yuksom trailhead, West Sikkim, ready for the Goechala trek into Khangchendzonga National Park. Credit: Diwash Gahatraj/IPS

Carrying it Forward

On the trail, Nedup Bhutia has walked the Goechala route for twenty years with his eleven dzo. He earns between one and one and a half lakhs each trekking season, porting visitors into the park. He has never seen a snow leopard. But three years ago, a two-year-old ox was found dead in the open in Jhamtong village on the park’s periphery, killed by a snow leopard overnight. For Nedup, it is proof of a landscape still alive.

In Yuksom, at the wooden table in Chungda Hidden Family Homestay, Jayanta Mukhia is refilling two cups of tea. Her guests leave tomorrow. They will carry their garbage out. She has made sure of it.

The 21 snow leopards are still there. The communities are still working. The project succeeded by every measure the evaluators applied. What happens next depends not on outside funding but on whether the institutions and communities that inherited this work choose to build on it. That is where the responsibility now sits and where the real test of SECURE Himalaya’s legacy begins.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.
IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Kaveh Zahed, Assistant Director-General and Director of FAO’s Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment (left), speaks during a press briefing on agri-food system solutions at the GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, where he emphasised that agriculture can play a central role in addressing climate and biodiversity challenges. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 11 2026 (IPS)

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has approved USD 6.4 million for a new conservation initiative in Papua New Guinea that seeks to protect 700,000 hectares of critical highland ecosystems by placing Indigenous Peoples and local communities at the centre of conserving and managing their ancestral lands.

Implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and with expected USD 16.7 million in co-financing, the project aims to strengthen biodiversity corridors, support peacebuilding and improve environmental management across protected and productive landscapes. It is expected to improve management effectiveness across more than 276,000 hectares of protected areas, extend sustainable environmental practices to 1.6 million hectares, directly benefit 21,000 people and avoid nearly one million tonnes of carbon emissions.

The initiative reflects a broader shift in conservation thinking in Papua New Guinea and internationally – away from externally driven protection efforts and toward approaches that connect biodiversity conservation with livelihoods, land rights and local governance.

That shift is especially significant in Papua New Guinea, where roughly 97 percent of land remains under customary ownership, making conservation efforts dependent on local consent and participation.

“In a culturally rich and highly diverse country that is both geographically isolated and challenging to access, community empowerment is essential for achieving sustainable social and economic development,” Aaron Becker, FAO-GEF Regional Coordinator for Asia and the Pacific, told IPS.

“The key to successful conservation efforts in Papua New Guinea is recognising and respecting that 97 percent of the country’s land is held under customary ownership,” Becker said.

According to project designers, conservation in Papua New Guinea can only succeed when it is rooted in customary land systems, respects local cultural realities and builds upon traditional natural resource management practices rather than bypassing communities.

Under the project’s community-led landscape model, local people will determine which areas should be protected, which can continue supporting livelihoods and what conservation rules should apply. The initiative is expected to support recognition of 10 community-led conservation areas across biodiversity hotspots.

The programme will rely on participatory processes grounded in Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC) and the Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure (VGGT) while helping communities strengthen governance systems and develop land-use plans informed by traditional knowledge.

“This project provides the facilitation, training, equipment, and access to finance — and keeps the decisions within the community,” Becker said.

“Importantly, communities are not being asked to implement somebody else’s conservation agenda.”

Project officials say the initiative has also been designed to avoid intensifying land disputes or creating new social tensions.

“The project is designed carefully to avoid making tensions, such as around natural resources, worse,” Becker said, adding that site selection takes into account governance conditions, conflict risks and community readiness.

The emphasis on community ownership reflects a broader evolution in global conservation policy, according to Kaveh Zahed, Assistant Director-General and Director of FAO’s Office of Climate Change, Biodiversity and Environment.

“It’s not just about protecting biodiversity – it is about conservation, regeneration and sustainable use of biodiversity,” Zahed told journalists on the sidelines of the GEF Assembly.

“That’s a recognition that much of this biodiversity is linked to people and to livelihoods  – and nowhere is that demonstrated better than with agriculture and agricultural communities, who are custodians of a great deal of that biodiversity.”

Rather than treating conservation as a restriction on development, the project combines environmental protection with biodiversity-friendly livelihoods, including sustainable agriculture, agroforestry, coffee systems, non-timber forest products, ecotourism and small-scale livestock.

Zahed said agriculture and food systems can become part of the solution rather than a source of tension between conservation and economic development.

“That’s where the beauty of agri-food system solutions lies,” he said. “They are interventions that are about food security, producing more with less, and helping communities maintain that food security while at the same time bringing biodiversity and climate benefits.”

For Becker, the broader lesson extends beyond Papua New Guinea.

“So, the message is simple: conservation should not create new insecurity,” he said. “Done well, it will reinforce land rights, support livelihoods, and build cooperation across landscapes that communities already know, use and manage.”

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Children dry fish in the sun at a village in the natural gas-rich Afungi peninsula of the northern Mozambique region. In countries including Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, and Mozambique, gas is extracted and exported to serve external markets, while domestic energy needs go unmet. Photo courtesy of Justica Ambiental

By Maina Waruru
NAIROBI, Jun 11 2026 (IPS)

A new report examining the economic impact of oil and gas production in Africa has found that fossil fuels have failed to deliver sustained or inclusive economic development, observing that the resources have contributed to economic vulnerability and inequality and have constrained growth through prohibitive commodity prices, inflation, and weak local currencies.

It reveals that oil- and gas-rich countries were running on economies that are ‘extractive’ in nature, while their other economic sectors remained weak and tended to have elevated levels of corruption, benefiting a few rich, thus perpetuating inequality. This is while delivering few job opportunities, and the sectors employ about 0.3% of the national workforce overall.

The document titled Pipe Dreams, based on evidence from 13 oil- and gas-producing countries, finds that the structure of the oil- and gas-producing economy concentrates on exporting wealth while leaving populations to bear the costs of producing it, ultimately fuelling poverty.

Observing that Africa is in the midst of a “fossil fuel crisis” where global energy prices have surged in the wake of the American-Israeli-Iranian war, exposing countries to expensive petroleum, the analysis by advocacy groups Power Shift Africa and Oil Change International note that producing countries have not been spared the price shocks.

Shanties serving as shops in a village in the natural gas-rich Afungi peninsula of the northern Mozambique region, where poverty remains high. A new report discloses that the government will not receive significant revenues until the mid or late 2030s because contracts allocate most of the early revenues to foreign companies. Photo courtesy of Justica Ambiental

This is because while many of them exported crude, they later imported costlier refined products refined abroad, including petrol and diesel. This happens as hundreds of millions of people across the continent still lack access to electricity and clean cooking energy.

“In some cases, such as Nigeria, Equatorial Guinea, and Mozambique, gas is extracted and exported to serve external markets, while domestic energy needs go unmet,” the analysis explains.

This happens against a backdrop of millions living in extreme poverty, Nigeria and Angola being two such countries where the report acknowledges that an estimated 40% of the population survive on less than USD 3 per day, decades of extracting oil notwithstanding.

“In fact, according to the African Import-Export Bank, Africa’s oil exporters have mostly had lower economic growth and higher inflation than their non-resource-intensive counterparts in recent years,” it explains.

Basing its conclusions on peer-reviewed literature, official data, and independent reports, it asserts that, among others, the fossils sector in Africa is ‘extractive’ in nature, with extraction occurring in ‘enclaves’.

Fishermen at a village in the natural gas-rich Afungi peninsula of the northern Mozambique region, where poverty remains high. The new Pipe Dreams report reveals that the government will not receive significant revenues until the mid or late 2030s because contracts allocate most of the early revenues to foreign companies. Photo courtesy of Justica Ambiental

By breeding an extractive economy where the commodities are mostly exported, the main economic function for producer countries is restricted to generating revenues and export earnings.

This is made worse by the fact that the natural wealth is dominated by multinationals, who often “take a disproportionate share of the revenues either through one-sided contractual terms or through lopsided accounting schemes”.

Citing the example of Mozambique’s Coral South gas project led by Italy’s Eni, which began producing gas in 2023, it discloses that the government will not receive significant revenues until the mid- or late-2030s. The reason is that the contract terms usually allocate most of the “early revenues” to foreign companies to the exclusion of governments.

The report faults fossil sectors for having few links to other sectors in an economy, noting that related sectors, including services and supplies, are “generally imported, while the products and the profits are mostly exported”.

Released on 11 May to coincide with the Africa Forward 2026 summit sponsored by France and bringing together more than 40 African presidents and heads of government in Nairobi, Kenya, it asserts the fossil wealth was creating minimal employment opportunities, even when it constituted a large share of gross domestic product (GDP).

“The enclave effect is especially strong with floating offshore facilities, as companies can tow these facilities into place and load oil and gas onto tankers without ever setting foot in a country”,

For example, in Nigeria and Congo Brazzaville, the oil industry employs only 0.01% of the countries’ workforce and 0.3% in Angola, the document reveals.

Even worse, the extractive economy tended to harm other economic sectors, worsening poverty, a good example being the west African country suffering frequent oil spills that negatively impacted agriculture and food security.

Almost all African oil producers have suffered corruption scandals related to their oil and gas revenues, and between 1989 and 1993, senior executives of French company Elf, now part of TotalEnergies, allegedly paid bribes to politicians in Gabon, Angola, Cameroon and Congo-Brazzaville in a USD350 million scandal.

In other instances, the fossils are exposed and vulnerable to the dynamics of international markets, leaving countries heavily indebted during oil price collapses, a good example being 2014 when oil prices crashed, forcing Angola to cut its budget by 25%, with public employees and suppliers going unpaid for months.

The report makes a strong case for accelerated adoption of renewable energy across Africa as a more just and inclusive alternative, explaining that fossils are not a “viable foundation for equitable economic development”.

What Africa needs now is a green and more resilient energy system and rich countries should support the continent financially and technologically for the transition to happen, said Power Shift African head Mohamed Adow.

“What we need right now is an energy future built around people, not exports, because it is obvious that we cannot drill ourselves out of poverty,” he said.

It was a shame that as many as 600 million people had no access to electricity and around 900 million lacked clean cooking energy despite the abundance of renewable resources such as solar all over Africa, he said.

“It is also sad that African countries are locked up in fossil dependency while big countries like China are exporting technologies. Our presidents see oil and gas as shortcuts to wealth. We must adopt development that genuinely serves the people,” he told a media briefing on the report in Nairobi.

“Real prosperity” for Africa, he noted, will come from investing in renewables while ending the tradition of using the limited forex available to “import problems”, in the form of finished petroleum products.

For this reason, international facilities such as climate finance must be made to work and help prove that development and climate action can go together. “It is our duty to help challenge the notion that there is no development without fossils,” he added.

The continent must therefore adopt a development model that serves its people, rather than one that benefits external actors, including for key services such as finance and insurance, all of which take place overseas.

Extracting and shipping resources out of Africa amounted to shipping out value, including jobs, according to Amos Wemanya, Power Shift Africa’s Senior Advisor, Renewable Energy and Just Transition.

The notion that renewables cannot power development across the continent has been debunked, and what is needed is continued scaling up of tested and proven renewable models of development.

“The oil and gas era has failed our continent and the energy revolution is happening on our rooftops, not in the oilfields,” he stated in reference to growing uptake of solar for powering homes and institutions across Africa.

Currently the global financial system has left many countries in distress, with nearly 57% of the African population, or about 751 million people, living in countries that spend more on interest payments than on health and education, according to UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD).

This has resulted in calls for debt restructuring and a review of credit ratings. Wemanya added, “Building resilience in African economies needs a fair international financial system.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

The Zarafshan River, outside the venue of the Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly in Uzbekistan, is central to a USD 30 million GEF-funded initiative, the Central Asia Water and Land Nexus Programme (CAWLN). Credit: IISD/ENB/Danny Skilton

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

As ministers, diplomats and development officials assembled in Samarkand Congress Centre for a ceremonial family photograph, the mood carried unusual symbolism. Behind the smiles and formalities stood a region confronting a harder reality: rivers are shrinking, soils are tiring, temperatures are rising, and the old ways of managing land and water are no longer working.

For decades, Central Asia’s countries have wrestled with environmental pressures separately – water ministries worrying about irrigation, ministries of agriculture chasing production targets, and conservation agencies protecting fragmented ecosystems. But climate change is dissolving those bureaucratic boundaries.

At the Eighth Global Environment Facility (GEF) Assembly in Uzbekistan held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, the five Central Asian countries officially launched implementation of the Central Asia Water and Land Nexus Programme (CAWLN) – a USD 30 million GEF-funded initiative implemented by the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and designed to manage water, land, biodiversity and food systems as one interconnected system.

Supporters say the initiative could become one of the world’s most closely watched experiments in transboundary climate adaptation.

“We all know Central Asia faces increasing environmental pressures linked to land degradation, water scarcity, biodiversity loss, and climate change,” said Yerland Nysanbaev Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources of Kazakhstan, during the high-level roundtable. “But in response to that, the countries have come together to jointly address these environmental issues.”

Senior government representatives and development partners pose for a group photograph during the official launch of the Central Asia Water–Land Nexus Programme at the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. The initiative brings together the five Central Asian countries – Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan – to strengthen regional cooperation on water security, ecosystem restoration and climate resilience through integrated land and water management. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Stretching from Kazakhstan’s grasslands to Tajikistan’s mountains and Uzbekistan’s irrigated plains, Central Asia depends on shared river systems and fragile ecosystems that sustain more than 60 million people. Yet the region is warming faster than the global average, glaciers are retreating, drought cycles are intensifying and water competition is growing.

Demand for water has become one of the region’s defining vulnerabilities.

Nearly half of Central Asia already suffers from land degradation, generating economic losses estimated at USD 6 billion annually. At the same time, growing populations and changing consumption patterns continue to place additional pressure on limited natural resources.

Katrina Schneeberger, State Secretary and Director of Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment, delivers remarks during the official launch of the Central Asia Water–Land Nexus Programme at the Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

The project seeks to confront those pressures through what officials repeatedly described as a “nexus approach”.

For Switzerland – one of the programme’s strongest supporters – the initiative represents years of regional engagement finally converging into a broader vision.

Addressing ministers and delegates, Katrina Schneeberger, State Secretary and Director of Switzerland’s Federal Office for the Environment, described the programme as a model for the type of environmental cooperation increasingly needed in a warming world.

“It focuses on countries in need, it fosters the integration across environmental topics, and it supports cross-border cooperation,” she said.

Schneeberger argued that environmental policymaking has too often treated ecosystems as disconnected pieces.

“For too long, environmental topics like desertification or water have been tackled separately,” she said. “But in the end, water and land issues are connected.”

Her explanation was simple but powerful.

“Well-managed land will require less water, and properly managed freshwater sources will allow for sustainable and productive agriculture.”

Switzerland’s support for integrated environmental programmes in Central Asia stretches back decades, including transboundary initiatives under the Blue Peace Central Asia framework and previous regional land management programmes.

But officials say the new programme marks a shift in scale and ambition.

At its core, CAWLN seeks to move from managing sectors individually to managing entire landscapes and river systems.

FAO Deputy Director-General Godfrey Magwenzi speaking about the interconnection of climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress, land degradation, and food security across landscapes, river basins, and economies in Central Asia. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

FAO Deputy Director-General Godfrey Magwenzi framed the challenge in global terms.

“Climate change, biodiversity loss, water stress, land degradation, and food security are interconnected across landscapes, river basins, and economies in Central Asia,” he told delegates.

“Integration and cooperation matter to tackle transborder risks, to help countries act together on the drivers of vulnerability, and to accelerate progress towards the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.”

Magwenzi noted that since 2009, FAO has helped countries in the region mobilise nearly USD 77 million in GEF financing.

One previous regional initiative restored integrated management across 2.8 million hectares of drought-prone and salt-affected landscapes while avoiding nearly nine million tonnes of emissions and strengthening resilience for millions of farmers.

The new initiative is built around three major levers.

First, strengthening transboundary governance by creating mechanisms for policy coordination and knowledge sharing.

Second, supporting integrated action directly on landscapes – from farms and forests to river basins.

Third, improving evidence-based decisions using satellite monitoring, geographic information systems and integrated data platforms.

Officials say technology will become central to implementation.

Earth observation systems will track water use, land degradation and ecosystem health, while decision-support tools will help governments translate environmental data into practical action.

Those tools may prove critical.

River Zarafshon near Panjakent, Sughd Region, Tajikistan. Credit: Petar Milošević/Wikipedia

The region’s future is closely tied to two rivers – the Amu Darya and Syr Darya.

Flowing from Central Asia’s mountains toward the Aral Sea basin, these rivers connect countries, economies and millions of livelihoods.

The programme combines four national projects with basin-wide interventions and regional coordination mechanisms.

National projects will address priorities ranging from biodiversity conservation and pasture management in Kazakhstan to agro-woodland restoration in Kyrgyzstan, climate-resilient agriculture in Turkmenistan and ecosystem restoration in Uzbekistan.

Regional components will focus on integrated water management across the Amu Darya, Zarafshon, Panj, Syr Darya and Narin river basins.

Together, supporters hope these investments will restore more than one million hectares of land, avoid millions of tonnes of carbon emissions and improve livelihoods for nearly half a million people.

Francesca Carabini, who leads transboundary cooperation work under the UNECE Water Convention, reminded participants that Central Asia’s experiments with nexus governance are already shaping global practice.

One of the earliest river basins assessed under the Water-Energy-Ecosystem Nexus framework was the Syr Darya.

During a separate press briefing, FAO climate and environment chief Kaveh Zahedi argued that agriculture, often blamed for environmental degradation, must become part of the solution.

“The way we produce food and support farmers is directly connected to the health of our climate,” he said.

“It’s directly connected to the health of our soil and land. And it’s directly connected to our water and ecosystems.”

Zahedi cited alarming global trends.

In 2024 alone, more than 96 million people faced acute food insecurity linked partly to weather extremes intensified by climate change, while more than 700 million people continue to live with hunger.

Yet agriculture also offers opportunity.

“Done right, food and farming can deliver up to one-third of the emissions reductions needed while also protecting nature.”

Responding to IPS questions about balancing biodiversity and economic needs, Zahedi rejected the notion that environmental protection and livelihoods must compete.

“The sustainable use of biodiversity is very much at the heart, including sustainable agriculture,” he said.

“It’s not just about protection of biodiversity – it is about conservation, regeneration, and sustainable use of biodiversity.”

He added: “You don’t need to tell a farmer how important it is to have healthy soils.”

Projects such as agroforestry and landscape restoration, he argued, improve resilience while protecting incomes.

At the Assembly’s closing ceremony, GEF Interim CEO Claude Gascon had offered perhaps the clearest political message of the gathering.

“Today marks an important moment for Central Asia and for the global environment as we enter the sprint towards 2030,” he said.

“The five countries in the region have once again joined environmental forces.”

Gascon described the programme as evidence that countries increasingly recognise that “water and land issues are interlinked and are best tackled together rather than in isolation.”

He called the shift toward “whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches” essential for the next phase of environmental action.

Outside the venue, Samarkand’s summer heat offered its own reminder of what is at stake.

The city perched along the Zarafshan River – one of Central Asia’s historic lifelines and a place where questions of water, agriculture and survival have shaped civilisation for centuries.

Today, climate change is forcing those questions back to the centre.

Whether the Central Asia Water and Land Nexus Programme succeeds will depend not only on funding or policy but also on whether countries can sustain cooperation across borders long after the conference banners come down.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Alexandre Pinheiro facilitates a GEF press conference at the conclusion of 71st GEF Council in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. The conference was addressed by Fred Boltz, Manager, Programming, Claude Gascon, Interim CEO and Chizuru Aoki, Manager, MEAs and Funds Division. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul and Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 3 2026 (IPS)

As the Global Environment Facility (GEF) steps into the starting blocks of its next financial cycle, the Interim CEO Claude Gascon reflects on what he termed a “moment of transition and delivery”.

He was speaking at a press briefing on the eve of the Eighth GEF Assembly, which is scheduled to begin tomorrow (June 4).

“We are looking towards the past successes of GEF-8 with very strong results as well as looking forward to the next four years launching GEF-9 with a “sharper focus on impact, speed and scale.”

The GEF-9 replenishment, which was approved in Council, will be presented in the Assembly tomorrow and sends a strong signal: “Multilateral collaboration still matters in the world,” Gascon said as the 71st Council of the GEF concluded in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

Donor countries pledged an initial USD 3.9 billion to help developing countries accelerate their progress towards 2030 environmental goals.

“The USD 3.9 billion represents the initial set of pledges,” he said, adding that despite fiscal pressures globally, “In this climate, it is a very, very strong signal.”

Gascon emphasised that discussions with donor countries are still ongoing.

“We are confident that over the next six to 12 months, we will get significantly higher pledges,” he said, noting that these could be integrated into the GEF‑9 financial framework as they materialise.

Chizuru Aoki, Manager of the Multilateral Environmental Agreements and Funds Division, pointed to upcoming global environment meetings as likely venues for new commitments.

“We are expecting to hold pledging sessions on the occasion of CBD COP17 (the biodiversity COP), as well as other COPs (climate change and desertification),” she said. “The COPs tend to be a very good occasion for a new announcement to be made.”

With public finance under pressure, the GEF is placing greater emphasis on blended finance and other innovative mechanisms to stretch limited resources.

Fred Boltz, head of the Programming Division, said such instruments are “very much in demand” and increasingly central to GEF operations, though not a substitute for core funding.

Gascon clarified how blended finance is structured within GEF operations.

“The blended finance that the GEF puts in is, in fact, grants that we give to countries to develop blended finance projects,” he said. “The GEF portion… is not expected to be paid back by the country.”

He added that even if projects fail, “the GEF money basically is lost”, underscoring the institution’s role in absorbing risk.

This ability to take on risk is designed to attract private capital.

“GEF money can come in and decrease the interest rate or allow the technology to be adopted,” Gascon said, explaining that such support helps make projects commercially viable and encourages private sector participation.

Examples of innovative financing include biodiversity-linked instruments such as species bonds. These allow private investors to fund conservation efforts, with returns tied to measurable outcomes such as increases in wildlife populations. Such models avoid adding to public debt while expanding conservation funding.

The GEF-9 replenishment package introduces structural reforms to make the GEF faster, simpler, and more accountable, ensuring resources reach countries more efficiently, with key strategic priorities including:

• Integrated Programs targeting systemic transformations across nature, food, urban, energy, and health systems to integrate the value of nature in production and consumption systems.
• Blended finance at scale, with an aspirational target of programming 25 percent of resources to mobilize private capital.
• Whole-of-government and whole-of-society engagement, deepening participation of civil society, youth, women, and the private sector.
• Strengthened support for vulnerable countries, with 35 percent of resources directed to support LDCs and SIDS, and 20 percent to support Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

GEF-9 will also allocate USD 100 million to an Indigenous Peoples and local communities Conservation Initiative, four times more than in the previous GEF investment cycle. The initiative provides dedicated and direct funding to Indigenous-led organisations and contributes to their strengthening to enable their participation in GEF projects as executing agencies and funding intermediaries to enhance access.

Aoki highlighted that diversified funding approaches will complement, not replace, traditional sources. At the same time, she reiterated the importance of continued donor engagement.

“Please be on the lookout,” she said, referring to potential pledge announcements linked to upcoming COPs.

The stage is all set for the Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility, which is scheduled to begin on June 4 at the Congress Center in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Eighth Assembly – a ‘Forward-Looking’ Forum

The financing discussion comes as the GEF prepares for its Assembly, which Gascon described as a “forward-looking” forum distinct from the Council’s administrative role.

“The assembly is much more to look forward – trying to bring new ideas and new thoughts,” he said.

Gascon stressed that the Assembly’s main task will be to consolidate emerging ideas into practical directions. “We want to distil those messages into a few key messages that the assembly can adopt,” he said, adding that these will guide implementation during the GEF‑9 cycle.

He also reiterated the GEF’s mandate within the broader global environmental governance system. “We are not here to decide what the COPs should do,” Gascon said. “We are here to implement the guidance that they give us.”

He added that COPs also review GEF performance and provide further direction.

Country Funding

Whatever funding was available, Gascon stressed that the GEF model ensures that recipient countries have 100 percent of the decision-making power in the use of their resources.

“And so, if you go to a restaurant, you have the choice of choosing different dishes on the menu. The same applies to countries; they have GEF programming directions, which serve as a menu for how they can spend their dollars,” said Gascon.

On country eligibility, Aoki confirmed that countries graduating from Least Developed Country (LDC) status will continue to receive support during a transition period.

They will have two more rounds of funding,” she said, describing the approach as a “soft landing”.

These countries include Vanuatu, which graduated from LDC to Developing Countries during the GEF-7 and Bhutan, which just graduated. She added that countries like Bangladesh that chose not to graduate despite being qualified remain unchanged in status.

“If they have not graduated, they have not graduated… nothing changes.”

Addressing suggestions raised informally during Council discussions, which included removing China from the list of GEF’s funding recipients and moving the Cali Fund from the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD) to the GEF , Gascon made clear that the GEF does not independently consider proposals outside established governance processes.

“Our guidance comes from the COPs,” he said.

Looking ahead, Gascon identified adoption of the GEF‑9 package as the primary benchmark for Assembly success. “The most important [outcome] is for the Assembly to adopt the GEF‑9 package,” he said, calling it a key signal to the institution’s 186 member countries.

The overall message from GEF leadership is a recalibration rather than a shift: continued reliance on public pledges, expected to grow over the coming months, combined with a stronger push to use grant capital to unlock private and philanthropic investment.

“We are looking towards the past successes of GEF-8 with very strong results as well as looking forward to the next four years, launching the GEF-9 with a sharper focus on impact, speed and scale,” Gascon said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly is underway until June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Evans Njewa, on behalf of the Least Developed Countries Group, addresses the 71st GEF Council Meeting. Credit: IISD_ENB

By IPS Correspondent
SAMARKAND, Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

Bangladesh, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Niue, Senegal, Solomon Islands, Sudan, and Togo will receive over USD 67 million in new funding to help strengthen resilience.
The funding for vulnerable countries aims to strengthen resilience through a package of projects approved by the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF) and Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) Council, along with a new strategy to guide the funds through 2030.

Meeting in Samarkand ahead of the Eighth GEF Assembly, Council members approved the final LDCF/SCCF Work Program of the GEF-8 period, comprising seven projects under the Least Developed Countries Fund and one project under the Special Climate Change Fund. Along with the USD 67 million, the projects are expected to  mobilise nearly USD 218 million in co-financing.

The funding is expected to assist with mitigating flood and coastal risks, strengthen food and water security, protect ecosystems, improve disaster preparedness, and expand resilient economic opportunities for vulnerable communities.

Claude Gascon, Interim CEO and Chairperson, GEF. Credit: IISD/ENB | Danny Skilton

Claude Gascon, GEF Interim CEO, said the latest tranche of programming responded to evolving national needs, showing how targeted finance was essential in helping countries advance their adaptation priorities while leveraging wider partnerships.

“The work program reflects this demand and the continued relevance of these funds,” Gascon said. “It also shows the catalytic nature of the LDCF and SCCF – working with MDBs and other climate funds and increasingly supporting multi-trust fund projects that align resources across the GEF family of funds.”

The projects include:

• Inclusive and Resilient Agricultural and Rural Entrepreneurship in the DRC, which aims to build community resilience, reduce vulnerability, and strengthen adaptive capacities to climate hazards in the provinces of Congo Central, Kwilu, Kwango, and Haut Katanga. About 200,000 people should benefit. IFAD will implement the project.
• Safeguarding Guinea-Bissau’s Coastlines and Urban Areas from Climate Risks aims to strengthen the adaptive capacity of coastal and urban communities, critical infrastructure, and ecosystems. About 120,000 people are expected to benefit, and the UNDP will implement the project.
• An integrated project to Strengthen the Resilience of Vulnerable Communities and Ecosystems in a Changing Climate in Dakar, Senegal, aims to strengthen the resilience of agricultural communities and populations to floods in the Niayes area and the urban and peri-urban areas of Dakar. It’s expected to deliver direct adaptation benefits to 362,882 people.
• Strengthening Climate-smart Agribusiness and Natural Resource Management for Adaptation and Resilient Livelihoods in Sudan’s River Nile and Northern States aims to reduce vulnerability and enhance the adaptive capacity of agropastoral communities. About 27,000 people should benefit.
• The Sustainable Transport Solutions in Lomé project aims to reduce flood risk and improve the sustainability of urban mobility in Lomé, Togo. It is expected to provide direct adaptation benefits for 45,000 people and will be implemented by BOAD.
• Infrastructure, Ecosystems and Communities Integrated Project in Niue is aimed at climate change adaptation, mitigation, and biodiversity. It is expected to directly benefit 1,142 people, with UNDP as the implementing agency.
• Community Access and Urban Services Enhancement Project II will expand successful models for climate-resilient urban services in Honiara, Solomon Islands, by using integrated flood mitigation, nature-based solutions, and community-based interventions. Expected to benefit 153,285 residents. The World Bank is the implementing agency.
• Enhancing Coastal Adaptation and Resilience in Bangladesh will enhance coastal climate adaptation and resilience improving livelihoods and adaptive capacity for 43,050 people. The Implementing agency is CI.

The approval concludes a significant period of delivery for the two adaptation-focused funds. With this work program and pending medium-sized projects, the LDCF will have supported 90 projects and programs during GEF-8, reaching 44 Least Developed Countries and programming a total of more than USD 750 million. Over the same period, the SCCF is expected to support 40 projects, including 25 projects benefiting non-LDC Small Island Developing States through its dedicated SIDS window, as well as support for technology transfer, innovation, and private sector engagement.

Looking to the Future

Council members also endorsed the GEF-9 Programming Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change for the LDCF and SCCF, setting the direction for programming under the two funds from July 2026 to June 2030.

The strategy provides a framework to help vulnerable countries move from adaptation planning to implementation, with a stronger focus on integrated solutions, locally led action, innovation, private sector engagement, blended finance, and better collaboration across climate funds and development partners.

Evans Njewa, speaking on behalf of Ambassador Adao Soares Barbosa, Chair of the LDC Group, welcomed the work program and strategy while emphasising the continued importance of predictable support for Least Developed Countries in the face of intensifying climate impacts.

“These discussions are not merely procedural. They shape whether adaptation support reaches the countries and communities that need it most,” Njewa said. “Each approval, each endorsement, and each new strategy represents a step closer to a world where the most vulnerable are empowered, supported, and included in the transition toward a climate-resilient future.”

The GEF-9 LDCF/SCCF Programming Strategy sets out two financial scenarios for each fund: USD 1 billion to USD 1.3 billion for the LDCF and USD 200 million to USD 300 million for the SCCF, and it also introduces operational improvements to strengthen access, delivery, innovation, and finance mobilisation. Together, these measures will help the LDCF and SCCF provide more predictable, catalytic support for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States.

The work program also reflects the growing role of the LDCF and SCCF in leveraging wider sources of finance. The LDCF projects are expected to mobilise USD 207.9 million in co-financing, while the SCCF project in Niue is expected to mobilise USD 9.8 million. Several projects involve multilateral development banks and international financial institutions, and they also use multi-trust fund approaches that align LDCF and SCCF financing with broader GEF investments.

Gascon said the decisions in Samarkand would help provide continuity and predictability for countries relying on LDCF and SCCF support.

“With just a few years remaining to deliver on global commitments to 2030, the role of these funds is even more central,” he said. “By endorsing the strategy, this Council has provided a clear framework for the years ahead. The momentum is there, the demand is clear, and the opportunity is in front of us.”

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly is underway until June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Noemi Hernandez Rodriguez Borjas at the first of the 71st GEF Council Meeting. Credit: IISD/ENB/Danny Skilton

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 1 2026 (IPS)

While the Global Environment Facility (GEF) said its eighth replenishment cycle (GEF-8) was about to exceed environmental targets for biodiversity protection, marine conservation, ecosystem restoration, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions, governments and civil society groups called for stronger safeguards to ensure that local communities, Indigenous Peoples, and smaller implementing agencies are not left behind as funding mechanisms become more complex.

The 71st GEF Council Meeting is taking place at the Congress Center in the ancient city of Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

Amid the optimism, delegates cautioned that billions of dollars flowing into efforts to restore forests, protect oceans and combat climate change must also deliver accountability and earn the trust of the communities whose livelihoods are affected.

The delegates endorsed the final work programme under GEF-8, which is expected to bring overall programming to 97 percent of available resources before the four-year cycle ends.

Officials described the programme as politically significant, marking it as the final package of projects before negotiations on the ninth replenishment cycle (GEF-9), which will guide billions of dollars in environmental financing over the coming years.

“We see good progress, and we know that programming is anticipated to be 97 percent by the end of the GEF-8 cycle,” Dr Dawda Badgie, a council member from The Gambia, said, noting that several environmental indicators had surpassed their targets.

Fred Boltz, the GEF’s Head of Programming, said resources across most funding windows would be fully committed by the end of the current four-year cycle.

“In all focal areas, integrated programmes, blended finance, the small grants programme and efforts by indigenous peoples and local communities will yield extraordinary results from GEF-8 investment, achieving or greatly surpassing six of ten GEF-8 outcome targets,” Boltz told delegates.

According to GEF officials, investments under GEF-8 are expected to place well over hundreds of millions of hectares of land and sea under improved biodiversity management, restore more than 10 million hectares of ecosystems, improve management of 59 transboundary water systems and benefit more than 32 million people worldwide.

Boltz said climate investments alone are expected to deliver more than 2.2 billion metric tonnes of greenhouse gas emissions reductions, while marine conservation efforts will contribute to the creation or improved management of more than 1.9 billion hectares of marine protected areas – equivalent to more than five percent of the world’s oceans.

He said targets related to marine protected areas, ecosystem restoration, emissions reductions, shared water ecosystems and sustainable fisheries management are expected to be significantly exceeded by the end of the cycle.

Among the highlighted initiatives was a conservation financing mechanism in Madagascar that combines blended finance resources with climate adaptation funding to support an outcome-payment bond for biodiversity conservation, including the protection of the island’s iconic lemurs.

Boltz said land degradation funding would also be fully utilised, helping restore more than 10 million hectares of land and ecosystems worldwide.

Key projects include support for the Great Green Wall initiative across the Sahel and a water-land management programme in Central Asia covering two river basins that support about 80 percent of the population in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

The chemicals and waste portfolio, expected to reach 95 percent utilisation, is projected to eliminate more than 260,000 metric tonnes of hazardous chemicals and waste through programmes reducing pollution and promoting cleaner industrial production.

One initiative seeks to eliminate mercury use in the non-ferrous metals sector, including copper and aluminium production, industries experiencing growth due to increasing demand from electric vehicles and renewable energy technologies.

The international waters portfolio is expected to be 99 percent committed by the end of GEF-8.

The fund is supporting implementation of the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) agreement in more than 60 countries and has helped improve management of 59 shared water systems globally.

Blended finance resources under GEF-8 are expected to be fully deployed, supporting initiatives such as debt-for-nature swaps in Latin America and the Caribbean and renewable energy investments in small island states.

“The Latin America and Caribbean Debt for Nature Conversion Facility helps countries address debt burdens and support biodiversity conservation at the same time,” he said.

The GEF’s Small Grants Programme, which supports conservation efforts at the community level, is also expected to fully use its allocation.

Boltz said local civil society organisations would help place nearly seven million hectares of landscapes and 300,000 hectares of marine habitats under improved management practices, benefiting around 870,000 people, half of whom are women.

“He added that support for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs) would expand under GEF-9.”
It is expected that the GEF will announce support for 10 Indigenous-led initiatives, including 5 Indigenous-led funds, by the end of 2026.

The fund has invested in youth leadership through the 10-million-dollar Fonseca Leadership Programme, which has supported 250 fellows from 52 countries, 42 percent of whom are young women.

Mohamed Bakarr, who oversees the GEF’s integrated programmes, said that all 11 integrated initiatives approved under GEF-8 were fully programmed.

Together, they deploy USD 1.65 billion in GEF resources and mobilise an additional USD 11.2 billion in co-financing across 98 countries.

“The integrated programmes mobilise 45 percent more co-financing per project on average,” Bakarr said, adding that governments were contributing significantly higher shares of funding than in previous replenishment cycles.

The June 2026 work programme includes 16 projects requiring USD 129.5 million in GEF financing and US$11.9 million in agency fees, for a total allocation of USD 141.3 million.

The projects are expected to leverage USD 828 million in co-financing, resulting in a co-financing ratio of 6.4 to one.

The work programme will support environmental initiatives in more than 19 countries, including seven least-developed countries and four small island developing states.

Delegates hailed a renewable energy initiative in Uzbekistan, which they expect will mobilise more than USD 1 billion in private investment.

Japan’s representative, Yoko Yamoto, described the project as an icon for GEF presence in Central Asia.

“We welcome the development of the NGI project in Uzbekistan, the host country for this session, and especially raising the GEF’s presence in Central Asia,” Yamoto said.

However, the same project attracted criticism.

Representing the GEF Civil Society Organisation Network, Sagar Aryal argued that civil society organisations and affected communities had not been consulted during the project’s design phase.

The criticism reflected broader concerns that GEF’s financial instruments may advance faster than mechanisms designed to ensure transparency, accountability, and community participation.

“The Stakeholder Engagement Plan is promised only before CEO endorsement, not before this Council takes a decision today,” Aryal said. “As GEF scales up blended finance, this question matters more, not less. We ask that community engagement and consultations be required before Council approval and not deferred after it.”

Civil society groups also praised greater support for community-led conservation.

Aryal highlighted continued support for the Critical Ecosystem Partnership Fund and a new Global Flyways Grant Mechanism focused on the East Asian-Australasian Flyway.

“Together, these two projects represent close to 20% of this work programme going to or directly through civil society,” he said. “This is the highest share we have seen… it shows what is possible.”

“As GEF-9 begins, we ask, can this be the floor and not the ceiling?” he added.

Delegates also criticised the concentration of projects among implementing agencies, noting that almost two-thirds of projects were submitted by just Conservation International and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP).

In response to the criticism, Boltz affirmed that, despite the concerns, overall allocations stayed within limits.

“UNDP share presently is at 29.8 percent for GEF-8 overall,” he said, noting that medium-sized projects and enabling activities involving other agencies would help improve diversification.

The Secretariat also defended the programme’s performance, stating that GEF8 was on track to meet or exceed several core environmental targets.

Boltz said six of ten core indicators were on track and that terrestrial and marine conservation areas supported under GEF-8 had surpassed 2 billion hectares, up from 1.5 billion hectares in GEF-7.

As the meeting moved toward endorsing the final work programme, consensus emerged that GEF-8 is ending as one of the institution’s most successful replenishment cycles in environmental results, programming and co-financing. But delegates said success alone would not shield the institution from growing demands for greater inclusion, transparency and institutional diversity.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly is underway until June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

The Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is currently taking place at the Congress Center of Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Nearly 150 country representatives are participating in the week-long assembly and associated meetings. Credit: IISD/ENB/Danny Skilton

By Stella Paul
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, May 31 2026 (IPS)

The 71st Council meeting of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) opened today amid a sharp divide, with donor nations urging broader and increased funding commitments, while developing countries called for more equitable and accessible pathways to environmental finance.

In April, donor countries pledged an initial USD 3.9 billion to the GEF Trust Fund’s ninth replenishment cycle (GEF-9), which will support environmental projects worldwide from 2026 to 2030.

Today, government officials, development banks, philanthropies, and civil society groups welcomed the pledges and highlighted GEF’s “whole of the societies” approach, which aims to involve governments, communities, businesses, and civil society. However, discussions at the meeting preceding the Assembly also reflected a growing challenge: environmental problems are becoming more urgent just as international aid budgets are shrinking.

Developing countries repeatedly raised concerns about whether funding is reaching those who need it most and whether access to it is fair.

Aziz Abdukhakimov, Advisor to the President of Uzbekistan on Environment and Chairman of the National Committee on Ecology and Climate Change, addresses the opening day of the 71st GEF Council meeting. Credit: IISD/ENB/Danny Skilton

Opening the Assembly, GEF Interim Chief Executive Officer Claude Gascon said GEF-9 is designed to “unlock great investments” through stronger cooperation across government agencies while continuing support for least developed countries (LDCs) and small island developing states (SIDS).

“The resources must reach countries more efficiently, where the impacts are greatest,” Gascon said. He pointed to reforms agreed during replenishment talks that aim to simplify procedures and improve accountability.

According to the GEF Secretariat, its current projects are already delivering large-scale environmental benefits. GEF’s blended finance operations have achieved an average co-financing ratio of 18 to 1, meaning every dollar invested by GEF has helped attract many more dollars from public and private sources for biodiversity, climate, land restoration, and pollution projects.

Aziz Abdukhakimov, Advisor to the President of the Republic of Uzbekistan on the Environment and Chairman of the National Committee on Ecology and Climate Change, highlighted the importance of this forum.

“We meet in Samarkand at a moment when the triple planetary crisis is becoming increasingly visible across all regions of the world. At the same time, the window for achieving our global environmental commitments is rapidly decreasing. This is why the role of the GEF is important more than ever,” Abdukhakimov said.

The Opening Council of the Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) is in Progress at the Congress Center of Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

A More Inclusive GEF

A key feature of GEF-9 will be integrated programming, based on the idea that environmental problems such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and land degradation are interconnected and should be tackled together.

Ninety-eight countries, including 31 least developed countries and 26 small island states, are expected to participate in these programs from 2026 to 2030.

More than 100 country-level workshops and consultations have already been held to help countries strengthen their capacity, align GEF funding with national priorities, and increase participation by women, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and the private sector.

Donor countries highlighted what they see as progress. Norway welcomed larger allocations for LDCs and SIDS, as well as funding targets aimed at directing more resources to countries with the greatest needs. Norwegian representatives said they have high expectations for the results GEF-9 will achieve.

Representatives of Indigenous Peoples also described the replenishment process as a major step forward.

Speaking on behalf of the GEF Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group (IPAG), Giovanni B. Reyes said Indigenous communities had a stronger voice in shaping the new funding cycle.

“For the first time, we were at the table of the replenishment. For the first time, our work will be visible in the way it deserves,” Reyes told the Assembly.

“The inclusion of Indigenous Peoples and our territories in the corporate scorecard means our contributions will be counted, our lands recognised, and our results disaggregated alongside women and youth. We have always been there — this is our way of life. Now the data will tell our story and amplify our voices.”

The representative said that commitments to create a dedicated GEF Indigenous Peoples policy, establish procedures for Indigenous-led projects, and allow Indigenous organisations to become accredited implementing agencies represent lasting institutional changes – rather than one-time promises. The representative also warned that failing to protect Indigenous and traditional territories would lead to biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse.

New Partnerships Announced

Several new partnerships were announced during the opening ceremony.

Gascon revealed a partnership with a U.S.-based philanthropy to support biodiversity conservation in Africa through the Africa Protected Areas Initiative.

A video presentation highlighted protected areas such as Kafue National Park and North Luangwa in Zambia, showing how relatively small protected areas can help secure water supplies, support local livelihoods, and conserve globally important wildlife.

Rob Walton of the Blue Nature Alliance described GEF as a key institution in global environmental finance. He highlighted its support for international environmental agreements, including preparations for the Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) treaty, which he called an important milestone for ocean protection.

The World Bank, which serves as trustee of the GEF Trust Fund, announced that USD 3.3 billion has already been confirmed for GEF-9.

Speaking at the Assembly, Maitreyi Das, World Bank Vice Director of Trust Funds and Partner Relations, said additional contributions are expected as donor approval processes continue. For the first time, countries can make pledges throughout the replenishment period rather than only at the beginning.

“This replenishment reflects a shared resolve to advance an ambitious environmental agenda at a very difficult moment for overseas development assistance,” she said. She credited cooperation among donors, recipient countries, civil society, businesses, and international environmental conventions.

Developing Countries Seek Fairer Access

Despite the positive announcements, delegates from developing countries said access to finance remains a major problem.

African representatives described GEF-9 as an important opportunity to address drought, food insecurity, land degradation, and biodiversity loss. However, they warned that available funding remains far below what Africa needs to meet global climate and biodiversity goals by 2030.

While they welcomed increased attention to least developed countries, drylands, and integrated programmes, several African countries cautioned that blended finance and private-sector investment require financial systems and risk-sharing mechanisms that many countries still lack.

“The region therefore calls for stronger grant-based financing, simplified access procedures, and capacity support to ensure equitable participation,” said Baixo Eduardo of Mozambique, who is representing southern African countries at the assembly.

Small island states voiced similar concerns.

Speaking for Caribbean countries, one representative said predictable, adequate, and accessible funding remains essential if SIDS are to achieve environmental and sustainable development goals.

“The ambition of GEF 9 is encouraging,” she said, particularly in biodiversity conservation, climate resilience, and pollution reduction. “But implementation mechanisms must reflect the unique vulnerabilities and capacities of small island developing states.”

Brazilian delegate Simone Carolina Bauch, speaking on behalf of its constituency, welcomed commitments to dedicate 35 percent of GEF-9 funding to biodiversity and 20 percent to Indigenous Peoples and local communities. However, she said that countries should remain in control of how projects are designed and implemented.

Bauch also called for greater clarity on the rules for participating in integrated programmes and warned that co-financing requirements should not become barriers to accessing funds.

Yicheng Yao, representative of China and Hrisheekesh Arvind Modak, representative of India, strongly supported these concerns raised by Bauch and called for simpler and fairer access to green finance.

Responding to these issues, Gascon said resources have been set aside for a country engagement strategy that will help national focal points better understand funding opportunities and make informed decisions.

He added that further guidance on participation in integrated programmes will be presented to the GEF Council later this year, with formal expressions of interest expected in early 2027.

As discussions continue in Samarkand, the GEF said the window for new contributions to the GEF-9 replenishment will remain open throughout the Assembly, allowing countries to make additional pledges for the 2026–2030 funding cycle. Delegates also thanked the government of Uzbekistan for hosting the assembly.

Notes: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly is underway in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

LED street lights have been installed in the area around Hyderabad's famous Necklace Road, a scenic boulevard in the heart of the city that curves around the Hussain Sagar Lake. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
HYDERABAD, India, May 28 2026 (IPS)

Ahead of the Eighth Global Environment Facility (GEF) Assembly in Samarkand, governments and development institutions are grappling with a familiar challenge: How to finance environmental action at the scale required to meet rapidly growing needs.

As public budgets tighten and biodiversity and climate risks intensify, attention is increasingly turning to blended finance – an approach that combines concessional public funding with commercial investment to mobilise large-scale capital.

Supporters say this model can reduce investment risks and unlock private capital for projects that might otherwise struggle to secure funding. Critics caution that such approaches still depend heavily on public support and may not be easily replicable everywhere.

In Hyderabad, India, one of the world’s largest municipal LED streetlighting programs has emerged as a prominent example of how blended finance can work in practice.

Turning Streetlights into Climate Finance

Hyderabad, a rapidly expanding and climate-vulnerable metropolis, has sought to address rising temperatures and growing energy demand by retrofitting its street lighting system with energy-efficient LEDs under India’s Street Lighting National Programme (SLNP). The initiative was part of a broader programme – Creating and Sustaining Markets for Energy Efficiency – implemented by Energy Efficiency Services Limited (EESL) in partnership with the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the Asian Development Bank (ADB), with support from the GEF.

The program combined GEF grant funding with more than USD 434 million in co-financing to deploy energy-efficient technologies at scale.

“The environmental financing gap runs into hundreds of billions of dollars annually. This is a scale that grants and ODA alone cannot close,” said Fred Boltz, Head of Programming at the GEF.

“Mobilising private capital is essential to sustaining a healthy planet.”

Blended finance works by reducing risks for private investors – through concessional loans, guarantees, or grant support – making projects viable in markets where returns are uncertain. By absorbing part of the risk, public or philanthropic funding enables commercial investors to participate in sectors such as renewable energy, biodiversity, and sustainable infrastructure, which are often perceived as too risky.

In Hyderabad, EESL financed the installation of LED streetlights and recovered costs through future energy savings, eliminating the need for large upfront spending by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC).

More than 450,000 streetlights were replaced during the initial phases, with further expansion extending coverage across the city. Electricity consumption linked to public lighting dropped by roughly half, generating annual savings of more than ₹1 billion (about USD 12 million) while significantly reducing carbon emissions.

How Savings Became an Asset

The financing structure relied on a “deemed savings” model. Instead of paying upfront, municipal authorities repaid investments over time using verified reductions in electricity and maintenance costs.

Supporters say such arrangements help cities modernise infrastructure, despite budget constraints. But analysts warn that they depend on accurate projections, reliable maintenance, and strong institutional capacity.

Experts agree that blended finance works best when public institutions remain actively involved in implementation and oversight.

In Hyderabad, the programme incorporated a Centralised Monitoring and Control System (CCMS), allowing authorities to track electricity use, detect faults, and monitor performance in real time.

The system improved operational oversight while generating the data needed for performance-linked financing – where payments are tied to independently verified outcomes.

Newly retrofitted LED street lights on the eastern edge of Hyderabad, in India. LED lights are a cost- and energy-efficient alternative to other lighting and bring a sense of security to the areas where they are installed. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Beyond Carbon: From Climate Finance to Everyday Life

For residents, the effects of the LED transition are often experienced less in financial or technical terms than in everyday routines and perceptions of safety.

Kavitha Ramavath (27) and her husband, Ravi Ramavath (35), recently moved with their two young children to Uppal Bhagath, a fast-growing neighbourhood on the eastern edge of Hyderabad. They previously lived in Uppal Kalan, about four kilometres away, where housing was cheaper, but the infrastructure was poor. Kavitha works as a domestic worker, while Ravi drives an auto-rickshaw.

Although their rent has nearly doubled, improved lighting has changed their daily lives.

“This area is more lively, with wider and better-lit roads,” Kavitha said, pointing toward an LED streetlight outside her lane. “Earlier, I used to feel scared walking alone to drop or pick up my children from tuition classes.”

Now, she says, her children can play outside longer in the evenings and nearby shops keep their shutters open later. Ravi adds that he can park his auto-rickshaw outside their home without worrying about theft or damage.

Urban planners say improved public lighting can influence mobility, informal economic activity, and perceptions of public safety – especially for women and children.

Last week, Kavitha started a small fruit cart outside her home. The brighter street allows her to continue working after dusk, when customer footfall increases.

For her family, the benefits are not measured in emissions reductions or financing structures but in the possibility of earning a little more income while feeling safer in public spaces.

From Local Streets to Global Finance Models

While Hyderabad’s experience highlights blended finance in climate mitigation, the model increasingly extends far beyond energy efficiency.

Across the world, GEF-backed blended finance initiatives are channelling investments into biodiversity conservation, ocean protection, and sustainable supply chains. These projects demonstrate how public funding can unlock private capital in sectors that have traditionally struggled to attract investment.

In Brazil, for instance, the Living Amazon Mechanism combines capital market instruments with philanthropic funding to support sustainable supply chains in the Amazon. It links cooperatives and local producers with financing while reducing risk through the participation of a corporate buyer, Natura, which acts as an investor and off-taker.

Similarly, global platforms such as the IFC–GEF Green Global Supply Chain Decarbonisation Initiative aim to provide long-term, green-linked loans to manufacturers and suppliers in emerging markets, helping address a critical barrier – access to affordable capital for decarbonisation.

At the sovereign level, blended finance is also enabling innovative debt and bond instruments. The Seychelles blue bond, supported by a World Bank guarantee and GEF concessional financing, has demonstrated how countries can raise private capital for marine conservation while reducing borrowing costs

In Latin America and the Caribbean, a new facility backed by the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB) and GEF is using blended finance to expand debt-for-nature conversions, which allow countries to refinance debt at lower costs and redirect savings toward biodiversity conservation and climate resilience.

These models share a common principle: public or concessional capital absorbs risks, enabling private investors to enter sectors where financial returns alone might not justify investment.

Building Markets Beyond Cities

The Hyderabad programme did not stop with municipal infrastructure. Through India’s UJALA initiative, EESL also expanded access to LED lighting in households by aggregating demand and procuring bulbs in bulk.

This approach helped reduce LED bulb prices dramatically, making energy-efficient lighting affordable for millions of households and introducing on-bill financing systems that allowed payments in small instalments.

By addressing both public infrastructure and household demand, the programme aimed not only to deploy energy-efficient technologies but also to create long-term, self-sustaining markets.

“The path to scalable environmental outcomes runs through blended finance. Public capital does what private capital won’t – it absorbs excess risk and funds the rigorous monitoring that turns lessons into lasting change. Crowd out the public, and you crowd out the results,” said Boltz.

A Test Case for Blended Finance

As global discussions on climate and biodiversity financing intensify, Hyderabad is increasingly being viewed as a test case for how blended finance can operate at the city level.

Srinivas Kona, a clean energy expert from the Hyderabad-based consultancy Proventure, says, “The LED programme demonstrated how concessional funding, public-sector implementation, and savings-based repayment structures can work together to expand urban infrastructure without large upfront municipal expenditure.”

At the same time, he cautions that challenges remain. “It’s not clear how easily such models can be replicated elsewhere, especially in smaller cities with weaker revenue systems and lower administrative capacity,” he said, noting reports of maintenance issues affecting some installations.

Still, Hyderabad’s experience offers a glimpse into how global finance debates translate into visible changes in everyday urban life.

Last week, Kavitha Ramavath stood beside her new fruit cart under a bright LED streetlight, arranging guavas and bananas as evening customers passed by.

Fruit vending comes with risks, she says, but the extra income could help her family manage rising rent and school expenses.

For Kavitha, the impact of blended finance is not measured in investment flows or policy frameworks. It is reflected in the ability to work longer hours safely, earn a little more money, and imagine a more stable future for her children.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Anup Jagwani, Global Director for Farming and Agribusiness at the World Bank Group, addresses the World Seed Congress. Credit: Supplied

By Friday Phiri
LISBON, May 26 2026 (IPS)

It is often said that the quality of seed determines the quality of the produce and, consequently, the sustainability of the entire agricultural value chain, influencing everything from crop yields to nutritional value.

The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) emphasises that “we cannot have good crops if we do not have quality seeds”, a principle that underpins global efforts to improve food and nutritional security. It may thus be safe to conclude that seed is the foundation of good health.

The week of 18 to 23 May 2026 witnessed two related but parallel global events: one on global health, the 79^th World Health Assembly in Geneva by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the other on the importance of seeds to global agriculture and food security, the World Seed Congress, organised by the International Seed Federation (ISF).

With a record attendance of more than 1,700 delegates and guests representing over 900 companies and organisations in Lisbon and held under the theme “Joint Actions, Resilient Futures”, the seed congress called for a collective commitment and action at a moment when the multilateral frameworks underpinning global food and nutritional security are under unprecedented strain.

The Congress took place amid mounting pressure on global agri-food systems, sparked by conflicts and worsened by climate change. In 2025, two famines were declared in a single year for the first time. This year, recent geopolitical tensions continue to threaten global trade and economic stability, while an estimated 700 million people worldwide, primarily in Africa and Western Asia, still face hunger each year.

And experts have warned that climate change, including a predicted El Niño event in mid-2026, could push an additional 132 million people in vulnerable contexts into food and nutrition insecurity within five years due to rising temperatures’ impacts on crop yields.

Michael Keller, Secretary General of the International Seed Federation. Credit: Supplied

“It would be easy to look at the state of the world and conclude that international cooperation is in retreat. But the seed industry tells a different story,” says Michael Keller, Secretary General of ISF. “We are here in Lisbon in record numbers in this critical year because we know that collaboration, innovation, and joint actions are practical and appropriate responses to the scale of the truly global challenges we face now and in the future. Unfortunately, in Africa, non-flexible legal and regulatory frameworks still hamper innovation by private seed companies.

And about 2,000 km away in Geneva, WHO Director General Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus delivered a similar message, focused on the theme “Reshaping global health: a shared responsibility”, strongly reinforcing the interconnected nature of global health and climate change resilience with several important social determinants of health, including food systems and nutrition.

Ghebreyesus highlighted the importance of not treating health as a standalone sector but rather ensuring that all social determinants of health are well-functioning in support of resilience, sovereignty, and protection of communities from crises.

The chain is simple: climate change threatens agricultural production, food systems, and access to nutritious food, leading to malnutrition, and malnutrition in turn increases vulnerability to infectious diseases and public health emergencies.

Role of Seed Breeding Innovations for Health

Seed innovations alone account for 74 percent of the yield gains observed in crops in the European Union, according to S&P Global Commodity Insights. However, the global system of crop variety development depends heavily on cross-border trade, with the typical novel varieties bred, tested, produced, and distributed across multiple countries before they reach a farmer’s hands.

“Seed companies invest up to 30 percent of their turnover in research and development because we believe that innovation is key to solving problems at scale and for generations to come,” said Arthur Santosh Attavar, ISF President and Managing Chair of the international seed company Indo-American Hybrid Seeds. “ISF continues to work with national and regional seed associations, as well as governments, to create enabling policy environments that help ensure innovations reach farmers quickly and without unnecessary delays or restrictions.”

In the wake of increased climate-induced extreme weather events, one of the key innovations in seed breeding has been ‘climate-resilient seed’ to withstand not only intensified droughts but also the increased prevalence of pests and diseases related to drought conditions.

But the World Bank believes breeding seed that could go beyond being drought tolerant to high nutritional value could be a game changer.

“Until now, we have been dealing with climate resilience largely from the drought and sometimes excess rainfall perspective, but can we also start looking at developing seed varieties by building in additional nutritional aspects such as high protein content? At the World Bank, we are looking at different ways of how to build food systems resilience in a holistic way—covering the entire value chain from seed, infrastructure, markets and all the in-between, with a clear focus on sustainability,” said Anup Jangwani, Global Director of Farming and Agribusiness at the World Bank Group.

Sustained Awareness is Key for Sustainability  

Environmental sustainability has, in recent years, become a buzzword in the wake of increasing climate impacts. Unfortunately, there have been some cases of greenwashing linked to environmental sustainability – the promotion of false solutions to the climate crisis that distract from and delay concrete and credible action.

However, at Companhia das Lezírias the largest agricultural and forestry holding in Portugal, “environmental sustainability is a lived reality,” says Sandra Alcobia, who serves as a biologist and is responsible for tourism and visitation.

“Here we live and practice environmental sustainability in reality; our production is organic in every sense. In 2015, the drought conditions that we suffered provided us with an awakening to make a drastic change, and we have not looked back. We are proud to be a certified carbon-neutral establishment.”

Established in 1836, the farm boasts 20,000 hectares of land for crop farming, animal rearing and forestry – all premised on the principles of sustainability, emphasising organic practices.

But Antonio Farrim, Veterinarian and Director of Agriculture Production at Companhia das Lezírias, believes public awareness is key to the climate-resilient and sustainable agenda.

“Governments must take full responsibility for sensitising the public on the health benefits of sustainably grown food,” he says. “For example, in beef production, the colour of meat produced organically is not usually appealing to the eye; it is slightly dark with yellow fat. In terms of nutrition, however, this is the most healthy beef one can get, and yet most consumers don’t understand this fact. It is, therefore, incumbent upon governments to undertake sustained awareness for both environmental sustainability and good health. For us here at Companihia, we don’t only produce for sustainability but also for the good health of the consumers.”

Head of External Communication at Syngenta, one of the world’s biggest agricultural innovation companies, Dimitri Houtart agrees with the importance of the public awareness narrative.

Houtart says the growing global population poses a challenge as the global community races to produce enough for everyone, sustainably, with limited land. This, he states, can only be achieved through innovation and sustained public awareness for uptake of innovative technologies that support high productivity.

However, he notes, “misinformation on catalytic research and innovations to improve productivity while preserving environmental integrity is one of the drawbacks.”

“The need for a well-informed cadre of agricultural journalists cannot be over-emphasised. For me, Agricultural journalism is the most important branch of this profession because the agricultural information needs of the public, especially in this era of social media, are immense.”

Breeding Innovations for Africa’s Unique Challenges   

A quick search on post‑harvest losses in Africa reveals that it ranges between 20 and 40%, especially in crops such as maize, cassava, cowpea, and bananas, some of the continent’s staple crops

Losses are largely attributed to pests, diseases, poor storage and climate stress. While technological advancement is a critical means of enhancing agricultural productivity and improving food and nutrition security in many low- and middle-income countries, it has been slow to gain traction in Africa.

Thus, one of the innovations being tried is to breed crops that resist the noted stresses and reduce losses before they happen.

Professor Mohammed Ishiyaku of the Institute for Agricultural Research in Nigeria is one of the lead scientists behind Pod Borer Resistant cowpea – a variety developed by Nigerian scientists over three decades, now approved and growing commercially in Nigeria, with regulatory approvals advancing across the region.

“Legume Pod Borer (Maruca vitrata) is one of the most damaging insect pests limiting cowpea production,” says Prof. Ishiyaku. “The damage caused by the pod borer to cowpea plants reduces the size and quality of the cowpea harvest. It can reduce grain yield by up to 80%. Farmers typically spray pesticides up to 6 – 10 times within a planting season in an attempt to control this insect pest, but this is often not effective because the chemicals do not reach the pest larvae inside the plant tissues. The chemicals are also expensive, their availability to farmers is limited, and inadequate training in their use often leads to unintended dangerous human health and safety impacts. Therefore, a Cowpea product that can protect itself from Legume Pod borer damage makes it easier and cheaper for farmers to produce cowpeas in areas where this pest is a problem.”

An international public-private partnership, managed and coordinated by the African Agricultural Technology Foundation (AATF), is developing Pod-Borer Resistant Cowpeas.

Sticking with innovation, Bruce Knight of Legume Technology, based in the United Kingdom, has been conducting trials on how to support smallholder farmers in Africa with affordable means of accessing inoculants for legume seeds.

With limited resources, most smallholder farmers on the continent still use untreated seeds, usually kept from the previous harvest. To help boost productivity, Dr Bruce Knight has, through support from the Gates Foundation, developed an affordable and tailor-made small-packaged inoculant solution that is able to treat at least a hectare of legume seeds.

“After 10 years of trials, we have finally got it right; we have developed an affordable inoculant solution for smallholder farmers in Africa,” says Knight. “So far, our product has outperformed other inoculant producers on the continent, and we are geared to roll out and support smallholder farmers with this tailor-made solution.”

A well-known health phrase, “You are what you eat”, implies that food is the foundation of good health. What you eat dictates your general well-being. Seed, from which most food is cultivated, is therefore the foundation of optimal health.

The author is the Climate Change and Health Advocacy Lead at Amref Health Africa.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

The community works to preserve its identity amid pressure from real estate development and non-Indigenous settlers. Credit: Samuel Tremembé

By Carla Ruas
BELÉM, Brazil, May 21 2026 (IPS)

On Brazil’s northeastern coast, the Indigenous community, Tremembé da Barra do Mundaú, lives on a preserved stretch of land shaped by mangroves, dunes, and deserted beaches. The group of around 160 families is led by women and depends on the 3,500-hectare territory for fishing and subsistence farming.

In 2023, the Tremembé won federal recognition of their ancestral land in the state of Ceará – giving them formal control over the territory.

But their home remains under threat. As tourism has expanded, they have faced growing pressure from real estate developments and around 100 non-Indigenous settlers. A push for renewable energy has also brought nearby wind projects that the community says damage the environment and disrupt their way of life.

“We have many problems here, including trash in our rivers, cars scaring away animals, and people damaging the dunes,” said Cleidiane Tremembé, a local Indigenous teacher. “With the installation of wind farms, many fish species have also disappeared from our river, and we’re catching fewer fish.”

The Tremembé da Barra do Mundaú Indigenous Land protects 27 km of mangrove forest and 8 km of coastline. Credit: Samuel Tremembé

This May, the group will begin investing roughly US$300,000 in efforts to protect their territory. The funds come from the Ywy Ipuranguete (‘beautiful land’) project – an ambitious initiative that aims to distribute a total of US$9 million to 15 Indigenous Lands across Brazil by 2030.

The project is coordinated by Brazil’s Ministry of Indigenous Peoples (MPI), implemented by the Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), and financed through the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund (GBFF). The GBFF, whose donors include the governments of Canada, Norway and the United Kingdom, is managed by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – the world’s largest multilateral environmental fund.

According to the GEF, the goal is to support the protection of Indigenous territories as a strategy to conserve biodiversity and strengthen climate resilience.

“A growing body of evidence shows that territories managed by Indigenous Peoples — particularly where land tenure is formally recognised — consistently rank among the most effective settings for maintaining biodiversity, retaining carbon stocks, and preserving ecological integrity, often outperforming both unprotected lands and formally designated conservation areas,” said Adriana Moreira, Lead of the Partnerships Division at the GEF.

If fully implemented, the project would help protect 6.4 million hectares and reach around 61,000 Indigenous people.

Following the project’s launch in March 2025, the Tremembé will be among the first communities to put the funds into action.

Tremembé community member Mateus Castro says their goal is to preserve their land and culture for future generations. Credit: Julia Holanda

Mateus Castro, a community member coordinating the work locally, said the money will be used primarily to acquire drones, radio transmitters, vehicles and a boat to help secure the territory’s boundaries.

“We want to monitor and record the presence of outsiders,” he said in an interview. “This project will allow us to have the tools that give our territory security and autonomy.”

The same equipment would help the community inventory local ecosystems and animal species. Their coastal stretch is home to a wide range of species – from fish and crabs to endangered sea turtles.

“We want to record the species along our coastline so we can use that information as a defence against the licensing of new offshore wind farms,” he said.

With the funding, they also plan to reforest degraded areas, train local environmental brigades, and fund traditional festivals. The first will be the Farinhada Festival that takes place in July. During the festivities, families celebrate cassava as a sacred food and prepare traditional dishes for younger generations.

“In Indigenous culture, everything is connected,” Castro said. “Our goal is to preserve our land, culture, and identity for the children who are yet to be born. We are thinking 100, 200 years from now.”

Future Plans

The Indigenous communities selected to participate in the Ywy Ipuranguete project were chosen by FUNAI, Brazil’s federal Indigenous affairs agency, with input from Indigenous organisations.

The priority was given to groups outside the Amazon, including the Tremembé in Ceará, as part of an effort to decentralise environmental funding. Nearly half of Brazil’s 1.69 million Indigenous people live outside the Legal Amazon, according to the legal census.

“If we look at environmental projects in general, funding, implementation, and resources are usually focused on the Amazon,” said Francisco Itamar Gonçalves Melgueiro, FUNAI’s general coordinator for environmental policies. “That is why we distributed the project across five biomes in Brazil – the Amazon, Pantanal, Cerrado, Caatinga and Atlantic Forest.”

FUNAI also selected communities that had recently removed invaders from their lands, including the Kayapó and Munduruku, who have been in conflict with illegal miners in the Amazon for decades. “After that removal, we see an opportunity for Indigenous peoples to fully retake possession of their territories,” Melgueiro said.

Communities did not need their territories to be fully recognised by the federal government to qualify for the funding. However, they had to submit detailed plans, known as PGTAs, which are part of a broader set of Indigenous territorial and environmental management documents.

During the Farinhada Festival, families celebrate cassava and prepare traditional dishes such as tapioca crepes. Credit: Julia Holanda

“These plans serve as blueprints for their future and cover a wide range of themes and actions,” Melgueiro said. “They are an instrument of the peoples, built by the peoples.”

But many are still working on their PGTAs. More than a decade after Brazil created the framework for these plans, a 2023 civil-society report found that Indigenous communities have received little support for their development, especially during the administration of Brazilian right-wing President Jair Bolsonaro. To date, FUNAI has mapped just 148 PGTAs in a country with more than 800 Indigenous Lands.

The first year of the Ywy Ipuranguete project has been largely dedicated to helping participating communities finalise and detail their PGTAs. The Brazilian Biodiversity Fund (FUNBIO), GEF’s implementing agency, told IPS that this “is a massive and meticulous undertaking”, as they work with Indigenous communities to “determine which PGTA activities are to be undertaken, the best methods for executing them, and the specific implementation arrangements for each Indigenous Land”.

According to Brazil’s Ministry of Indigenous Peoples (MPI), only about 8% of the total budget has been spent so far, mostly on planning, coordination and initial activities. Eventually, MPI said, 75% of the budget will go directly to the communities, with much of the funding transferred to Indigenous organisations. “Investing in Indigenous peoples to maintain their own ways of existing is investing in the survival of humanity itself,” the ministry said in a statement.

Community members say fish species have disappeared from their river following the installation of nearby wind farms. Credit: Samuel Tremembé

“Investing in Indigenous peoples to maintain their own ways of existing is investing in the survival of humanity itself,” the ministry said in a statement.

In Tremembé da Barra do Mundaú, where plans are underway, the community feels ready. The funding will build on years of work, from training young environmental agents to documenting food traditions.

“This is one of the largest resources the territory has ever received,” Castro said. “For us, it’s a huge opportunity to consolidate and strengthen our mission of caring for the land.”

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Odo Tevi, Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN, speaks at the General Assembly. Credit : UN WEB TV

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 21 2026 (IPS)

Member states this week (May 20) deliberated over a draft resolution on states’ obligations in respect of climate change following the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The General Assembly agreed to take measures to uphold the ICJ’s advisory opinion for member states to meet their existing obligations to climate justice under international law and multilateral frameworks.

The draft resolution (A/80/L.65) passed with 141 votes in favor, 8 votes against, and 28 abstentions. It was brought forward by the Republic of Vanuatu, along with the Core Group of States leading the UN General Assembly resolution responding to the ICJ advisory opinion. The resolution was introduced after a long period of consultations between member states. It outlines member states’ obligations to ensure the protection of the climate system by calling for multilateral cooperation to address what the ICJ has called an “existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

“This day will be remembered. It will be remembered as the moment the United Nations received the considered judgment of its highest court of its defining challenge of our time and decided what to do with it. Vanuatu and the Core Group believe this Assembly should meet that moment with unity, with seriousness, and with respect for the law and one another,” said Odo Tevi, Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN.

Voting Record of Resolution A-80-L.65. Credit: UN TV

When introducing the draft resolution to the Assembly, Tevi remarked that the ICJ opinion “confirms that the protection of the climate system is a matter of legal obligation, not political discretion.” It would not replace or challenge existing agreements such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement, but rather reinforce them as the primary legislations and forums for the world’s response to climate change.

Amendments to the resolution were brought forward by a small group of member states, which included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria. Those that argued for the amendments posited that the current resolution required further legal clarity, particularly as it related to the measures required to support developing countries in mitigation and adaptation. At the same time, there were concerns that the amendments weakened the language around the actions and responsibilities of member states, and tabling them so late into the provision would risk undermining the careful negotiations. Ultimately though, the amendments did not pass and the resolution was adopted without them.

In their remarks following the vote, member states welcomed the adoption of the resolution in light of recognizing climate change as a defining existential issue of the modern age, commending Vanuatu for its leadership in pushing for the resolution.

Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small-Island Developing States (SIDS), Filipo Tarakinikini, Permanent Representative of Fiji to the UN, welcomed the resolution, remarking that it was an “affirmation of survival” for island nations that have been uniquely threatened by climate change, experiencing lasting damages to their homes and their connection to heritage.

“We do not come to this hall asking for mercy. We come demanding justice. Justice that is today grounded in the authoritative voice of the world’s highest court. The Pacific will not disappear, and neither will our resolve,” said Tarakinikini.

Jérôme Bonnafont, Permanent Representative of France, said that this General Assembly decision was welcome in light of an “international context marred by many crises.”

“[France] will continue to defend ambitious climate action, multilateralism, respect for international law, and a science-based approach for sustainable development and for future generations,” Bonnafont said.

James Larsen, Permanent Representative of Australia, hoped that this resolution would “galvanize practical efforts” to protect the climate system and that the case for multilateralism has “never been stronger.” With Australia set to host COP31 later this year, Larsen remarked his country would continue working together with member states to accelerate climate action.

Among those that abstained from voting or were against the resolution are states accused of being major carbon emitters, including G77 members like India and Saudi Arabia. Both the United States of America and the Russian Federation voted against the resolution.

Prior to the vote, the United States expressed that their opposition was based on their “serious legal and policy concerns” about the resolution. The U.S. delegate noted that the resolution called for states to fulfill alleged obligations based on a non-binding ruling from the ICJ, and opposed the resolution’s “inappropriate political demands” to address climate issues.

The Russian Federation’s delegate argued after that member states’ climate obligations, such as the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold, were more of a political obligation rather than normative and that the resolution was an effort to circumvent existing climate agreements.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the adoption of the resolution, commending the leadership of Pacific Island countries, SIDs and the students and activists whose “moral clarity helped bring the world to this moment.”

“The world’s highest court has spoken. Today, the General Assembly has answered,” said Guterres. “This is a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis… Those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price. That injustice must end.”

Reacting to the debate, Yamide Dagnet, NRDC’s Senior Vice President, International, said, “Climate justice prevails! The world sent a loud signal that multilateralism and science matter and can deliver for the people and the planet.”

While congratulating the Small Island States, the youths and frontline communities who refused to stand down for their energy, tenacity and leadership, she noted,  “There will be a lot of noise about the difficulty in enforcing this resolution, but the reality is that it represents a watershed moment for polluter accountability. Moving forward, regulators and courts have an additional tool in their arsenal to force nations and companies to look at how they can put people over pollution and better protect the world’s most impacted communities and countries with dignity.”

The Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu, Jotham Napat, said the country expressed profound gratitude to 141 Member States that voted in favor of the UNGA resolution welcoming the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on climate change and to the 90 States that stood together as co-sponsors of this historic initiative.

“This outcome is a powerful affirmation that the international community remains committed to the rule of law, multilateral cooperation, and climate justice at a time when these principles are being tested,” Napat said while acknowledging that the resolution was the first step in a new journey.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

 
CIVICUS discusses the cancellation of RightsCon 2026 with Barbora Bukovská, Senior Director for Law and Policy at ARTICLE 19, a human rights organisation that works on freedom of expression and information around the world.

Barbora Bukovská

Why does the cancellation of RightsCon matter?

This cancellation is significant on three levels. First, it means the loss of community. The human rights movement depends on relationships built across borders and over time. RightsCon was one of the few global spaces where civil society organisations, funders, governments, journalists, researchers and technology professionals could meet without political interference. Losing it means losing opportunities to build solidarity and strengthen the networks the movement runs on.

Second, it was a symbolic blow. RightsCon represented the idea that at least one global space existed where civil society could convene freely, protected from political pressure. That illusion is now shattered. The space proved vulnerable. It is yet more evidence of shrinking civic space globally, and the message it sends is chilling: no space is truly protected from state interference any more.

Third, it caused financial damage. Following funding cuts from the USA in early 2025 and reduced funding from other major donor governments, civil society is struggling to secure resources. Organisations had invested precious funding to attend RightsCon, covering travel, organising side events and preparing advocacy materials. These are resources vulnerable civil society organisations cannot afford to waste.

What does this episode reveal about transnational repression?

The cancellation lays bare how emboldened China feels to globalise its political red lines and exercise transnational repression. For years, it has applied pressure on governments to sideline Taiwanese participation in multilateral forums. Taiwan’s leading role in digital rights and technology has long irritated China. What’s new is other governments’ willingness to yield.

China’s tactics have grown more sophisticated. Rather than open confrontation, it leverages threats of diplomatic fallout or lost investment. The pressure now extends into spaces once thought beyond its reach, such as cultural institutions, rights conferences and universities. China has shown it can coerce governments across sectors and at multiple levels.

The wider context matters too. The USA, once a leading global supporter of internet freedom, has retreated from diplomatic and financial backing for digital rights. China’s influence on the African continent has expanded in the absence of rights-based alternatives. When democratic states withdraw support for civil society, authoritarian influence fills the void.

How do China’s leverage and Zambia’s democratic decline combine?

China’s leverage across Africa has grown substantially in recent years. Chinese funding has built major infrastructure in Zambia, including Mulungushi International Conference Centre, the venue where RightsCon was due to take place. Only days before the cancellation, China signed a new agreement to fund further development projects. Zambia carries roughly US$5 billion in debt to China, and that dependency comes with strings attached.

Domestically, the picture is similarly bleak. Despite President Hakainde Hichilema being elected in 2021 on a promise of democratic renewal, civic space has shrunk steadily since. In 2025, parliament passed cybersecurity laws now used to curtail freedom of expression online and detain political opponents. Ahead of the August 2026 general election, the government is enacting further laws designed to entrench its power. Political control is winning out over democratic commitments.

Yielding to Chinese pressure while restricting civic space at home calls Zambia’s commitment to the rule of law and human rights into serious doubt. The debt creates a channel through which China can extract political cooperation. Together, these dynamics create a dangerous precedent for other global south nations facing similar pressure.

What does this mean globally?

The danger extends well beyond Zambia. If a government can cancel a major international civil society gathering without serious diplomatic or institutional consequences, it sends the wrong signals. States must show that interference carries costs. Democratic states, multilateral organisations and regional institutions must impose costs through sustained pressure and exclusion from future convenings.

International human rights mechanisms, including the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Rights to Freedom of Peaceful Assembly and of Association, have already condemned Zambia’s decision. But statements alone are not enough. Zambia shouldn’t be considered a reliable host for rights-based global dialogue in future.

If governments can yield to authoritarian pressure at the expense of civil society protections without paying a price, the pattern will spread.

What steps should be taken to protect global civil society forums?

Civil society can adapt but cannot insulate its gatherings from state pressure on its own. Real responsibility lies with states that claim to support human rights. They must send a diplomatic and political signal that interference in global forums is costly and prevent other governments from following Zambia’s example. They must reaffirm their commitment to multi-stakeholder forums and invest in civil society’s ability to convene and participate.

That includes member states of international coalitions such as the Freedom Online Coalition and the Media Freedom Coalition. They must act against restrictions on civic space and freedom of expression, using these platforms to impose costs on governments that interfere with civil society. The behaviour Zambia has just normalised must be made costly.

The UN, other intergovernmental organisations and states must work to guarantee the safety and openness of global gatherings. As democratic states withdraw support and authoritarian states expand their reach, the spaces where global civil society can gather, build relationships and advance human rights will continue to shrink. What’s at stake is the infrastructure of global civil society coordination and solidarity.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent.

GET IN TOUCH
Website
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
LinkedIn
Twitter
YouTube
Barbora Bukovská/LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
Democracy: an enduring aspiration CIVICUS | State of Civil Society Report 2026
Zambia: ‘Constitutional changes in an election period tend to be driven by political expediency rather than the public interest’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Gideon Musonda 24.Dec.2025
Zambia: ‘The NGO Bill strengthens legal mechanisms designed to discredit or silence critical civil society voices’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Josiah Kalala 03.Jun.2025

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Claude Gascon, Interim CEO and Director of Strategy and Operations at the Global Environment Facility. Credit: The GEF

By Stella Paul
WASHINGTON D.C. & HYDERABAD, India, May 19 2026 (IPS)

As governments prepare for the Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – scheduled to be held from May 30 to June 6 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan – the stakes are unusually high.

Climate change, biodiversity collapse, pollution, debt distress and geopolitical fragmentation are converging at a moment when environmental finance is under growing scrutiny. For many countries in the Global South, the challenge is no longer only about ambition but also about whether global systems can deliver fast enough and fairly enough.

For Claude Gascon – Interim CEO and Director of Strategy and Operations at the GEF – the question facing the organisation is how to turn urgency into action while operating in an increasingly volatile world.

“A meaningful outcome is turning urgency into action,” Gascon says in an exclusive interview with IPS, describing what success at the upcoming Assembly would look like. That includes public confirmation of country pledges to the GEF and final approval of a strong GEF9 package that will guide investments for the next four years. He also points to endorsement of several priorities that the institution sees as central to its future direction: integrated programming, blended finance, whole-of-government approaches, and stronger support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

“All this signals that multilateralism is delivering and positions us to accelerate impact in the final sprint toward the 2030 global environmental goals,” he says.

Gascon stepped into the role of Interim CEO during a period of overlapping crises and mounting pressure on international institutions. While many governments continue to demand bigger environmental outcomes, donor fatigue, economic instability and competing geopolitical priorities are tightening the availability of public finance.

“We need to do more with less, and to accomplish that, we chose disciplined ambition,” he says.

The full interview follows:

IPS: The Eighth GEF Assembly comes at a time of overlapping crises – climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. What, in your view, would define a meaningful outcome from this Assembly?

Claude Gascon: A meaningful outcome is turning urgency into action. This includes public confirmation of country pledges to the GEF and final approval of a strong GEF-9 package that will guide our investments for the next four years. The Assembly is also an opportunity for clear endorsement of the ambitious priorities we’ve agreed on: a focus on integration and integrated programs, mainstreaming blended finance to mobilise private capital, whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, and strengthened support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous People and local communities (IPCLs). All this signals that multilateralism is delivering and positions us to accelerate impact in the final sprint toward the 2030 global environmental goals.

IPS: As the Interim CEO, you are navigating a volatile global context. What difficult trade-offs have you had to make between ambition and feasibility?

Gascon: We need to do more with less, and to accomplish that, we chose disciplined ambition. For example, we are channelling resources through integrated programs in nature, food, urban, energy, and health systems and setting a target of programming 25 percent of our resources to mobilise private capital and stretch scarce public funds. We are also simplifying access and speeding decisions, so countries see real progress sooner. And finally, we are working to expand our partnerships with new stakeholders such as private philanthropies to collaborate on joining our public investments with the private investments of foundations so that together we can scale up the outcomes that are critical to achieving the 2030 goals.

IPS: Countries facing debt and instability say targets feel out of reach. Should expectations be recalibrated or should financing mechanisms evolve?

Claude Gascon: We need to acknowledge these difficulties, but our response must be by evolving financing and delivery instead of lowering the goals. The GEF-9 opens more space for innovation and expands tracking of socio-economic co-benefits and transformational outcomes. There will also be a full review of the resource allocation model during the GEF-9 investment cycle to inform comprehensive changes in the GEF-10 cycle (from 2030 to 2034). The aim is faster, more flexible access that mobilises private and domestic finance alongside official development assistance (ODA). We must also work to support countries in their efforts to align national policies and eliminate perverse subsidies that could help in achieving global environmental goals.

IPS: With climate finance increasingly tied to geopolitical priorities, is there a risk of weakening multilateral funds like the GEF?

Claude Gascon: The opposite signal is coming through this replenishment. Even amid competing priorities, contributors have pledged an initial US$3.9 billion, with final approval due at the end of May from the GEF Council and public country announcements at the Assembly. The GEF’s family of funds and role across six international environmental conventions uniquely positions us to align diverse finance streams with agreed-upon global goals. That provides coherence and stability countries can count on.

IPS: Several Global South governments argue the GEF cycles are still too slow. What concrete changes can countries expect in speed and flexibility?

Gascon: I can give you three examples of practical shifts. First, the GEF is expanding the successful model of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund’s one-step project approval process where appropriate. Second, we are increasing multi-trust-fund programming so countries can access multiple windows through a single operation. And finally, we have a cap on allocation of resources per GEF Implementing Agency that increases competition and a target to increase disbursements through Multilateral Development Banks. All these measures are designed to move from pledge to project to results faster.

IPS: The GEF is a connector across CBD, UNFCCC, and UNCCD. How can it strengthen this role without overstretching?

Gascon: By doing what only the GEF can: translate multiple international environmental conventions’ mandates into integrated programs while fostering policy coherence. We operate a family of funds under a shared architecture, coordinating smarter, sharing what works, and aligning with 2030 milestones. This means that one GEF dollar invested can deliver multiple benefits across several of the Conventions.

IPS: Private finance is key to closing gaps, but investors avoid fragile contexts. How realistic is this approach – and what lessons has the GEF learned so far about both its potential and its risks?

Claude Gascon: It’s realistic when structured well. From GEF-6 to GEF-8, US$369.5 million in GEF blended finance mobilised US$6.4 billion in co-financing. That is 17 dollars for each GEF dollar, with more than US$3.5 billion coming from private sources. The GEF also has deep experience with fragile contexts: over the last 35 years, 45 percent of our investments have included at least one conflict-affected country and 88 percent of country-level projects were in fragile situations. The main lesson we learned is to pair risk-sharing instruments and strong local partners around projects that fit local realities.

IPS: How is the GEF improving tracking and communication of real-world impact, especially at the community level?

Claude Gascon: The GEF-9’s results framework strengthens environmental outcome tracking and explicitly expands measurement of socio-economic co-benefits and contributions to transformational change. A Council-approved Knowledge Management & Learning strategy aligns data, learning, and communications, and we will continue spotlighting community-level results through platforms like the Small Grants Program and the Inclusive Conservation Initiative, with expanded inclusion under the whole-of-society approach.

IPS: Critics say global environmental finance reflects donor priorities more than recipient needs. How is the GEF addressing equity, voice, and decision-making for the Global South?

Claude Gascon: Equity is built into GEF-9. We have a goal of allocating 35% of total programming to benefit LDCs and SIDS; and an aspirational target of 20% of GEF-9 financing directed to support IPLCs. These targets are supported by updated guidance and a policy to strengthen IPLC engagement. It is also important to note that all funding decisions are made by recipient countries as to the use of GEF resources. This means that recipient country priorities are well supported in the GEF model.

IPS: How will the GEF remain relevant in an increasingly crowded and complex landscape?

The GEF will stay relevant by being more catalytic, coherent, and faster to impact. We will deepen systems-focused integrated programs; mainstream blended finance, maintain a high but disciplined innovation risk appetite, and streamline access and delivery so countries can deliver once and meet several global goals at the same time.

Note: This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

One of the biggest hidden threats to ocean health comes from biofouling — the accumulation of algae, barnacles and microorganisms on ships’ hulls that can transport invasive species across oceans. Credit: Aaron Smulktis/Unsplash

By Kizito Makoye
MAFIA ISLAND, Tanzania , May 14 2026 (IPS)

Under the warm waters off Tanzania’s Mafia Island, marine scientist Asha Mgeni hovers above a coral reef she has studied for years. Small fish dart through the currents. To most divers, the reef appears pristine. But Mgeni notices something unusual.

Tucked between coral branches are invasive organisms disrupting the reef’s natural growth and species, which were not there before, she says.

“We know these reefs,” she tells IPS. “When something new appears, it stands out immediately.”

For communities along Tanzania’s coastline, coral reefs are ecological treasures. They cradle fish stocks, soften the blow of crashing waves and support coastal economies increasingly threatened by climate change and environmental degradation.

Scientists say one of the biggest hidden threats comes from biofouling — the accumulation of algae, barnacles and microorganisms on ships’ hulls that can transport invasive species across oceans. For decades, ballast water was considered shipping’s main pathway for spreading invasive aquatic species. But maritime experts now say biofouling can no longer be ignored.

“Ballast water has certainly, historically at least, been considered the primary vector for IAS introductions,” says Will Griffiths, Project Technical Analyst at the International Maritime Organization. “However, the role played by biofouling in this regard has become more recognised in recent years, with some studies suggesting that in some locations, such as parts of Hawaii and New Zealand, it may have been the primary vector.”

Fish vendors wait for the arrival of the day’s catch along the shoreline in coastal Tanzania, where fishing sustains thousands of livelihoods. Marine scientists say invasive aquatic species linked to international shipping could disrupt fisheries and threaten food security for vulnerable coastal communities. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

As global shipping expands, marine experts warn that invasive species are spreading through trade routes, disrupting ecosystems and threatening biodiversity. Scientists and regulators say biofouling can transport  marine organisms and pathogens across ecosystems, threatening fisheries and coastal economies.

“It is also worth noting that biofouling can represent a great species richness in terms of species transported by ships and also, therefore, potential pathogens,” Griffiths tells IPS.

Mwanahija Shalli, a professor of Marine and Coastal Resources Management at the University of Dar es Salaam, says marine biodiversity underpins livelihoods for millions of coastal residents through fisheries and tourism.

“Invasive aquatic species threaten ecosystems and fisheries by displacing native species,” she says. “If we fail to manage biofouling, we undermine important conservation efforts.”

A broad alliance led by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO) is stepping up efforts to confront a major environmental threat from shipping: the spread of invasive aquatic species through biofouling.

Port and maritime officials inspect a vessel at the Port of Dar es Salaam as part of efforts to monitor the environmental risks posed by invasive marine species spread through global shipping routes. Experts say biofouling on ship hulls has become a growing threat to marine biodiversity and coastal economies. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Known as the GloFouling Partnerships Project, the initiative aims to help countries strengthen regulations, improve monitoring systems and build technical capacity to reduce the transfer of invasive species through international shipping. The project supports  efforts to meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals — particularly the target to conserve and sustainably use oceans, seas and marine resources — while delivering climate benefits through improved vessel efficiency and lower emissions.

Scientists say organisms nestled on ship hulls increase drag, forcing vessels to burn more fuel and produce more emissions.

“Biofouling changes the affected ships’ hydrodynamics and increases drag, meaning there is increased fuel consumption and thus increased greenhouse gas emissions,” Griffiths says. “This can also be a major issue when fouling is on the ship’s propellers, which, due to shape, require specialist cleaning.”

He says biofouling can also interfere with vessel operations.

“There is also some anecdotal evidence to suggest fouling can cause blockages in seawater intakes, affect engine performance and even firefighting systems in extreme cases, which further increases fuel consumption,” he says.

Andrew Hume, Senior Environmental Specialist at the Global Environment Facility, says the initiative builds on earlier international efforts to control invasive species transported through ballast water.

“The GloFouling project builds on a long-standing partnership between the GEF UNDP and the IMO to address shipping impacts on the marine environment,” he says.

According to Hume, the project closes a major gap by targeting hull biofouling, another key pathway for invasive species transfer.

“Keeping ships’ hulls free from just a thin layer of slime could reduce a ship’s greenhouse gas emissions by up to 25 per cent,” Hume says.

A cargo ship enters the Port of Dar es Salaam, one of East Africa’s busiest maritime gateways. As shipping traffic increases, scientists and regulators are raising concerns about biofouling — the buildup of marine organisms on ship hulls that can transport invasive species across oceans. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Marine scientists warn that invasive aquatic species can dramatically alter ecosystems, outsmart native organisms and damage fisheries that support coastal livelihoods. The issue is  raising international concern as governments struggle to balance burgeoning maritime trade with the protection of ocean ecosystems. Griffiths says the international community has made substantial progress regulating ballast water through the Ballast Water Management Convention, but biofouling controls still lag behind.

“An important aspect to consider is that there is a robust international legal framework for managing ballast water, whereas at the international level biofouling provisions are, for the moment, recommendatory and only a few countries have biofouling regulations,” he explains.

Across East Africa, rising cargo traffic has increased concern about shipping’s ecological footprint. Similar efforts are underway globally. Indonesia estimates improved biofouling management could generate up to USD 7 million annually through healthier reefs, lower fuel consumption and reduced port maintenance costs.

In Peru, authorities are building a national aquatic biodiversity database to help scientists detect invasive species before they spread along the coastline.

“Collaboration in the project enabled the authorities to develop a national aquatic biodiversity catalogue providing the baseline knowledge to detect invasive species early and undertake rapid response,” Griffiths says.

In Fiji, the results are impressive.

“Fiji reported that as a result of the GloFouling dry dock training, they had improved the technical capacity of local personnel and gained access to resources to upgrade local facilities,” Griffiths says, adding that the programme had strengthened confidence among local maritime operators and enhanced Fiji’s position in the regional maritime services market

Meanwhile, Mauritius is encouraging private-sector investment in technologies designed to protect fragile marine ecosystems. Over the past six years, countries participating in the GloFouling initiative have moved toward stricter regulation and greater regional cooperation.

Australia and New Zealand have already introduced fully enforceable national regimes requiring clean hulls, biofouling management plans, record books and inspections consistent with the IMO’s 2023 Biofouling Guidelines. Griffiths says Brazil has emerged as a leader among developing nations.

“Brazil is the newest and most explicit adopter, directly embedding the 2023 guidelines into mandatory port state law,” he says. “Unlike the IMO’s voluntary approach, however, Brazil sets an explicit enforceable standard: vessels must arrive with no more than microfouling.”

The project has also expanded into maritime training and private-sector cooperation. Through the Global Industry Alliance, companies are testing hull coatings and cleaning technologies to limit the spread of invasive species.

“One of the project’s most transformative impacts has been creating a collaborative platform where technology innovators, regulators and industry leaders jointly develop and implement solutions for biofouling,” Griffiths says.

The alliance, initially created to support the project, has since evolved into a permanent collaboration. Griffiths says the group is expanding research into hull inspection technologies and the environmental impacts of antifouling coatings.

“The continuation of the GIA and its ongoing studies offers exceptional value as a driving force for industry innovation, standard-setting and knowledge dissemination,” he says.

Hume says the initiative builds on earlier GEF-supported efforts that led to the International Convention for the Control and Management of Ships’ Ballast Water and Sediments in 2004. He says the programme has since helped develop the IMO’s 2023 Biofouling Guidelines and supported pilot projects in 12 countries.

Hume says the GEF is preparing a second phase of investment aimed at helping more countries implement the IMO’s 2023 Biofouling Guidelines and strengthen international cooperation.

“The objective is to strengthen national and institutional capacity of developing countries to implement the guidelines in order to reduce invasive species and lower greenhouse gas emissions,” he says.

A second phase of investment expected before June  aims to strengthen national capacity, expand implementation and advance discussions toward a legally binding global framework on biofouling management. Although the GloFouling project officially concluded in May 2025, Griffiths says efforts are continuing through training programmes, technical studies and industry partnerships designed to maintain momentum ahead of anticipated binding international regulations by 2030.

Experts say cleaner hulls not only reduce the spread of invasive species but also lower fuel consumption and carbon emissions. However, scientists caution that poorly managed hull-cleaning practices can release chemicals and microplastics into marine environments.

Back on Mafia Island, Mgeni says the changes beneath the water are often subtle before they become irreversible.

“Once invasive species establish themselves, it becomes much harder to restore the balance,” she says.

For communities that depend on reefs for food, tourism and protection from storms, the battle against biofouling is becoming a fight to protect the ecosystems and livelihoods that depend on the ocean.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Attendees at the NPT Review Conference side event titled 'Preventing Nuclear Use and Escalation: Lessons from Nuclear Close Calls. ' Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 8 2026 (IPS)

The consequences of nuclear warfare would transcend borders and the impact would be felt across generations. Yet knowing this, member states, including nuclear-armed states, are increasingly flouting the nuclear taboo, while also relying heavily on deterrence to prevent fallout.

Throughout the Cold War period, there were stories of nuclear “close calls”—moments where the world could have been plunged into nuclear warfare were it not for human intervention or sheer luck. The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 and the Petrov incident of 1983 may be more well-known examples from history, but others may also reveal what lessons should be taken from these ‘close calls.’

At the sidelines of the 2026 NPT Review Conference, academics, government and civil society convened to discuss just that. On May 1, at an event convened by Soka Gakkai International (SGI) and the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies (CNS), people came together to deliberate over past and present efforts to prevent nuclear escalation. The panelists argued that these stories demonstrate how nuclear deterrence may not be an effective security strategy towards disarmament or even nonproliferation.

Chie Sunada, Director of Disarmament and Human Rights, SGI Peace Center, speaks in a panel on nuclear escalation risks. Credit: Naureen Hossain/IPS

“The history of close calls—Cuba, Petrov, Black Brant—and many other less well-known events does not tell us that deterrence works. It tells us that deterrence has, on a number of documented occasions, almost failed,” said George-Wilhelm Gallhofer, Director for Disarmament, Arms Control and Non-Proliferation in Austria’s Federal Ministry for European and International Affairs. “Luck is not a security strategy. And yet, the global security order, 60 years on, still rests on it.”

Gallhoffer went on to suggest that the nuclear taboo needs to be reinforced once more by promoting honest dialogue between nuclear powers and non-nuclear states, where the non-nuclear states remind all parties of the stakes at play. Doctrines like the NPT and the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) should be regarded as security treaties, not only moral or ethical frameworks.

Elayne Whyte, a professor at Johns Hopkins and former UN Ambassador of Costa Rica, also echoed this sentiment, adding that the issue of nuclear danger is just as rooted at the societal level as it is through legal frameworks. The shared understanding of nuclear danger is not only produced through weapons systems or treaties but also through decision-makers and the values of society.

“It is [the] 21st century; we also have to acknowledge that the erosion of the nuclear taboo cannot be separated from the wider nationalist trends that rank human lives unequally and make it easier to imagine that mass destruction inflicted on others is […] tolerated,” said Whyte.

Emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence threaten to further complicate nuclear escalation, wherein nuclear states, in an effort to stay ahead of the curve, adopt these technologies for their perceived potential to reduce the human margin of error. The automation of decision-making in nuclear weapons use is not entirely new, as was seen in 1979 and 1980, when the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) received several false alarms through errors in their missile warning system.

Yanliang Pan, a research associate at CNS, remarked that these cases proved that automated systems would still be susceptible to automation bias and compressed decision-making time, thus increasing the likelihood of accidents. Although humans should still have ‘meaningful’ control over decisions of nuclear use, Pan noted that these close calls occurred while humans were in control. “We should be talking about the effect of automation on the reliability of human control, rather than simply human control as an antidote to automation,” said Pan.

At present, academic research can uncover recurring patterns in how nuclear close calls were handled and what that can tell decision-makers about risk reduction in this space. According to Sarah Bidgood, a postdoctoral fellow at the UC Institute on Global Conflict and Cooperation, recent studies have looked into how there might not be a singular framework for crisis management that could apply across nuclear close calls. When it comes to crisis management and risk reduction, the dynamics of previous nuclear close calls do not exist in a monolith, but there are variations in the outcomes instead. The lessons that leaders take from such situations may not lead to a shift away from nuclear weapons. Instead, these events may reinforce what leaders already think about the risks and benefits of nuclear weapons. If a leader regards nuclear weapons for a perceived strategic value, then after a close call, they may be just as likely to embrace new capabilities that would allow them to threaten the use of weapons across multiple levels of conflict. Bidgood raised the question of what this scenario would mean for the future of risk reduction in the present geopolitical environment.

“We need to be quite skeptical of this conventional wisdom that we often hear in our community… which is that to get arms control and risk reduction back on track, maybe we need another event like the Cuban Missile Crisis. Because if my theory is right, what this tells us is that the next crisis could just as easily lead us farther down a very, very different path. And that’s something that I don’t think we as scholars or practitioners have really accounted for,” said Bidgood.

Such near-misses may often be thanks to individual human judgement calls rather than the positions of nuclear states. Chie Sunada, Director of Disarmament and Human Rights at the SGI Peace Center, recalled the example of an incident during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962, where a near-miss also brewed in the Pacific, which would have targeted an uninvolved third party. During this time, U.S. military bases hosted nuclear missiles in Japan that were powerful enough to level cities. The base in Okinawa received what seemed like authenticated launch orders. However, the most senior field officer on site, Captain William Bassett, found discrepancies with the launch orders and the missiles’ readiness level, including that the missiles at this base were primarily targeted at China. So he ordered subordinates to stand down.

Sunada warned that the sense of urgency that informed decisions on nuclear de-escalation was missing from the current discourse and that the reality of nuclear fallout and the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki would be “fading into abstract history.” She urged that nuclear disarmament education would be a “vital mechanism” for maintaining “strategic restraint” by recognizing that a key element for its success is empathy for the pain of others, which is itself a form of deterrence.

“We cannot continue to outsource our survival to luck,” said Sunada. “We urge all state parties to recognize that risk reduction requires more than just adjusting military doctrines. It requires a fundamental shift in how we understand these weapons, driven by education. By cutting the chain of hatred and nurturing the heart that cherishes and is respectful to others, we achieve the ultimate disarmament and pure, proper peace education.”

Note: This article is brought to you by IPS Noram in collaboration with INPS Japan and Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Malawian Farmers harvest sweet potatoes in fields where no chemicals have been used. Credit: Albert Khumalo

By Benson Kunchezera and Tanka Dhakal
LILONGWE & VIENTIANE, May 7 2026 (IPS)

For decades, pesticides have been a quiet pillar of Malawi’s agriculture, guarding crops against pests, improving yields, and sustaining millions of livelihoods. But beneath this success story lay a troubling reality: weak regulation, unsafe handling practices, and growing threats to human health and the environment.

Between 2015 and 2023, USD 2.55 million by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) set out to confront these challenges head-on. Today, it is leaving behind a legacy that is transforming how Malawi manages pesticides from importation to disposal and reshaping the way farmers think about crop protection.

At the centre of this shift is a stronger institutional framework. The project supported a comprehensive review of national pesticide regulations, bringing them closer to international standards. It also invested in training regulatory staff in pesticide registration, monitoring, enforcement, and lifecycle management, areas that had long remained underdeveloped.

“We invested heavily in strengthening systems, not just solving immediate problems,” said Precious Chizonda, Registrar of the Pesticides Control Board of Malawi and former National Coordinator for the GEF project. “This has positioned Malawi to better manage pesticides across their entire lifecycle, from importation to disposal.”

A major milestone was the development of a strategic plan for the Pesticides Control Board (PCB), aimed at improving efficiency and aligning operations with global best practices. Collaboration played a crucial role. The Malawi Bureau of Standards provided laboratory services for pesticide quality testing, while the Ministry of Agriculture ensured policy coordination. Together, these institutions helped elevate the PCB’s effectiveness and national visibility.

Some examples of pesticide-free farming include bananas grown using manure and tomatoes grown using neem water to deter pests and a woman farmer is shown mixing ash with her pigeon peas for storage to protect them from weevils. Credit: Albert Khumalo

Obsolete Pesticides

The project also delivered concrete environmental results. Approximately 208 tonnes of obsolete pesticides — including highly hazardous persistent organic pollutants — were safely destroyed through high-temperature incineration. Another 40 tonnes of contaminated waste were secured in an engineered landfill. These efforts eliminated long-standing sources of soil and water pollution, protecting ecosystems and communities.

Equally significant was the introduction of a pilot system for managing empty pesticide containers. Initially constrained by regulatory challenges, the initiative has since gained traction and continues beyond the project’s lifespan. Supported by industry stakeholders such as CropLife, it now collects used containers from farms across the country, demonstrating a viable model for environmentally sound waste management.

A field of irish potatoes grown without using chemicals. Credit: Albert Khumalo

Farm Level Changes

But perhaps the most profound change is happening at the farm level.

In Lichenza, under Chiladzulu’s Thumbwe Extension Planning Area, 39-year-old farmer Emily Zuwedi recalls how deeply rooted pesticide use once was. “We used to believe in pesticides when growing our crops, but that is now a thing of the past,” she said.

Zuwedi joined a farmer training group in 2017, where she learned about integrated pest management (IPM) and alternative methods that reduce reliance on chemicals. Today, she grows onions and beans using these techniques, cutting costs while protecting her health and the environment.

“I am spending less money now, and my crops are still doing well,” she said.

Her experience reflects a broader shift among smallholder farmers. Albert Khumalo, an Extension Development Officer in Chiladzulu, said the transition was not immediate. “At first it was difficult for farmers to accept, but after the trials they get along,” he explained.

Since 2024, Khumalo and his team have trained at least 100 farmers in pesticide-free farming methods. The results are encouraging – farmers are reducing production costs, improving soil health, and becoming more environmentally conscious.

“This program is helping farmers conserve the environment while also saving money,” Khumalo said. “And those who learn are now able to share knowledge with others.”

The project has also strengthened Malawi’s compliance with international chemical conventions by building expertise in risk assessment and regulatory procedures, an area where the country previously faced challenges.

While gaps remain, particularly in scaling up initiatives to reach more smallholder farmers, the progress is undeniable. Malawi is demonstrating that agricultural productivity and environmental protection do not have to be at odds.

Across the country’s fields, a quiet transformation is underway – one in which safer practices, stronger systems, and informed farmers are cultivating not just crops but also a more sustainable future.

In Lao PDR, the UNDP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry lead a $4.2 million GEF-funded FARM project. Credit: Lao farmer network

Laos Sustainable Farming

However, GEF funding is being used in several parts of the world, including Asia.

In Lao PDR, GEF funding is helping farmers adopt and apply practices that promote sustainable agriculture.

Laos farmers are being trained and given extension support to “reduce dependence on hazardous pesticides while integrating environmentally friendly pest management approaches”, Saithong Phengboupha, project manager at the Department of Agriculture under the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, said.

“This aligns their practices with good agricultural standards, translating upstream policy gains into tangible on-farm change.”

According to the Ministry, GEF funding has been helpful to create the foundation by strengthening the legislative and regulatory environment governing pesticide and agricultural input management.

“Key milestones include the promulgation of the Law on Crop Production and the development of decrees on fertiliser regulation and good agricultural practices (GAP), currently in the final stages. The instruments establish the legal basis for sustained enforcement and compliance beyond the project lifecycle,” Phengboupha said, explaining how FARM funding is being used to improve the agricultural future of the country.

The $4.2 million initiative through the FARM project is led by the UNDP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

The FARM project is establishing a pilot on agrochemical container and plastic waste management in Viengphoukha District, Luang Namtha Province.

Smallholder farmers have responded to the pesticide management training and promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides. Credit: Marco J Haenssgen/Unsplash

Integrated Pest Management

According to the ministry, the pilot is designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of a structured approach for the collection, interim storage, and environmentally sound management of empty pesticide containers.

“It also aims to strengthen institutional coordination among relevant government agencies, local authorities, and private sector stakeholders, while enhancing farmer awareness and compliance with recommended practices, including triple rinsing, segregation, and safe return mechanisms,” he said.

The project has supported awareness-raising and capacity building among local authorities, extension workers, and farmers on the risks associated with obsolete and banned pesticides, as well as on safe handling, repackaging, and temporary storage practices. In selected locations, pilot measures have been introduced to improve containment, labelling, and secure storage to minimise environmental and health risks.

Phengboupha says smallholder farmers in Lao PDR have generally responded positively to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training and the promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides supported by the FARM project. He added “training interventions have contributed to improved understanding of pest ecology, safer pesticide use practices, and the benefits of adopting non-chemical and low-toxicity control methods, including biological control, cultural practices, and mechanical measures.”

However, adoption rates vary depending on access to extension services, market pressures, availability of alternative inputs, and perceived short-term effectiveness of chemical pesticides.

“Constraints remain, including limited access to certified biopesticides, weak input supply chains for IPM alternatives, and continued reliance on agrochemical vendors for technical advice in some areas,” he added.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Irene Velez Torres, Director of the Colombian National Environmental Agency, during a panel discussion with policy experts at the Santa Marta Conference. Credit: Supplied

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, May 6 2026 (IPS)

The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, may eventually be remembered as a defining moment in global climate politics, not because it produced a treaty or a formal negotiation outcome, but because it changed the tone, structure, and ambition of the conversation itself.

For decades, international climate diplomacy has been about managing emissions, not addressing the source of those emissions: fossil fuels. Governments continued to discuss carbon markets, offsets and adaptation funds but so too did the growth in oil, gas and coal production. Within the UN climate process itself, producer nations and powerful economic interests often blocked direct discussion of phasing out fossil fuels. However, there was no such case as Santa Marta.

The conference, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands and attended by delegates from almost 60 nations, was not intended to be another COP-style negotiation. It was explicitly designed as a political and practical platform for those countries willing to move faster on the fossil fuel phase-out. That makes a difference.

“This was not a negotiating conference. This is about dialogue and looking together at what we can do and how we can apply our creativity, our collaboration, and the science to find new opportunities,” said Stientje van Veldhoven-van der Meer, Dutch Climate and Green Growth Minister.

The conference’s most important accomplishment might be the single transition from negotiation to problem-solving.

Traditional COP summits often descend into exercises in diplomatic survival, with countries fighting over language late into the night and protecting narrow interests. In Santa Marta, ministers repeatedly stressed that participants were not there to defend positions but to create solutions.

“The contrast was stark,” said Minina Talia, Tuvalu’s Minister for Home Affairs, Climate Change and Environment.

“I’ve been to a lot of COPs over the years and I’ve never felt like this. More chilled, ready to go home. We are not here to bargain. We’re here to find solutions,” he told reporters on the concluding day of the conference.

For small island states like Tuvalu, where climate change is an existential threat now rather than a future risk, this difference is significant. It is the politics of survival.

Several Concrete Results

Ireland and Tuvalu will co-host a second conference, ensuring continuity and signalling a conscious North-South partnership. A dedicated science panel will support countries and regions in their transition away from fossil fuels. Three work streams were established: pathways to transition away from fossil fuels; decarbonisation of trade balances; and new financial mechanisms to finance the transition.

These are not symbols for deliverables. They went to the core of the politics of dependence on fossil fuels.

The biggest challenge in climate politics is no longer to prove that climate change is real. It’s trying to work out how countries that rely on fossil fuel revenues can survive the transition without economic collapse, social unrest or widening inequality.

That means dealing with debt, subsidies, tax systems, labour transitions, industrial planning and trade balances. The focus on financial architecture in Santa Marta is a sign of awareness on the part of the participants.

The debate over fossil fuel subsidies was particularly important. Ministers emphasised the need for transparency on the location of fossil fuel incentives, revenues and dependencies within national economies. This is important because fossil fuels are not just an energy issue. They’re so entrenched in national budgets, banking systems, foreign policy and power structures.

The war in the Middle East, the disruption of oil supplies and the general insecurity of world energy have hastened the need for change. But unlike previous oil crises, this time renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper compared to fossil fuels, and electric vehicles are scaling up very fast.

Participants argued that the war has revealed not the need for more oil drilling, but the danger of fossil fuel dependence itself.

“The war really opened up peoples’ eyes to how fragile the fossil fuel system is,” a speaker said. “And this war comes at a time when renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.

This shifts the transition from a strictly environmental imperative to a strategic economic and security priority.

Action on climate is no longer simply about saving the planet. It’s about stabilising economies, reducing geopolitical vulnerability and avoiding the financial risks of stranded fossil assets.

The reason this is a powerful shift is that finance ministers tend to move faster than environment ministers.

Another remarkable strength of Santa Marta was its insistence on being inclusive. Indigenous Peoples, parliamentarians, peasants, women, NGOs and even children were brought into the heart of the conversation.

“This is a new climate democracy, where governments are no longer the only actors making climate decisions,” said Irene Velez Torres, Director of the Colombian National Environmental Agency.

One of the strongest interventions at the conference came from Indigenous representatives, who warned that a clean energy transition without land justice would simply mean another wave of colonial extraction. Their declaration rejects a future where extraction of fossil fuels is replaced by mining for transition minerals, mega dams or industrial projects imposed on Indigenous lands without consent.

“If we are not part of building the just transition and the phase-out of fossil fuels, it will not be just,” they said in a joint declaration at the end of the conference on April 29.

This revealed one of the deepest contradictions in global climate policy: many governments speak of a green transition but continue with extractive models under a new name.

Indigenous leaders demanded free, prior and informed consent, legal recognition of the rights to their territories, direct access to climate finance and protection for land defenders at risk of criminalisation and violence.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative continues to be central. Tuvalu has been one of its earliest supporters, demanding a legally binding international framework to stop expansion and ensure a fair phase-out of fossil fuels.

Talia welcomed the treaty for raising the bar in terms of moral pressure and providing governments with clearer information but warned against limiting the whole transition conversation to one mechanism.

He said: “The treaty is an initiative. We want to look at all other initiatives so that we have a fair, balanced outcome.”

That’s a sign of strategic maturity. One treaty will not kill the most profitable industry in modern history.

These include UNFCCC processes, national policy, fossil fuel treaty mechanisms, regional declarations, central bank reforms and the involvement of financial institutions.

Participants highlighted China’s green lending strategies and said banking systems need to stop rewarding fossil fuel dependence and instead finance transition at scale.

Likewise, Pacific island nations are advocating for regional “fossil fuel-free zones”, supported by new declarations and intergovernmental task forces. These efforts matter because regional leadership often moves quicker than global consensus.

Hence, the choice of Tuvalu as the venue for the next conference is very significant. It’s shifting the discussion from the diplomatic capitals to one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. It forces political leaders to confront the human reality of rising seas, disappearing land and threatened sovereignty.

History in the Making

Santa Marta won’t solve the fossil fuel crisis. It doesn’t stop new drilling. It does not yet impose binding obligations.But it may have done something more important, which is to make fossil fuel phase-out politically discussable at scale. For years, people saw talking straight about ending oil, gas, and coal as too radical, too unrealistic, or too politically dangerous. In Santa Marta it became the focus of the room.

If this coalition grows from 60 to 100 countries, if its outcomes feed into COP31 and national climate plans, if the finance systems start to shift, and if the Pacific conference deepens the legal momentum, then Santa Marta could be remembered not as a one-off summit but as the moment when climate diplomacy finally stopped treating the symptoms and started tackling the disease. That would be history.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau