Mangroves, reefs and coastal ecosystems are more than natural assets — they are frontline climate solutions. Across Pacific villages, including Naidiri on Fiji’s Coral Coast, these systems are helping reduce erosion, protect livelihoods and support long-term resilience. Credit: Ludovic Branlant/SPC

By Sera Sefeti
NAIDIRI, FIJI, Apr 17 2026 (IPS)

Climate change is no longer a distant threat. Across the Pacific, it is a daily reality reshaping coastlines, livelihoods, and the delicate balance between people and the environment. But in a region long defined by resilience, solutions are not being invented from scratch. They are being remembered, strengthened, and scaled. Nature-based solutions (NbS) approaches that use ecosystems to address climate, disaster, and development challenges have always existed in Pacific communities. For generations, villages have relied on mangroves, agroforestry, and customary practices to protect their land and sustain their people. But as climate impacts intensify, the scale and speed of change demand more.

Now, a new regional effort is working to bridge the gap between tradition and modern policy.

The Pacific Community’s Promoting Pacific Islands Nature-based Solutions (PPIN) project is designed to do exactly that: connect what communities already know with the systems that govern development and investment.

Dr Rakeshi Lata, Training and Capacity Building Officer for Nature-based Solutions at SPC, explains that the project is not about replacing traditional knowledge but elevating it.

“It functions as a bridge connecting community practices with national policies to secure resources and scale up proven local methods,” said Lata.

Naidiri village on Fiji’s Coral Coast shows how nature-based Solutions are put into practice, with communities restoring mangroves and reefs to protect their coastline and sustain livelihoods. Credit: Ludovic Branlant/SPC

At its core, PPIN challenges a long-standing imbalance in development thinking where engineered, “grey” infrastructure is prioritised, and nature is treated as secondary.

“More specifically, PPIN addresses the fact that Pacific countries are highly vulnerable to climate change, disasters, and ecosystem degradation, yet development decisions still prioritise grey, engineered solutions while nature is treated as secondary or only an environmental issue,” Lata said.

This disconnect is especially stark in the Pacific, where people’s lives, cultures, and economies are deeply intertwined with the natural environment. When ecosystems fail, communities feel it immediately through food insecurity, coastal erosion, and increased disaster risks.

Yet despite the proven value of nature-based solutions, their adoption has remained limited—often fragmented, underfunded, and confined to small pilot projects.

“There is limited policy integration, technical capacity, economic evidence, and financing to make NbS ‘business as usual’ across sectors such as infrastructure, finance, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, and tourism,” Lata said.

That gap between what works locally and what is scaled nationally is where PPIN steps in.

Importantly, the project rejects the idea that traditional knowledge and modern science are in competition.

“The core philosophy of PPIN is that traditional knowledge and modern policy are not opposing forces but complementary strengths, this project aims to formalise what communities have already been practising successfully for centuries,” she said.

“PPIN actively incorporates modern science to strengthen traditional approaches.”

Across Fiji, Vanuatu, and Tonga, this integration is already visible not in theory but in practice.

Mangrove restoration, for example, is being used to reduce coastal erosion and storm surges, offering a natural alternative to costly seawalls. During Cyclone Vaiana in Fiji, boats sought shelter within mangrove systems, shielded from powerful winds and waves,  an example of ecosystem protection delivering real-time resilience.

These same mangroves also trap sediment, protecting downstream communities and coral reefs without the need for concrete infrastructure.

In rural areas, traditional agroforestry systems are being strengthened, combining trees and crops to improve soil stability, enhance food security, and build drought resilience. These systems reduce the need for engineered irrigation and land stabilisation while maintaining ecological balance.

Despite these successes, scaling such solutions has historically been difficult. Fragmented governance, siloed implementation across ministries and NGOs, and limited technical capacity have slowed progress.

Coral restoration helps rebuild reef ecosystems that protect Pacific coastlines, support fisheries and sustain community livelihoods. Credit: Ludovic Branlant/SPC

PPIN is designed to dismantle these barriers.

“A central pillar of PPIN is targeted capacity-building, which includes training programmes and communities of practice by establishing peer-to-peer learning networks focusing on specific sectors to foster continued knowledge exchange and collaboration,” she said.

Beyond policy integration, the project is investing in people, particularly those closest to the land.

Training programmes, including Farmers’ Field Schools and coastal resilience initiatives, focus on practical, livelihood-based applications of NbS. Participants gain hands-on skills in climate-smart and organic farming, linking ecosystem health directly to food production and household wellbeing.

The response has been strong. Women make up more than half of participants over 80 out of 146 with youth and community practitioners also actively engaged.

As the project moves toward closure, its legacy is already taking shape not just in outcomes but also in systems that will endure.

“To ensure sustainability and long-term accessibility, materials from trainings, technical guidance, needs assessment findings and more are being consolidated and hosted within a regional NbS knowledge hub led by SPREP,” Lata said.

“This hub provides a single, trusted platform where governments, practitioners, communities, women and youth can access the PPIN resources.”

But perhaps its most lasting impact will be less tangible and more powerful.

“Beyond materials, PPIN leaves behind strengthened regional networks and communities of practice, which will continue to connect practitioners across countries and sectors.”

In a region on the frontline of climate change, the future may not lie in choosing between tradition and science but in weaving them together.

Because in the Pacific, resilience has never been built on one system alone. It is carried across generations, across knowledge systems, and now, increasingly, across policy and practice.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The GEF actively supports climate resilience and sustainable livelihoods in Zanzibar, with a specific focus on the seaweed farming sector, which is crucial for over 20,000 farmers—mostly women—in the region. Here a woman identified as Jazaa is pictured working as a seaweed farmer. She carefully attaches little seaweed seedlings to the rope that she will harvest after two months. Credit: Natalija Gormalova/Climate Visuals Countdown

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, Apr 16 2026 (IPS)

The Global Environment Facility, widely known as the GEF, plays a central role in financing environmental protection across the world. It supports developing countries in tackling climate change, biodiversity loss, land degradation, pollution, and threats to ecosystems.

Since its establishment in the early 1990s, the GEF has grown as a multilateral environmental fund, supporting projects in more than 170 countries.

Over time, the GEF has evolved into what it calls a “family of funds”, each targeting a specific global environmental challenge while operating under a shared strategic framework.

This explainer looks at how the GEF funding works, the origins of its financing model, and the role of six major funds that channel resources toward global environmental goals.

While the GEF predates the 1992 Rio ‘Earth’ Summit, its importance as a financial mechanism grew after the summit. Here UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali opens the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, which aimed to develop a global blueprint for balancing economic development with environmental protection. Credit: Michos Tzavaras/UN Photo

Origins of the GEF Funding Model

The GEF was created in 1991, before the Rio ‘Earth’ Summit in 1992, which aimed to develop a global blueprint for balancing economic development with environmental protection; however, its importance grew after the summit.

The Rio Summit produced three major environmental conventions. These were the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and, later in 1994, the Convention to Combat Desertification. The GEF became the financial mechanism for these agreements, meaning it mobilises and distributes funds to help countries implement them.

Over the past 35 years, the GEF has expanded its mandate. Today it supports multiple conventions and environmental initiatives through a structured set of trust funds. This architecture allows the facility to coordinate funding across different environmental priorities while maintaining specialised programs for each global commitment.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) is now focusing on solving environmental problems together instead of separately. It looks at climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution as connected issues and works with governments, international groups, civil society, and businesses to address them.

The GEF Trust Fund was initially created to support multiple environmental agreements simultaneously. Over time, countries preferred more specific funding for their particular needs.

Because of these changes, the GEF now has different funds, each designed for different purposes and methods of giving money.

Some funds – like the Trust Fund, the Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), and part of the Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF) – use a system that helps countries know in advance how much funding they can expect.

The GEF Trust Fund

The Global Environment Facility Trust Fund is the main source of funds for the GEF. It provides grants to support environmental projects in developing countries.

The Trust Fund finances activities across several environmental areas.

These include

• Biodiversity conservation,
• Climate change mitigation,
• Land degradation control,
• International waters management, and
• Chemicals and waste reduction.

Countries receive funding through a system known as the System for Transparent Allocation of Resources, or STAR, which distributes funds based on their environmental needs and eligibility.

Projects funded by the Trust Fund often focus on creating global environmental benefits. These may include:

• Protecting endangered species,
• Restoring ecosystems,
• Reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and
• Improving pollution management systems.

The Trust Fund operates through periodic “replenishment” cycles. Donor countries pledge new contributions every four years, which allows the GEF to finance programs during the next funding period. For example, the GEF-9 cycle will cover the period from July 2026 to June 2030 and focus on scaling up environmental investments while mobilising private capital and strengthening country ownership of environmental policies.

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) has created Integrated Programs. These are special programs designed to address multiple environmental goals at the same time in a more coordinated and efficient way.

For example, the Food Systems Integrated Program does not fund separate projects for climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation. Instead, it combines them into one unified project, which helps achieve stronger and longer-lasting results while making better use of funding.

The GEF helps fund biodiversity across the globe, helping to create conditions to prevent the further endangerment of species like the Sumatran Orangutan (Pongo abelii). Credit: Thomas Gabernig/Unsplash

Global Biodiversity Framework Fund

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund is a relatively new component of the GEF family of funds. It was created to help countries implement the Kunming Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework, which was adopted in 2022 under the Convention on Biological Diversity.

The biodiversity framework sets ambitious targets for protecting nature by 2030. Its most prominent targets include the “30 by 30” target, which calls for protecting at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean areas by the end of the decade.  The Framework also sets a 30 percent target for the restoration of ecosystems and a target of mobilising 30 billion dollars in international financial flows to developing countries for biodiversity action.

The Global Biodiversity Framework Fund supports actions that help countries meet these targets.

Actions that are supported include the following:

• Expanding protected areas,
• Restoring degraded ecosystems,
• Protecting endangered species, and
• Strengthening biodiversity monitoring.

Another important focus is the integration of biodiversity into economic planning. Many projects supported by this fund work with governments and businesses to match financial flows with biodiversity goals. This means reducing financial support for activities that damage the environment and encouraging more sustainable farming, forestry, and fishing practices.

By providing targeted financing for biodiversity commitments, the fund helps translate global agreements into practical actions at the national and local levels.

It is also important to highlight that the fund sets a target of providing at least 20% of its resources to support actions by Indigenous Peoples and local communities. This form of direct financing is unique for a multilateral environmental fund.  To date, this target has been exceeded and mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund and the Tropical Forest Forever Facility are considering replicating this approach.

GEF-9 biodiversity investments will bring together four interconnected pathways:

• Scaling up financial flows to close the nature financing gap,
• Embedding environmental priorities in national development strategies,
• Mobilising private capital through blended finance, and
• Empowering Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and civil society as active conservation partners.

“A renewed emphasis on the Forest Biomes Integrated Program will continue directing investment into the landscapes most critical for achieving 30×30 – ensuring that GEF financing remains focused where the stakes are highest,” said Chizuru Aoki, the head of the GEF Conventions and Funds Division.

Medicinal and aromatic plant species, such as the baobab, are often exploited; however, the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing aims to ensure fair use of the planet’s genetic resources and secure benefits for Indigenous knowledge holders. Credit Noah Grossenbacher/Unsplash

Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund

The Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund supports countries in implementing the Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit Sharing. This international agreement, part of the Convention on Biological Diversity, aims to make sure that the genetic resources of the planet are used fairly and equitably, with benefits shared with those who provide them.

Genetic resources include plants, animals, and microorganisms that are used in research and commercial products such as medicines, cosmetics, and agricultural technologies. Historically, many developing countries have expressed concerns that companies and researchers benefit from these resources without sharing profits or knowledge.

The Nagoya Protocol fixes these issues by requiring users to do the following:

• Get permission from the country providing the resources, and
• Agree on how benefits (like money or knowledge) will be shared.

The fund supports countries by helping them:

• Create laws and rules for using genetic resources,
• Improve monitoring systems, and
• Build skills among researchers and policymakers.

Projects funded also support Indigenous peoples and local communities, who often hold traditional knowledge associated with biological resources. Protecting this knowledge and ensuring fair compensation is a key objective of the Nagoya framework.

Least Developed Countries Fund

The Least Developed Countries Fund focuses on supporting climate adaptation in the world’s most vulnerable nations. These countries often face severe environmental risks but lack the finances and systems to respond efficiently.

The fund supports the preparation and implementation of National Adaptation Programs of Action and National Adaptation Plans. These are country-specific strategies that identify the most urgent climate risks facing each country and outline measures to reduce vulnerability.

Typical projects include the following:

• Strengthening climate-resilient agriculture,
• Improving water management systems,
• Protecting coastal zones, and
• Building early warning systems for extreme weather events.

Because many least developed countries face multiple environmental issues at once, the fund often supports integrated projects that address climate change alongside biodiversity conservation and land management.

This funding system makes sure that the poorest and most vulnerable countries get the help they need to deal with climate change, even though they did very little to cause it.

Villagers in Nyamisati, Rufiji District, wade through muddy tidal flats to plant mangrove seedlings—part of a grassroots effort to curb saline intrusion that has begun to poison nearby rice paddies as saltwater seeps underground. The initiative reflects growing local responses to environmental degradation driven by human activity along Tanzania’s coast. The GEF supports projects like these that help mitigate the impacts of climate change. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

Special Climate Change Fund

The Special Climate Change Fund supports climate action in developing countries and works alongside the Least Developed Countries Fund.

While the Least Developed Countries Fund focuses on the poorest nations, this fund helps other developing countries that are also affected by climate change.

It supports projects that:

• Help countries prepare for climate impacts,
• Include climate planning in development and infrastructure,
• Improve water management and agriculture.
• Reduce disaster risks, and
• Promote environmentally friendly technologies.

The SCCF also, in some cases, supports mitigation efforts, particularly when they involve innovative technologies that reduce greenhouse gas emissions. By financing both adaptation and mitigation initiatives, the fund contributes to global efforts to stabilise the climate system.

Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Trust Fund

The Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Trust Fund supports countries in implementing transparency requirements under the Paris Agreement.

Under this agreement, countries must regularly report their greenhouse gas emissions and track their progress on climate goals. However, many developing countries do not have the tools or skills to do this properly.

This fund helps by supporting:

• Training for government officials,
• Creation of national emissions data systems, and
• Better monitoring and reporting methods.

Strong reporting systems are important because they:

• Help track climate progress,
• Build trust between countries, and
• Ensure countries meet their commitments.

The fund helps developing countries improve their climate reporting so they can fully take part in global climate efforts.

How the “family of funds” works together

One of the defining features of the GEF funding model is that each part speaks to the others.

Think of it like a team of funds working together, rather than separate, isolated programs.

These funds are coordinated so they can:

• Support the same project from different angles,
• Avoid duplication (no overlapping funding for the same purpose), and
• Align with global environmental agreements.

For example:

• A biodiversity project might use:
  • The main GEF Trust Fund
  • Plus the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund
• A climate adaptation project could combine:
  • Least Developed Countries Fund
  • Special Climate Change Fund

This ‘family’ structure improves:

• Coordination, so different funds work in sync,
• Efficiency, so funds work with less waste and duplication, and
• Flexibility, so projects can tap into multiple funding sources.

Environmental problems are interconnected. A single project (like forest conservation) can:

• Reduce carbon emissions,
• Protect biodiversity,
• Improve water systems, and
• Avoid land degradation.

Because of the integrated funding system, the GEF can support all these goals at once, rather than funding them separately.

The “family of funds” is a coordinated funding system that allows the GEF to:

• Combine resources;
• Support complex, multi-sector projects; and
• Maximise environmental impact

The Future of GEF Financing

As global environmental crises grow, so does the demand for money and resources to meet climate and biodiversity needs. International assessments suggest that hundreds of billions of dollars are needed each year.

The GEF aims to play a “catalytic” role in closing this gap – in short, the GEF acts as a “catalyst” or tool for using limited public funds to unlock much larger investments.

Its funding model mobilises additional resources from

• Governments,
• Development banks, and
• Private investors.

“In practical terms, the mechanisms being supported in GEF-9 include debt-for-nature and debt-for-climate swaps, green bonds, pooled investment vehicles, and outcome-based financing structures. Each of these can serve a different purpose depending on the context – but the common thread is that they allow the GEF to use its resources strategically to unlock much larger pools of capital from the private sector, multiplying the environmental impact that public funding alone could achieve,” Aoki said.

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
  

The Global Environment Facility (GEF) announced that donor countries ​p​ledged an initial ​U​SD 3.9 billion to ​the facility for the ninth replenishment cycle​, indicating that nature remains a priority, as in this image, where a veterinary team applies a collar to a sedated elephant​ in KwaZulu-Natal​, South Africa, as part of an ambitious project aimed at conserving the animals. Credit: Dan Ingham/IPS

By Alison Kentish
SAINT LUCIA, Apr 9 2026 (IPS)

With just four years left to meet a series of global environmental targets, governments are committing to shore up one of the world’s main environmental funds, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), with a $3.9 billion pledge.

The funding will form the backbone of the GEF’s ninth replenishment cycle, known as GEF-9, a four-year financing round running from July 2026 to June 2030. Those years are widely seen as decisive for slowing biodiversity loss, tackling pollution and keeping climate goals within reach.

While the $3.9 billion pledge signals renewed momentum, it comes at a moment of deepening environmental strain. Ecosystems are continuing to decline, coral reefs are bleaching at scale and small island states are already grappling with the economic and social fallout of environmental change.

“This replenishment sends a clear message: the world is not giving up on nature,” said Claude Gascon, the GEF’s interim chief executive. He noted that donor countries had “risen to the challenge and made bold commitments towards a more positive future for the planet” despite competing global priorities.

“The coming four years of the GEF-9 cycle will reflect this high-ambition push to achieve the 2030 environmental goals,” he said.

The GEF, the world’s largest multilateral environmental fund, supports developing countries in meeting commitments under major global agreements on climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, chemicals, and ocean governance. Since its establishment, it has provided more than $27 billion in grants and mobilised a further $155 billion in co-financing.

GEF’s next funding round, its ninth replenishment cycle, aims to scale investment and mobilise private capital to close widening environmental financing gaps. Credit: Kea Mowat/Unsplash

Rewiring Economies Around Nature

At the centre of the new funding cycle is a push toward what the GEF calls “nature-positive development”. It is an effort to embed environmental value into economic decision-making rather than treating it as a secondary concern.

That includes reworking systems that drive environmental degradation, such as food production, energy, urban development and public health, so they operate within ecological limits.

The strategy also leans heavily on attracting private investment. Around 25% of GEF-9 resources are expected to be used to mobilise private capital, reflecting a growing recognition that public funding alone cannot close the global environmental financing gap.

Focus on the Most Vulnerable

The allocation of funds carries a clear political signal.

At least 35 percent of resources are expected to go to Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States (SIDS), countries that contribute least to environmental degradation but face some of its most severe impacts. A further 20% is earmarked for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

For Caribbean nations, where coastal erosion, stronger storms and coral reef loss are already reshaping economies, the funding could prove significant if it translates quickly into action on the ground.

“We need multilateral cooperation more than ever to protect our planet for future generations,” said Niels Annen, describing the replenishment as a “joint effort” between countries in the Global North and South. “Environmental action and sustainable development have to go hand in hand. In GEF-9, we see Germany’s priorities very well reflected: innovative finance for nature and people, better cooperation with the private sector and stable resources for the most vulnerable countries.”

Support for the funding round has also come from Spain and Mexico, with Inés Carpio San Román emphasising the importance of “effective multilateralism” and Mexico backing “country-driven solutions” to global environmental challenges.

Calls to Deliver Results

Civil society groups have welcomed the increased emphasis on inclusion, particularly the allocation for Indigenous Peoples and local communities.

“This will strengthen a whole-of-society approach,” said Faizal Parish, Chair of the GEF’s Civil Society Organization Network, while Aliou Mustafa, of the GEF’s Indigenous Peoples Advisory Group, said the shift reflects efforts to place Indigenous groups “at the centre of decision-making.”

Still, expectations are high and time is short.

“The environmental crises we face are accelerating,” said Richard Bontjer. He described the  replenishment as “a vote of confidence” while stressing that “every dollar must count.”

“This replenishment will sharpen the GEF’s focus on impact, drive greater efficiency and mobilize private finance alongside public investment. It will also strengthen support to SIDS and LDCs and give recognition to the importance of supporting Indigenous Peoples and local communities.”

With the 2030 deadline fast approaching, the success of this funding round will ultimately be judged not by the size of the pledges but by how quickly they translate into measurable gains—restored ecosystems, protected coastlines and more resilient economies.

For countries on the frontlines, including those in the Caribbean, the $3.9 billion is not just another funding cycle.

It is a narrowing window of opportunity.

Additional pledges are expected before the end-of-May GEF Council meeting, when countries will lock in the final size and ambition of the four-year funding round.

The 71st GEF Council meeting will be held in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, from May 31 to June 3, 2026. The meeting will take place in advance of the Eighth GEF Assembly, when individual country pledges will be publicly announced.

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
  

Excerpt:

We live in a century of extraordinary achievement.

Humanity has split the atom, mapped the genome, and sent astronauts to the Moon, with plans now underway to reach Mars. Our knowledge has expanded, our tools have become more powerful, and our capacity to shape the world around us exceeds anything previous generations could have imagined. We communicate instantaneously across continents, diagnose diseases earlier, monitor climate patterns in real time, and design artificial intelligences that can aid in everything from medicine to climate modelling.

James Alix Michel

We possess the means to protect our planet, restore degraded ecosystems, and build a future that is regenerative and sustainable. The Earth still holds enough resources to feed, shelter, and nourish every person on it.

The science is clear, the solutions are known, and the pathways are increasingly understood. We know how to phase out the most damaging fossil fuels, how to design circular economies, and how to restore forests and oceans on a large scale. The question is not whether we can heal, but whether we choose to.

Instead of using this knowledge to nurture life, we spend trillions on weapons, war, and systems of domination. We continue to refine instruments of destruction with the same ingenuity that once helped us survive as hunter gatherers.

From spears and arrows to missiles and nuclear arsenals, technology has evolved far faster than our moral imagination. The same species that can design satellites and decode life itself is also capable of perfecting the means to erase itself. We have turned our curiosity into a danger when it is not paired with humility.
War has become normalised. We export violence beyond our borders, fuel conflicts in distant lands, and justify the dehumanisation of others in the name of power, ideology, or fear.

In doing so, we risk losing sight of what it means to be human: to care, to share, to protect, and to build together. Our intelligence has grown, but our ethics have often lagged behind. We have impressive control over external environments, yet we struggle to govern our own impulses—greed, resentment, the desire for domination over cooperation.

We still behave as if survival depends on conquest, as though strength is measured by the capacity to destroy rather than by the courage to cooperate.

In that sense, humanity is trapped between two identities: one capable of profound creativity and compassion, and another still governed by ancient instincts of greed, lust for power, and tribal dominance.

We have evolved in technology, but not always in spirit. We built institutions meant to protect rights and distribute justice, yet those very institutions are often weaponised or hollowed out by self interest.

The Earth is still rich enough to nourish us all. The ocean still teems with life, the land can still grow food, and the air can still be cleansed. We have the tools to live in balance, instead of in excess. We can choose renewable energy systems that do not poison our skies, farming practices that restore soil instead of depleting it, and urban designs that integrate nature instead of paving it over.

The problem is not scarcity, but choices—choices that prioritise short term gain over long term survival, accumulation over equity, and fear over trust.

If humanity is to truly evolve, it must move beyond the old logic of domination and embrace a new ethic of stewardship. This is not a soft or sentimental vision. It is a hard, practical necessity if we want civilisation to continue.

Stewardship means recognising that power is not only the ability to control, but the responsibility to protect. It means designing economies that reward regeneration, not extraction; diplomacy that favours mediation over militarisation; and education systems that nurture empathy as much as efficiency.

Progress cannot be measured only by how far we can reach into space, or how fast we can compute. It must be measured by how well we can care for the planet and for one another. It must be measured by how peacefully we resolve our differences, how fairly we share resources, and how seriously we protect the rights of future generations.

True progress is the transition from a species that merely adapts to its environment, to one that consciously shapes it for the benefit of all life, not just a privileged few.

We have not lost our humanity. We have only forgotten it.
The challenge now is to rediscover it—not as a romantic ideal, but as a practical imperative.

In a world capable of such beauty, creativity, and connection, the only true insanity is the choice to destroy rather than to heal, to dominate rather than to share, and to fear rather than to love.

After all, the moon and the stars will remain, no matter how we choose; what is at stake is whether we will still be worthy of the Earth we were given.

That is the real test of our century. And it is one we must pass together.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

While media coverage of Iran’s restrictions on passage through the Hormuz Straits focuses on fuel prices, partial closure is also disrupting crucial fertiliser and other supplies, risking catastrophe for billions worldwide.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Hormuz is not just a chokepoint on a shipping lane for oil and gas; it has strategic implications for fertiliser, helium, and other energy-intensive exports as well as for food and other imports to the region.

Higher energy costs affect most transportation and farming requirements, such as tilling and harvesting, as well as fertiliser supplies.

Wars, especially protracted ones, have lasting effects, including for agrifood systems. Without earlier investments, output elsewhere cannot be easily increased.

Alternative fertiliser supply sources are not readily available, especially as agro-ecological options have rarely been seriously pursued despite their proven viability.

As with renewable energy generation to reduce the need for petroleum imports, it is unclear whether the looming food crisis will accelerate the needed and feasible agro-ecological transition for enhanced food security.

Disrupted food supplies
Shipping delays and port congestion disrupt food supplies, trade and availability.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

Many states have recently tried to improve their food security, expanding strategic reserves, investing in food agriculture and alternative supply routes.

Such measures have improved resilience but cannot address a prolonged blockade of the Persian Gulf. About 70% of the food for Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Gulf emirates passes through Hormuz.

Replacing disrupted food imports for about 100 million people would require moving almost 100 million kilograms (kg) of food into the region daily by other means.

Supplying food to the Gulf region under blockade would require an unprecedented operation, possibly through contested airspace.

In 2024, the UN World Food Programme delivered about 7 million kg of food daily to 81 million people in 71 countries.

Weather-driven food shortages and price spikes triggered political instability in 2008 and 2010-11. With food systems worldwide increasingly vulnerable to climate shocks, food insecurity threatens regimes everywhere.

Fertilisers
Farmers worldwide need stable supplies of fertilisers and fuel.

The Iran war threatens to disrupt these supplies, so crucial to agricultural production. Staple crops like wheat, rice and maize rely heavily on fertilisers.

Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, the Emirates and Bahrain all ship petroleum products through Hormuz, including a fifth of the world’s liquefied natural gas (LNG).

As LNG is key to producing many fertilisers, Gulf exports have become more significant, especially after the war cut Ukraine’s exports, and China and Russia reduced theirs as well.

In 2024, the Middle East accounted for almost 30% of major fertiliser exports, including nitrogen, phosphate and potash.

The Gulf alone exported 23% of the world’s ammonia and 34% of its urea, while 30-40% of the world’s nitrogen fertiliser exports pass through Hormuz!

In mid-2025, Kpler estimated that a Hormuz closure could reduce fertiliser supplies by 33%, with sulphur-based ones falling by 44% and urea by 30%.

Reduced nitrogen-based fertiliser exports would hurt major food exporters such as Brazil, the US, Thailand, and India, all heavily reliant on fertiliser imports. However, the impact of shortages may be delayed until imported stocks run out.

As the war drags on, farmers may cut fertiliser use by planting less or switching to crops requiring less. Poorer harvests would, in turn, adversely affect later investment, planting and fertiliser use.

Who suffers most?
The economic consequences of the unprovoked US-Israeli assault on Iran and Tehran’s responses are spreading fast and catastrophically, especially for the most vulnerable.

Iran’s new leadership mistrusts Washington and will keep Hormuz closed – choking fuel, food, and fertiliser flows through it – to secure the guarantees it needs to reduce its vulnerability.

As attacks on Iran continued, Tehran stepped up targeted attacks on infrastructure in the Gulf kingdoms hosting US military facilities. US-led efforts have provided little relief to its allies.

The worldwide impact is uneven, with the poorest taking the brunt. Asia and Africa have been hard hit by heavy reliance on oil, gas, and fertiliser imports.

Rich nations’ aid cuts to increase military spending have worsened poverty and hunger for millions, many of whom are also victims of war and aggression.

Unlike the rich, many migrant workers in the Gulf who cannot leave will struggle to make ends meet and send money home to their families.

And as the world’s attention has turned to the Gulf, Israel has worsened conditions in Gaza while taking over southern Lebanon and increasing Yemen’s pain.

Concerned about retribution in November’s mid-term elections, the White House is keen on a ceasefire.

But it has not offered terms acceptable to Iran, which remains suspicious of the US commitment to its own promises, let alone the rule of law.

Hence, the Iranian leadership is unlikely to agree to a ceasefire without credible guarantees for its future security from renewed Israeli and US aggression.

The Iran war has highlighted, yet again, the collateral damage of war and the food system’s vulnerability. Meanwhile, the suffering of the more vulnerable is ignored by the greater powers, who pay little heed to their plight.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

When the 11th Our Ocean Conference opens in Mombasa and Kilifi, Kenya, from June 16-18, 2026, it will mark the first time this influential meeting has been held on African soil. For coastal and island nations across the continent and the wider Indian Ocean – and for the Global South more broadly – the stakes could not be higher: the promises and commitments made there will help decide whether the ocean becomes a source of justice and resilience, or deepens existing inequalities.

James Alix Michel

Since its launch in 2014, the Our Ocean Conference has generated a steady stream of commitments on marine conservation, sustainable fisheries, climate action and pollution control. Billions of dollars have been pledged for marine protected areas, surveillance, research and community projects. Yet, for many communities in the Global South, the reality at sea has often changed far less than the rhetoric on land. Overfishing, climate-driven ecosystem shifts and pollution continue to undermine food security and livelihoods, while benefits from the “blue economy” still tend to flow upwards to those with capital and technology.

I know this process intimately. In 2018, at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali, Indonesia (October 29–30), I was honoured to be invited by renown Philanthropist, Dona Bertarelli, and named one of the founding Pew-Bertarelli Ocean Legacy Ambassadors, alongside John Kerry, former US Secretary of State, and David Cameron, former UK Prime Minister, Heraldo Munoz former Chilean minister of Foreign Affairs and Carlotta Leon.

Our central mission was to champion large-scale marine protected areas (MPAs).

Under my presidency of Seychelles (2004–2016), we set a global example for the Global South. At Rio+20 in 2012, we announced our bold commitment to protect 30% of our 1.35 million km² Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) by 2020 – a full decade ahead of today’s global 30×30 targets. We launched the Seychelles Marine Spatial Plan (SMSP) process in 2014, involving 265 stakeholder consultations and over 100 GIS data layers, culminating in 410,000 km² (30% of our EEZ, an area larger than Germany) designated as Marine Protected Areas in March 2020, with the full SMSP becoming legally binding across our entire EEZ on March 31, 2025. We also pioneered the world’s first sovereign blue bond in October 2018 – a US$15 million issuance (with $21.6 million debt-for-nature swap via The Nature Conservancy) that reduced our borrowing costs from 6.5% to 2.8% while funding fisheries governance, marine protection and blue economy projects through SeyCCAT and the Development Bank of Seychelles.

Mombasa’s significance lies not only in geography but in timing. The High Seas Treaty – formally the BBNJ Agreement entered into force on the 17th January this year having reached 60 ratifications in 2025.

The Treaty offers, for the first time, a framework to create marine protected areas and regulate potentially harmful activities in areas beyond national jurisdiction, which cover nearly half the planet and play critical roles in climate regulation and biodiversity. For African and other developing countries, the way this agreement is implemented will test whether “common heritage of humankind” can move from slogan to reality.

Seychelles was among the first African nations to ratify BBNJ, advocating for high seas MPAs like the Saya de Malha Bank.

The treaty’s provisions on environmental impact assessments, area-based management tools, capacity-building and benefit-sharing will shape who gets to decide what happens on the high seas, and who gains or loses from emerging ocean industries. Without strong institutions, adequate financing and meaningful participation from the Global South, there is a risk that powerful states and corporations will dominate decision-making, reproducing on the ocean the same patterns of inequality seen on land.

The debate over deep-sea mining makes these concerns concrete. Proponents argue that mining polymetallic nodules and other deep-sea deposits could supply minerals needed for the energy transition.

But scientific assessments warn that such operations may cause long-lasting damage to seafloor habitats, disrupt carbon cycles and threaten species we have barely begun to study. Small-scale fishers, coastal communities and Indigenous peoples worry that the costs will be borne by those least responsible for climate change and least able to adapt.

In recent years, a broad coalition of states, scientists, civil society groups and youth movements has called for a precautionary pause or moratorium on commercial deep-sea mining in the Area. This demand is rooted in the precautionary principle and in a vision of the ocean as a living system, not just a stockpile of raw materials. For many in the Global South, it is also a justice issue: the world cannot repeat, in the deep sea, an extractive model that has left communities polluted and marginalised on land.

In Africa’s Indian Ocean, these debates are particularly urgent. Recently, I joined ocean Renown philanthropist and a strong advocate of Ocean Conservation , Dona Bertarelli in calling for a moratorium on deep-sea mining in Africa’s ocean, especially in the Indian Ocean. Our message to governments is that precaution and long-term stewardship must come before short-term profit – a principle Seychelles has applied through our SMSP and blue bonds.

Kenya has framed the 2026 conference under the theme “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future”, with a focus on jobs, equity and healthy oceans. This framing resonates across the Global South, where coastal and inland communities face converging crises of climate change, biodiversity loss and economic insecurity.

For the conference to be a turning point, African and other developing countries could push for three outcomes :

First, insist that BBNJ implementation be guided by equity: robust funding for capacity-building and technology transfer, transparent environmental assessments, and benefit-sharing that reaches frontline communities.

Second, unite behind a precautionary moratorium on deep-sea mining until independent science shows it can proceed without irreversible harm and robust global rules exist.

Third, demand commitments that improve lives: secure markets for small-scale fishers, nature-based solutions like mangrove restoration, climate-resilient infrastructure, and support for youth, women and Indigenous leadership. Seychelles proves this works – 30%+ EEZ protection with sustainable financing balancing ecology and equity.

Mombasa sits at the intersection of vulnerability and possibility, like coastal cities across the Global South. Hosting Africa’s first Our Ocean Conference offers a chance to centre perspectives of those who live with the ocean daily.

The test of Our Ocean 2026 will be whether it shifts power towards those most affected and committed to stewardship. For Africa, SIDS and the Global South, Mombasa is a moment to say: the ocean is not a frontier to be mined, but a living foundation for our survival and dignity.

James Alix Michel is the former President of Seychelles (2004–2016) and a global advocate for the blue economy, ocean conservation and climate resilience.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Marcelo Del Pozo/Reuters via Gallo Images

By Andrew Firmin
LONDON, Mar 16 2026 (IPS)

Once again, global oil prices are spiking, driven by the Israeli-US war against Iran. With Iran retaliating by attacking infrastructure and transport hubs and blocking the Strait of Hormuz, through which one-fifth of the world’s oil passes, oil supplies from the region are being choked, pushing up prices. The cost of a barrel of Brent crude – the international benchmark for oil prices – stood at US$73 before the conflict but has surged beyond US$100 since. It could go higher still as war continues.

The impacts are already being felt when drivers fill up their petrol- and diesel-powered vehicles. But they go much wider. Bigger household energy bills will likely result, while businesses will pass on their increased costs in the form of higher prices. Russia’s 2022 full-scale invasion of Ukraine sent oil prices soaring and sparked a global cost-of-living crisis, and now, as many economies seemed to be recovering, the war in the Gulf has brought another shock. Impacts could be political as well as financial: in numerous countries, the cost-of-living crisis helped drive voters towards right-wing populist and nationalist politicians. Recent years have seen Gen Z-led protests erupt in countries around the world, fuelled in part by young people’s anger at failing economies.

In a world increasingly characterised by conflict and with powerful states tearing up the international rulebook in pursuit of material interests, more oil shocks and big economic and political impacts seem inevitable. Governments typically react with economic policies that fail to protect those with the least, and by meeting political unrest with repression. They should consider another way.

The world will remain vulnerable to oil price shocks only for as long as it stays dependent on oil. The climate crisis compels a rapid move away from fossil fuel dependency to abate the worst impacts of global heating. Increasingly, this should also be seen as a matter of economic and political security.

Some steps have been taken in the right direction. Renewables now provide over 30 per cent of global electricity. Investments in renewables more than double those in fossil fuels. But fossil fuel companies have immense power and are determined not to give it up. That was reflected in the fact that 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists attended the latest global climate summit, COP30 in Brazil, and succeeded in preventing any new commitment to end fossil fuel extraction. Their power is shown in the lawsuit an oil company brought against Greenpeace, leading to a widely criticised trial in North Dakota, USA, with the campaigning organisation facing a punitive US$345 million damages bill. Their influence was reaffirmed by Donald Trump’s election win, after a campaign in which fossil fuel companies gave US$450 million in donations to Trump and his allies – and they were rewarded by US intervention in Venezuela.

Fossil fuel companies are determined to hold back the tide of renewables for as long as possible, because every day of delay is another day of profit, even though every fraction of a degree of temperature rise means avoidable suffering for millions of people. Delay is the new climate denial.

As the latest State of Civil Society Report points out, civil society’s working to make the difference, urging governments to hasten the transition and calling on global north states to make funding available for global south states to decarbonise and adapt to climate impacts. Civil society is exposing the environmental devastation caused by extraction and the complicity of fossil fuel companies in human rights abuses. Its strategies include advocacy, public campaigning, protests, direct action and, increasingly, litigation.

In 2025, climate litigation scored some big successes. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) issued an unprecedented advisory opinion, ruling that states have a legal duty to prevent environmental harm, which requires them to mitigate emissions and adapt to climate change. This victory originated in civil society: in 2019, student groups from eight countries formed the Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change network to persuade their governments to seek an ICJ ruling.

Following extensive civil society engagement, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights issued a similar ruling. The African Court for Human and Peoples’ Rights is set to issue its advisory opinion following a petition brought by the African Climate Platform, a civil society coalition.

These rulings can seem symbolic, but they strengthen national-level efforts to hold states and corporations accountable. These have paid off recently too. In 2025, two South African groups stopped an offshore oil project after a court found its environmental assessments were deeply flawed. More litigation is coming, including in New Zealand, where civil society has filed a lawsuit after the government weakened its emissions reduction plan.

But civil society faces a backlash. Around the world, climate and environmental activists and their allies, Indigenous and land rights defenders, experience severe state and corporate repression.

Last year in Uganda, authorities arrested 11 activists for protesting against the construction of the East African Crude Oil Pipeline. In Peru, police used teargas and non-lethal weapons against people blocking a road to protest against a mine. In Cambodia, five young activists from the Mother Nature environmental group have been in jail since July 2024.

The French government has repeatedly vilified environmental campaigners and deployed police violence against protests, while last year the German government launched an inquiry into public funding of environmental groups and the Dutch parliament adopted a motion condemning Extinction Rebellion and urging the removal of its tax-exempt status.

As the latest oil price shocks reverberate around the global economy, governments should learn the lessons. As economies deteriorate, the temptation will be to say that transition is a luxury, something that can be put off even further. This is the wrong lesson: recent research in the UK suggests that the cost of achieving net zero will be about the same as the cost of another oil price crisis. Economic and political security lies in ending fossil fuel dependency as quickly as possible. To learn the right lessons, governments should stop repressing climate activism and instead listen to and work with civil society.

Andrew Firmin isCIVICUS Editor-in-Chief, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An old rusty tsunami warning sign in Bali Indonesia. After the tsunami, countries in Asia have improved their early warning system and signs to save lives. Credit: Unsplash/Bernard Hermant

By Temily Baker and Sofia Bilmes
BANGKOK, Thailand, Mar 11 2026 (IPS)

On 11 March 2011, the powerful 9.0 magnitude Tōhoku earthquake struck off the northeastern coast of Japan, triggering a 40-meter Tsunami. Many coastal towns along Japan’s Pacific coast were devastated. Approximately 20,000 people lost their lives and around 470,000 were evacuated from their homes.

Beyond the immense human tragedy, the estimated economic losses ranged between US$154 billion to US$235 billion with severely damaged critical infrastructure, including transportation, energy systems, water supply and communications networks. The cascading impacts led to the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident, which intensified both hardship and environmental challenges.

Despite the devastation, the world witnessed extraordinary resilience

15 years later, we continue to honour those lost and the communities that were forever changed. Families rebuilt their homes, local governments restored services and the country prioritized recovery and disaster prevention. These experiences taught important lessons that have influenced global approaches to disaster risk reduction:

1. Early warning must be paired with community preparedness.
Japan’s rapid early warning alerts in 2011 gave people precious seconds and minutes to act. What truly saved lives, however, was the country’s deeply rooted Bōsai Bunka – a culture of preparedness built on regular drills, community networks and shared responsibility. The event also showed that preparedness cannot remain static; systems, training and risk assumptions must continually evolve as science advances and hazards intensify.

2. Recovery should build long-term resilience, not just restore what was lost.
The scale of destruction forced communities and policymakers to rethink land use, coastal defenses, urban planning and future-oriented disaster response and recovery strategies. The idea of “Build Back Better” became a key part of rebuilding after the disaster. Reconstruction became an opportunity to reduce exposure, strengthen protective infrastructure, and re design communities with resilience at their core.

3. Disaster risks cross borders and so must our solutions.
Tsunami waves travel across oceans and supply chains which link economies around the world. Furthermore, climate change does not know boundaries. The Tōhoku disaster underscored that no country can face such risks alone. Now 61 years in operation, the Pacific Tsunami Warning System represents multilateral early warning system in the world (see Figure 1). International cooperation, shared data and coordinated preparedness are essential to reducing global disaster risk.

Source: International Tsunami Information Center (ITIC)

Together, these lessons highlight Japan as a global leader in tsunami preparedness and multi hazard risk management, strengthened by its longstanding commitment to sharing knowledge worldwide.

Scaling Japan’s preparedness culture globally

The lessons of Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami played a significant role in shaping the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction 2015-2030, later reinforced in Asia and the Pacific through ESCAP Resolution 71/12 on strengthening regional mechanisms for its implementation.

This framework helped move the world’s focus from reacting to disasters to managing risks before they happen. Since then, the culture of preparedness has grown to focus more on inclusion, better risk communication and solutions led by local communities, with 131 countries now reporting having national disaster risk reduction strategies in place.

Moreover, Sustainable Development Goal 11 calls for making cities inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable, and specifically, target 11.5 aims to reduce disaster-related deaths and economic losses. Unfortunately, Asia and the Pacific represent the most disaster impacted region in the world, with rising losses from disasters recorded in the 2026 SDG Progress Report.

However, hope prevails: Japan’s post-2011 approach to reconstruction is an example of SDG 11 in practice: risk-informed urban planning, stricter building codes, ecosystem-based coastal protection, and community-based emergency preparedness. Today, 81 per cent of Pacific Ocean basin countries now have tsunami hazard assessments – the first step to understanding and preparing for the risk. This proves that, even though hazard events are inevitable, we can take measures to ensure they do not become disasters.

Japan’s commitment to transboundary resilience building is also evident through the country’s longstanding membership within the ESCAP multi-donor Trust Fund for Tsunami, Disaster and Climate Preparedness.

Through this regional funding mechanism, Japan and fellow donors from the region and worldwide translate accumulated experience into practical cooperation – reinforcing systems that enable early hazard detection, faster community notification, and the saving of lives.

Most recently, the Trust Fund has supported a comprehensive tsunami preparedness capacity assessment across the region, helping countries identify gaps in early warning, coordination and last-mile communication to strengthen basin-wide resilience.

In an era of intensifying climate risks and cascading crises, remembrance must be reinforced by collective actions.

Temily Baker is Programme Management Officer, Disaster Risk Reduction Section, ESCAP and Sofia Bilmes is Intern, Disaster Risk Reduction Section, ESCAP

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Bula Central School in Bula, Camarines Sur, Philippines, remain flooded a week after Tropical Storm Trami brought heavy rains and strong winds to much of the country in 2024. Extreme weather patterns such as this illustrate the type of intensified climate risks associated with warming oceans and shifting climate patterns. Credit: UNICEF/Martin San Diego.

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

Earlier this week World Meteorological Organization (WMO) announced that the weakening conditions of La Niña conditions are beginning to fade, with climate conditions transitioning toward ENSO-neutral —a phase in which neither El Niño nor La Niña is present and oceanic and atmospheric conditions in the tropical Pacific remain near average. The agency noted that this shift could lead to the development of El Niño later in the year, a pattern typically associated with rising global temperatures and an increased risk of extreme weather events worldwide.

Although these forecasts carry a degree of uncertainty— particularly during the boreal spring, when the well-known “spring predictability barrier” temporarily reduces the accuracy of ENSO predictions — they remain crucial for global climate preparedness measures. Early warnings of shifts between El Niño, La Niña, and neutral conditions give governments, industries, and humanitarian organizations essential time to prepare for disasters.

By informing disaster planning, protecting critical infrastructure, and guiding responses for climate-sensitive communities, these forecasts can help reduce damage, strengthen resilience, and potentially save millions of dollars in economic losses from extreme weather patterns.

“The WMO community will be carefully monitoring conditions in the coming months to inform decision-making,” said WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo, noting that the most recent El Niño event in 2023-2024 was one of the five strongest on record, contributing to the record-breaking global temperatures observed in 2024.

“Seasonal forecasts for El Niño and La Niña help us avert millions of dollars in economic losses and are essential planning tools for climate-sensitive sectors like agriculture, health, energy, and water management,” Saulo added. “They are also a key part of the climate intelligence provided by WMO to support humanitarian operations and disaster risk management, and thus save lives.”

According to forecasts from the WMO Global Producing Centres, there is a 60 percent chance that ENSO-neutral conditions will persist from March through May. From April to June, the likelihood of El Niño developing increases to approximately 70 percent. By May through July, the likelihood of ENSO-neutral conditions drops to around 60 percent, while the chance of El Niño rises to roughly 40 percent.

These projections suggest that global ocean temperatures will likely continue to rise as the year progresses, signaling a need for resilient climate-monitoring and preparatory efforts, particularly for the highly vulnerable populations in coastal regions in the Asia-Pacific.

“When El Niño develops, we’re likely to set a new global temperature record,” said climate scientist Jennifer Francis of the Woodwell Climate Research Center. “‘Normal” was left in the dust decades ago. And with this much heat in the system, everyone should buckle up for the extreme weather it will fuel.”

El Niño and La Niña are primarily driven by fluctuations in ocean and surrounding atmospheric conditions in the tropical Pacific region, with their impacts being exacerbated by human-induced climate change. Rising global temperatures have been found to amplify the frequency and severity of extreme weather events associated with these oscillations, including extensive droughts, prolonged monsoons, devastating floods, stronger tropical cyclones, heatwaves, and wildfires.

These shifts disrupt seasonal rainfall and temperature patterns, leading to biodiversity loss and widespread ecosystem degradation. Immediate consequences include growing food insecurity driven by declining crop yields and collapsing fisheries, along with heightened risks to human health, livelihoods, water security, and broader economic stability.

“El Niño is typically associated with increased rainfall triggering flooding in the Horn of Africa and the southern United States of America, and unusually dry and warm conditions in South East Asia, Australia and southern Africa,” explained José Álvaro Silva, a climate expert for WMO.

“In the past, it has exacerbated drought in northern South America and has also contributed to drier and warmer conditions in parts of southern Africa. Each El Niño event is unique in terms of magnitude, spatial pattern, temporal evolution and impacts,” Silvo told an IPS correspondent. “The impacts of the 2023-2024 El Nino combined with human-induced climate change, have largely contributed to the extreme heat across the planet…Sea surface temperatures and ocean heat were at record levels – even in areas not typically affected by El Niño. There were widespread marine heatwaves and coral bleaching.”

A joint study led by Professor Benjamin Horton, Dean of the School of Energy and Environment at City University of Hong Kong, in collaboration with researchers from Nanyang Technological University in Singapore, published in January, examined the long-term impacts of El Niño on human health. Titled Enduring Impacts of El Niño on Life Expectancy in Past and Future Climates, the study drew upon roughly six decades of findings from ten Pacific Rim countries, including the United States, Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore, and Australia.

The study found that intensifying El Niño periods are having increasingly detrimental effects on human mortality rates and life expectancy, having notably increased over the past several years. Researchers found a strong correlation between gradually hotter El Niño events and infectious diseases, cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses, with children and the elderly facing heightened risks. The study also found a direct correlation between hotter El Niño periods and disruptions to healthcare systems as a result of infrastructure damage, which greatly compounds public health challenges.

Historically, the two strongest El Niño events on record — 1982-1983 and 1997-1998 — were linked with lowered life expectancy of approximately a year and one-third of a year, respectively, equivalent to economic losses of roughly USD 2.6 trillion and USD 4.7 trillion. In Hong Kong alone, the 1982-83 event resulted in an estimated 0.6 year decline in life expectancy and economic losses of nearly USD 15 billion, while the 1997-98 event resulted in a 0.4 year reduction and losses exceeding USD 5.8 billion.

Horton warned that intensifying El Niño events could reduce life expectancy across these regions by up to 2.8 years and generate cumulative losses of approximately $35 trillion by 2100. While the study does not provide region-level projections, current trends suggest that Hong Kong alone could face economic losses between USD 250 billion and USD 300 billion over the course of the century.

“El Niño is predictable,” Professor Horton said. “So, with the right planning, we can reduce its impacts. To mitigate El Niño events, countries and regions need strong early-warning systems, heat-health action plans, better water management, and protection for workers exposed to extreme heat. They also need resilient infrastructure, smarter agriculture that can cope with heatwaves, droughts, and heavy rainfall, and public health systems that are prepared for spikes in disease and pollution.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

In Japan, the youth group donated the proceeds from their recycling to single-mother families with hospitalized children through the NPO Keep Mama Smiling. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto.

By Karuta Yamamoto
TOKYO, Japan, Mar 6 2026 (IPS)

From the beginning, this project was a collaboration between student teams in Japan and Korea. Although we live in different countries, we shared one common question: How can young people reduce waste while supporting families facing food insecurities?
Our journey began with a problem we could see clearly in our communities.

In Japan, food insecurity often hides behind quiet dignity. According to a recent survey by Save the Children Japan, over 90 percent of low-income households with children reported struggling to afford enough food, with many families forced to cut back on even basic staples such as rice due to rising prices.

The Japan and Korean team of all 11 students presented ‘The Co-creation of Youth from Waste to Hope’ at the 9th Tokyo International Conference on African Development (TICAD 9) Thematic Event. Credit: Ticad 9

The Japanese team leader, Karuta Yamamoto, and the Korean team presented ‘What we want in Africa for the future’ at the Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea, during TICAD 9.

Japan and Korea Team Leader, Karuta Yamamoto and Emma Shin, in an interview with UNFPA Seoul. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto

The Korean team set up a shop at a bazaar at Arumjigi, Seoul, Korea. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto

Single-parent households—most led by mothers—face especially high levels of food hardship and are often compelled to make painful decisions about how limited budgets are spent. For some families, this means choosing between symbolic moments of celebration and everyday nutrition. A ¥3,000 Christmas cake may represent joy for one household, but for another, that same amount must stretch to five kilograms of rice—enough to feed a family for several days.

At the same time, vast amounts of edible food are wasted in Japan. Official statistics show that millions of tons of food are discarded annually in Japan, much of it still edible. Seasonal items such as Christmas cakes, which cannot be sold after December 25, are frequently thrown away. This contrast—waste on one side and hunger on the other—reflects the global challenge addressed by SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production.

As students in Japan and Korea, we asked ourselves, “What role can we play in closing this gap?”

We knew that awareness alone would not change habits. enough. Instead of telling people to feel guilty about food waste, we decided to take action together.

We began locally, but with shared purpose.

In Japan, students at Dalton Tokyo Senior High School noticed that mandarin oranges—one of the country’s most common fruits—often go uneaten, with peels and seeds discarded. In Korea, students identified a different issue: more than 150,000 tons of used coffee grounds are discarded each year, contributing to landfill emissions and greenhouse gas emissions.

Different materials.

One shared goal.

Rather than seeing waste as the end of a product’s life, we saw it as a beginning.

Research shows that citrus peels contain essential oils that can be used in soaps and cleaning products. Studies in Korea also demonstrate that spent coffee grounds can be processed into sustainable biomaterials suitable for eco-friendly design and 3D printing. Plantable seed paper—made from recycled paper embedded with seeds—is another example of how waste can be transformed into something regenerative.

Inspired by these ideas, our student teams turned theory into action.

Japanese students created handmade soaps using discarded citrus peels.

Handmade soaps using discarded citrus peels. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto

The soaps ready for sale. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto

Korean students developed 3D-printed clip-on vases incorporating recycled coffee grounds, encouraging people to reuse empty bottles and cups instead of discarding them.

The Korean students developed 3D-printed clip-on vases incorporating recycled coffee grounds. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto

They also produced plantable seed paper from recycled materials, allowing waste to literally grow into flowers and herbs.

Korean students produced plantable seed paper from recycled materials. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto.

These products were not sold as charity goods. Instead, they were shared as examples of responsible consumption—showing that waste can have a second life through our design. Through this work, we directly supported SDG 12: Responsible Consumption and Production, which calls for reducing waste through recycling and reuse, and SDG 13: Climate Action, by lowering emissions through upcycling.

At the same time, the funds raised had a clear purpose.

The profits were used to support families facing food insecurity. In Japan, we donated to single-mother families with hospitalized children through the NPO Keep Mama Smiling (see main photo for the opinion piece).

They also provided essential cooking ingredients to the Karuizawa Food Bank. By connecting environmental action with helping families in need, our project also supported SDG 2: Zero Hunger.

The group provided cooking ingredients to the Karuizawa Food Bank. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto

Through this experience, we learned that caring for the planet and caring for people are not separate goals. Waste reduction and hunger relief became connected in one youth-led effort—turning environmental responsibility into community solidarity.

But our collaboration did not stop in Japan and Korea.

Through a partnership with the OneSmile Foundation—an organization that transforms digital smiles into donations—we connected our local initiatives to a global challenge. During workshops, we learned that school meal donations in Lesotho had stopped the previous year. Without reliable meals, many students were struggling to focus in class.

Together, our Japanese and Korean teams raised over 300,000 Japanese yen.

The Japanese and Korean teams celebrate their fundraising efforts. Credit: Karuta Yamamoto

Working with local partners in Lesotho, we organized a community-based food support initiative at Rasetimela High School, which serves 863 students. School feeding programs play a critical role in Lesotho, and recent disruptions have left many students more vulnerable to hunger.

Students at Rasetimela High School in Lesotho receive donations of food. Courtesy: Rasetimela High School

Ninety-one of the most vulnerable students were selected through transparent criteria, including those supported by social welfare programs and those who had previously relied on international assistance. Each selected family received staple foods such as rice and corn flour to make a local staple called pap. Distribution was organized near the school to ensure safety and allow parents to collect the supplies securely.

This cross-border effort—connecting students, NGOs, local leaders, and communities—reflects the spirit of SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals.

Although we live in different countries, climates, and cultures, this experience reshaped how we understand global cooperation. The students in Lesotho were not distant beneficiaries. We became peers in a shared world.

They became peers in a shared world. Courtesy: Rasetimela High School

As young people, we often believe our impact is limited because we do not control large resources. This project challenged that belief. We learned that we can create change by designing solutions, raising awareness, and working together.

We even tried to measure what we called a “Happiness Index” by counting the smiles of students who received support. Those smiles reminded us that sustainability is not only environmental or economic—it is human.

Our experience shows that youth are not just future leaders. We are active contributors today. When creativity meets collaboration, waste can become opportunity, and local action can grow into global solidarity.

Turning waste into hope is not an abstract idea.
It is a choice—and young people are already making it.

Edited by Dr Hanna Yoon

IPS UN Bureau Report

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Port Vila Market, Vanuatu – Kevin Hellon / shutterstock.com

By Tobias Ide
Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

 
The Pacific Island countries are at the frontline of climate change. Their territories mostly consist of small, low-lying islands, with long coastlines and vast ocean spaces between them. Many livelihoods are based on agriculture or fishing, and importing water or food is often infeasible or expensive. This makes those large ocean nations highly vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, such as storms, droughts, and rising sea levels. Analysts have expressed concerns that this can result in various forms of socio-political conflict.

However, the Pacific Island countries have received scarce attention in research on climate change and conflict. This is surprising given the Pacific Island countries’ high climate vulnerability and increasing geopolitical relevance. A few years back, a Nature article did not find a single peer-reviewed study on the climate-conflict nexus in the Pacific. And while recent work added important insights on potential pathways between climate and conflict in the Pacific Island countries, the region remains understudied.

A new study tackles this knowledge gap by systematically collecting data on conflict events (such as protests, riots, and communal violence) in Fiji, Solomon Islands, and Vanuatu. It then determines statistical associations between the occurrence of such conflicts—protests, riots, communal violence etc.—and climate extremes like storms, heatwaves, and floods. The results are surprising.

Climate extremes do not drive conflict risks

The researchers found that climate disasters are not a significant predictor of conflict events. This is true for both cities and rural areas. In cities, high values of (and competition for) land, immigration after disasters, and opportunities for political mobilisation have long been considered to make climate-related conflicts more likely, yet no such statistical signal was detected. Even when looking only at conflicts around natural resources like water or forests, climate extremes are not a good predictor.

These findings could nuance common wisdom about climate change and conflict. Experts from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have concluded that climate change increases conflict risks, even though other conflict drivers are more important. Such a linkage is particularly likely in climate vulnerable regions with a history of political instability, and it is also more applicable to low-intensity conflicts like protests (as compared to large-scale violence like civil wars). Yet, the study focuses on such smaller-scale conflict. Fiji, Solomon Island, and Vanuatu are also highly vulnerable to climate change and suffered through political instability (coups, civil war, and unrest) in the past.

How to make sense of the absence of conflict

As a starting point, it is important to clarify three things. First, the absence of conflict does not necessarily imply peace, particularly if those least responsible for climate change suffer most from its consequences. Second, the study focuses on visible and collective forms of conflict. Disasters, but also competition for disaster-related support schemes, might well result in lower-level, less visible forms of conflict, such as household and intimate partner violence or lower social cohesion within communities. Studying these forms of conflict is certainly a key task for future work. Third, evidence is not perfect. The new study, for instance, covers only the period 2012 to 2020, studies just three Pacific Island countries, and could not include rainfall anomalies due to a lack of data.

That said, the absence of a correlation between climate extremes and socio-political conflict events is still noteworthy. It indicates the Pacific Islands have significant levels of agency and resilience. This is not to romanticise local communities and national governments—as everywhere in the world, they have their share of tensions and shortcomings. But the Pacific Island countries possess well-established traditional institutions and, at least in some areas, strong community and civil society networks. Given their remote location, tropical climate, and oceanic geography, they have plenty of knowledge and experience in dealing with climate extremes like droughts, floods, and storms as well. These are important assets for coping peacefully with the impacts of climate change.

Consider the example of Vanuatu after cyclone Pam in 2015. Despite being one of the most intense storms to ever hit the South Pacific, the death toll was relatively low, and the country recovered rather quickly from its impacts. This was the case because local community structures and NGO-led Community Climate Change Committees coordinated well, and they thus played a key role in preparing for the storm and in delivering disaster relief and recovery. These activities did not just utilise but also strengthened traditional social networks. Furthermore, state institutions effectively utilised the inflow of international aid to deal with the cyclone’s impacts, thereby increasing trust in the government. Consequentially, no major conflicts erupted in the aftermath of Pam.

Avoid doomsday thinking – and provide tailored support

Which insights can decision makers draw from these findings?

It is important to avoid doomsday scenarios when thinking about climate change in the Pacific. For sure, the respective countries are highly exposed to and quite vulnerable to climate change. But if policy makers and media portray the Pacific Island countries as helpless victims of climate change and prone to conflict, the consequences are problematic: a lack of economic investment, external support mostly focussed on relocation, and an ignorance of local capacities.

By contrast, emphasising how Pacific communities successfully deal with and maintain peace in the context of climate change provides different perspectives. It highlights how local communities and state institutions (despite not being perfect) have significant capacities for climate change adaptation and bottom-up peacebuilding. National governments and international donors should utilise those capacities by providing tailored support, responding to the needs and priorities of those on the frontline of climate change. Rather than preliminary resignation or relocation, this can support the building of climate-resilient peace.

Related articles:
There Is No Security Without Development, Anything Else Is a Distraction
Do We Need a Pacific Peace Index?
The Trump Presidency and Climate Security in the Indo-Pacific Region

Tobias Ide is Associate Professor in Politics and International Relations at Murdoch University Perth. Until recently, he was also Adjunct Associate Professor of International Relations at the Brunswick University of Technology. He has published widely on the intersections of the environment, climate change, peace, conflict and security, including in Global Environmental Change, International Affairs, Journal of Peace Research, Nature Climate Change, and World Development. He is also a director of the Environmental Peacebuilding Association.

This article was issued by the Toda Peace Institute and is being republished from the original with their permission.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Close-up-of-a-yellowfin-tuna-swimming-in-the-sea. Credit: Freepik---EyeEm

By James Alix Michel and Dona Bertarelli
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Feb 3 2026 (IPS)

The world is entering a decisive period for the future of the ocean. With the High Seas Treaty coming into force and meaningful progress being made on the World Trade Organization Agreement on Fisheries Subsidies, global momentum for stronger marine governance is building. Yet, new pressures linked to the push for deep-sea mining — the extraction of minerals from seabed thousands of meters below the ocean surface — threaten to undermine these gains. To safeguard progress, global decision-making will have to keep pace with such emerging risks. In this context, Africa will host several global discussions in 2026, including those that will shape the ocean’s future, with a series of opportunities for leadership starting with the African Union Summit in February to the Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa, Kenya in June.

Dona-Bertarelli-and-James-Alix-Michel-meeting-at-Our-Ocean-Bali-in-2018. Credit: Dona-Bertarelli-Philanthropy

These concerns are particularly relevant to the Western Indian Ocean (WIO), one of the most biodiverse marine regions in the world, with endemism as high as 22 per cent yet at the convergence of multiple environmental stresses. Coral reefs and mangrove forests are deteriorating, while illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, and sand mining put additional pressure on already fragile ecosystems. The lasting impacts of the 2020 Wakashio oil spill in Mauritius show how quickly harm to the ocean can ripple across communities. In such a fragile setting, the introduction of a new extractive industry demands the highest level of scrutiny.

In the face of these emerging challenges, Seychelles has an important role to play. For decades, it has demonstrated leadership in championing the blue economy and protecting marine ecosystems. Early ratification of the BBNJ Treaty, along with advocacy for High Seas marine protected areas such as the Saya de Malha Bank, has positioned the country as a respected voice for responsible ocean governance. If deep-sea mining begins in the Pacific, the Indian Ocean is likely to follow, including on the mid-Indian Ridge east of Seychelles’ EEZ and within the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries agreement region. Catalyzing a new wave of continental leadership on deep-sea protection would advance a vision of ocean stewardship grounded in equity and sustainability. A precautionary pause on deep-sea mining would give concrete expression to that vision.

Polymetallic nodules on the deep seabed. Credit: Deep-Rising

Scientific research continues to underline this need for caution. Deep-sea mining would have an irreversible impact on seabed ecosystems and species. And recent studies of the midwater zone, where waste plumes from deep-sea mining would spread, show that mining particles could reduce the nutritional quality of the natural food supply for zooplankton by up to ten times. This would decrease food quality and trigger effects that move through the food web, ultimately affecting larger species and the overall health of the ocean millions of people rely on. In an environment where more than 99.99 percent of the deep ocean floor has yet to be explored or directly observed, introducing large scale industrial activity could cause damage that cannot be undone.

The economic risks for the region are equally significant. The Western Indian Ocean’s natural assets have been conservatively valued at 333.8 billion dollars, making the ocean one of the region’s most important sources of long-term wealth. Within this, fisheries represent the single largest asset and a cornerstone of economic resilience. The region generates about 4.8 percent of the global fish catch, roughly 4.5 million tonnes each year, underscoring how many economies and communities depend on healthy stocks. In Seychelles and across the region, tuna fisheries in particular underpin national revenue, employment and food security. Undermining the sustainability of fisheries could therefore not only threaten livelihoods but also diminish long-term economic opportunity.

Deep-sea-creature. Credit: Schmidt-Ocean-Institute

The accelerating push for deep-sea mining activities also raises concerns about repeating historic patterns seen in other extractive sectors across Africa. The uneven distribution of benefits from land-based resource exploitation has shown how easily local communities can be left with environmental impacts while external actors capture most of the value. Without strong governance frameworks that ensure fair participation and transparent decision-making, current deep-sea mining models risk following a similar trajectory, privileging short-term economic gain for multinational corporations over regional priorities.

Finally, the argument that deep-sea mining is necessary for the renewable energy transition is also increasingly at odds with current evidence. Rapid advances in recycling technologies, circular economy approaches, and alternative materials are already reducing the projected demand for minerals from new extractions. These pathways can support the global transition without the need to industrialize one of the least understood parts of the planet. The United Nations Environment Programme has also made clear in their 2022 report that “there is currently no foreseeable way in which investment into deep-sea mining activities can be viewed as consistent with the Sustainable Blue Economy Finance Principles”.

White-sand-and-clear-turquoise-water-on-a-Seychelles-beach. Credit: Unsplash—Alin-Mecean

In parallel, African-led nature-positive initiatives are demonstrating how ocean resources can be managed in ways that support both people and the environment. Initiatives such as the Great Blue Wall aim to create connected networks of protected and restored marine areas that strengthen biodiversity, climate resilience and community wellbeing across the WIO region. These efforts demonstrate what a regenerative blue economy can look like in practice. Preserving these gains requires ensuring that new activities do not compromise the progress already made.

Across the continent, young leaders, civil society and scientific institutions are calling for greater accountability in decisions that shape our collective future. Their message is clear: long-term wellbeing for everyone must come before short-term gains for a select few. This call also echoes a growing movement worldwide, with more than 40 countries now supporting a pause on deep-sea mining, including France, Fiji, Chile and Mexico. A precautionary pause on deep-sea mining is not a rejection of economic progress, but a commitment to sound science, inclusive dialogue and responsible stewardship. We are hopeful that countries in Africa and elsewhere in the world will hear this call and secure the future of the ocean for generations to come.

James Alix Michel is the former President of Seychelles (2004–2016) and a global advocate for the blue economy, ocean conservation and climate resilience.

Dona Bertarelli is a Swiss philanthropist, IUCN Patron of Nature and biodiversity champion, deeply committed to a healthy balance between people and nature.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Two children in Nepal carry water buckets for the cracked fields due to a lack of rainfall in Sakhuwa Parsauni Rural Municipality, Parsa District, Madhesh Province. Parts of Madhesh Province experienced drought in July due to climate change, causing water shortages that affected children and families. Credit: UNICEF/Laxmi Prasad Ngakhusi

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 30 2026 (IPS)

On January 27, the United States officially withdrew from the Paris Agreement, an international treaty adopted in 2015 aiming to reduce global warming and strengthen countries’ resilience to climate impacts. Following a year of regulatory rollbacks and sustained efforts by the Trump administration to dismantle federal climate policy, this move is expected to trigger wide ranging ripple effects—undermining international efforts to curb climate change, accelerating environmental degradation and biodiversity loss, and increasing risks to human health, safety, and long-term development.

Since its adoption, the Paris Agreement has been instrumental to global climate action initiatives—mobilizing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions, expand renewable energy, strengthen climate adaptation, and protect vulnerable communities. The agreement requires member states to regularly update their emissions-reduction targets and submit plans for achieving them, serving as a vital framework for sustaining collective progress and maintaining transparent communication among nations.

Amnesty International warns that these actions by the Trump administration risk defunding “key multilateral and bilateral climate institutions and programming,” a shift that would have significant repercussions for not only the United States but for the broader international community. The organization warns that U.S. funding for United Nations (UN) agencies is expected to cease imminently, which would halt lifesaving support for climate-sensitive communities and disrupt critical climate monitoring and mitigation efforts.

Specifically, the U.S. withdrawal is expected to undermine global efforts to address climate-induced displacement, disaster recovery, and infrastructure rebuilding. Communities in developing countries are projected to bear the heaviest burdens, as reduced support will leave them more vulnerable to escalating climate-driven losses.

Before the withdrawal, the UN was already grappling with a severe funding crisis – one made worse by the U.S.’s refusal to pay its assessed contributions to the regular budget and its sharp cuts to foreign assistance. The U.S. has also withdrawn from the board of the UN Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD), a crucial mechanism supporting vulnerable communities facing climate-driven disasters. Its previously pledged USD 17.5 million remains uncertain, raising further concerns about the fund’s ability to operate effectively.

With this move, the United States becomes the only nation to exit the agreement in history, joining Iran, Libya, and Yemen as the few states not party to it. With the U.S. being a major global actor in climate change negotiations, the withdrawal risks reducing diplomatic pressure on other wealthy nations to scale up contributions.

“The US withdrawal from the Paris Agreement sets a disturbing precedent that seeks to instigate a race to the bottom, and, along with its withdrawal from other major global climate pacts, aims to dismantle the global system of cooperation on climate action,” said Marta Schaaf, Amnesty International’s Programme Director for Climate, ESJ and Corporate Accountability.

“The US is one of several powerful anti-climate actors but as an influential superpower, this decision, along with acts of coercion and bullying of other countries and powerful actors to double down on fossil fuels, causes particular harm and threatens to reverse more than a decade of global climate progress under the agreement,” she added.

“For us, the fight against climate change continues. The fight for a just transition continues. The fight to get more resources for climate mitigation and adaptation, especially for those most vulnerable countries continues and our efforts will not waver in that part,” said UN Spokesperson to the Secretary-General Stéphane Dujarric.

On January 22, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) released its annual State of Finance for Nature report, which monitors global finance flows toward nature-based solutions. The report found that investments in activities that harm the climate are roughly 30 times the investments for ecosystem conservation and restoration.

According to figures from UNEP, the private sector makes up approximately 70 percent of global financing that harms the environment, only giving back 10 percent of funding that works to protect it. In 2023, roughly USD 7.3 trillion was invested into global activities that harmed the environment, with USD 4.9 trillion coming from private sectors and USD 2.4 trillion coming from the public sectors, which aim to maximize support for fossil fuel usage, agriculture, water, transport, and construction.

This, compounded with President Donald Trump’s renewed “drill, baby, drill” policy, is expected to further destabilize global climate efforts by accelerating fossil fuel dependence, undermining emissions-reduction targets, and widening the financial gap for urgent climate adaptation and ecosystem restoration.

Jeremy Wallace, a professor of China studies at John Hopkins University, told reporters that the U.S.’s expanding reliance on fossil fuels sends a signal to the international community that scaling back climate ambition is acceptable. This risks encouraging other major emitters to pursue weaker energy transitions and less lofty emissions-targets.

China, for instance, recently pledged to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by only 7-10 percent over the next decade, a target that has been widely criticized by climate experts as unambitious and insufficient to meet global emissions-targets.

“If the domestic market in the US continues to be dominated by fossil fuels through the fiat of an authoritarian government, that will continue to have an impact on the rest of the world,” said Basav Sen, climate justice project director at Institute for Policy Studies. “It will be that much harder for low-income countries, who are very dependent on fossil fuel production and exports, to be able to make their transitions with the US saying that we won’t fund any of it.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Two fishermen in their boat in Rincao, Cabo Verde. Credit: UN Photo/Mark Garten

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Jan 22 2026 (IPS)

In 2025, global ocean temperatures rose to some of the highest levels ever recorded, signaling a continued accumulation of heat within the Earth’s climate system and raising deep concern among climate scientists. The economic toll of ocean-related impacts—including collapsing fisheries, widespread coral reef degradation, and mounting damage to coastal infrastructure—is now estimated to be nearly double the global cost of carbon emissions, placing immense strain on economies and endangering millions of lives.

On January 14, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) confirmed that global temperatures have reached record highs over the past 11 years, with ocean heating continuing at an alarming pace. Despite the cooling influence of La Niña, 2025 became the third hottest year ever recorded. In just the past year, ocean temperatures increased by an estimated ∼23 ± 8 zettajoules—an amount of heat roughly equivalent to 200 times the world’s total electricity generation in 2024.

With an estimated 90 percent of excess heat from global warming absorbed by the world’s oceans, rising ocean temperatures have become one of the clearest indicators of the accelerating climate crisis—carrying profound risks for ecosystems and human life. The ocean is central to global prosperity, supporting livelihoods, market economies, and overall human well-being.

“Global warming is ocean warming,” said John Abraham, a professor of thermal science at the University of St. Thomas. “If you want to know how much the Earth has warmed or how fast we will warm into the future, the answer is in the oceans.”

Zeke Hausfather, a climatologist and research scientist at University of California, Berkeley, described the ocean as the “most reliable thermostat of the planet.”

According to figures from WMO, roughly 33 percent of the Earth’s total ocean area ranked among the top three warmest conditions for ocean ecosystems in history, with roughly 57 percent falling within the top five, such as the tropical and South Atlantic Ocean, Mediterranean Sea, North Indian Ocean, and Southern Oceans.

The primary impact of human-generated carbon dioxide emissions on the ocean is the rapid warming of ocean waters, which significantly reduces the ocean’s capacity to hold oxygen—a critical lifeline for species survival. Rising temperatures also drive ocean acidification—weakening marine organisms, disrupting ecosystems, altering the physiology of numerous species, and triggering mass die-offs.

These effects have catastrophic consequences for biodiversity, fueling widespread coral reef bleaching, the collapse of seagrass beds, and the decline of kelp forests—all of which directly harm the benefits that humans yield from healthy marine environments. Rising ocean temperatures also intensify extreme weather events and accelerate sea-level rise, which in turn increase coastal flooding, erosion, and displacement, placing millions of people, particularly those in low-lying coastal communities, at heightened risk.

While some ocean-based benefits—such as seafood and maritime transport—are reflected in market prices, many others, including coastal protection, recreation, and marine biodiversity, remain overlooked, becoming part of the invisible social “blue cost” of carbon emissions, despite being essential to the deeply interconnected relationship between oceans, people, and economic systems.

“If we don’t put a price tag on the harm that climate change causes to the ocean, it will be invisible to key decision makers,” said environmental economist Bernardo Bastien-Olvera, who led a Scripps Institution of Oceanography study at the University of California San Diego, examining the social cost of carbon emissions and the economic toll of ocean degradation.

“Until now, many of these variables in the ocean haven’t had a market value, so they have been absent from calculations. This study is the first to assign monetary-equivalent values to these overlooked ocean impacts,” added Bastien-Olvera.

According to findings from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography study, accounting for the social impacts of ocean-related carbon emissions nearly doubles the estimated global cost—showing that ocean degradation is a major driver of climate-related economic losses. Researchers found that without ocean impacts included in their model, the average cost per ton of carbon dioxide was roughly USD 51. When accounting for ocean losses, the total costs increased by USD 41.6 per ton, reaching a total of USD 97.2, marking a 91 percent rise.

With the WMO Global Carbon Budget estimating global carbon dioxide emissions at roughly 41.6 billion tons in 2024, this translates to nearly $2 trillion in ocean-related losses in a single year—which is currently absent from standard climate cost assessments. Furthermore, the study found that market damages as a result of ocean degradation account for the largest costs to society and could reach global annual losses of $1.66 trillion in the year 2100.

Furthermore, damages in non-use values—such as recreational benefits provided by ocean ecosystems—now amount to an estimated USD 224 billion annually, while non-market values, including nutritional losses from collapsing fisheries, contribute an additional USD 182 billion in yearly damages. Bastien-Olvera stressed that many of these losses are not traditional market losses but cultural and societal losses, which carry different and often deeper forms of significance for affected communities.

“When an industry emits a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, as a society we are paying a cost. A company can use this number to inform cost-benefit analysis — what is the damage they will be causing society through increasing their emissions?”, asked Bastien-Olvera.

In response to the rapid warming of the Earth’s oceans, governments, scientific institutions, and international organizations are mobilizing new strategies to reduce carbon emissions and protect marine ecosystems, including expanding green energy infrastructure and advancing large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts.

The United Nations (UN) has renewed pressure on member states to meet their Paris Agreement commitments, while initiatives like the Global Ocean Observing System (GOOS) and the High Seas Treaty work to strengthen ocean monitoring and protect marine biodiversity.

Scientists are also testing emerging methods to counteract climate-driven changes in the ocean. In late 2025, marine scientist Adam Subhas and his team released 16,200 gallons of sodium hydroxide into the ocean in an effort to neutralize rising acidity levels. Though controversial and still in early development, the experiment reflects a growing interest in exploring non-traditional tools that could stabilize marine ecosystems.

“As long as the Earth’s heat continues to increase, ocean heat content will continue to rise and records will continue to fall. The biggest climate uncertainty is what humans decide to do. Together, we can reduce emissions and help safeguard a future climate where humans can thrive,” said Abraham.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President, International at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Credit: COP30

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Jan 15 2026 (IPS)

President Donald Trump has escalated efforts to further distance the United States from international organizations and entities focused on climate, the environment, and energy. This strategy is in step with his administration’s established approach to undermine and redirect funds and international cooperation away from climate and clean energy programs.

But where some see a catastrophic escalation, other global experts, such as Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President, International at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), see first and foremost a continuing formalization of damaging positions already taken by the current administration.

In January 2025, President Trump initiated a second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming. Simultaneously, the U.S. administration began to significantly reduce funding for climate programs, withdrawing from international climate funds such as the Green Climate Fund, cancelling billions in domestic clean energy grants, halting climate research and, overall, prioritizing fossil fuels over climate initiatives.

While conceding that the moment at hand is indeed overwhelming, especially coming on the back of COP30, Dagnet told IPS that “the rest of the world must turn this challenge into an opportunity to break new ground in climate action, financing and international cooperation.”

“I have a stubborn yet grounded optimism. The path ahead will be challenging but achieving the set-out climate goals is far from impossible. This is far from a catastrophe. Only one country has withdrawn from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the rest of the world is still firmly on board.”

Regarding the exit from UNFCCC, Dagnet’s colleague Jake Schmidt from NRDC, pointed out in his blog that  the legal ramifications are such that it is unsettled constitutional law whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from international agreements that the Senate gave its advice and consent to join. The Constitution specifies the entry provisions, but it is silent on the exit provisions.

Dagnet also noted that while the withdrawal from the UNFCCC is unprecedented, making the United States the only nation outside the bedrock UN Climate Treaty, “the exit is not cast in stone; a future administration could bring the country back to the fold.”

Nevertheless, the United States will be back in the headlines come January 27, 2026, when the country will technically become a non-signatory to the Paris agreement and will not be part of international climate negotiations unless the withdrawal is reversed.

“The optimism I feel is also grounded in pragmatism. To borrow the words of author James Baldwin, ‘Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.’ The U.S. administration was not represented at COP30 and still the world pushed forward a comprehensive climate action agenda to move beyond pledges through accelerated collaboration between governments, businesses, civil society, and investors.”

In his 2025 inauguration speech, Trump called oil ‘liquid gold’ and vowed to ‘unleash’ America’s fossil fuels in the form of oil and gas. Dagnet says the die was already cast on the path forward for the United States and that the world should continue to rethink, re-strategize and reorganize, for those who are for climate action are more than those against.

Trump finds an assortment of 66 UN and non-UN entities, including those focused on climate and clean energy, that are not aligned with the United States’ national interests. They include the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the world’s most authoritative scientific body on climate change, UN water, UN Oceans and UN Energy.

Others are the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which is the global authority on technical and policy advice on conservation, and the UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing countries.

Non-UN organizations include the International Renewable Energy Agency, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Concerns are rife that communities such as those in the informal settlements will be dangerously exposed to the vagaries of climate change in the face of looming budget cuts to support climate efforts. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

There are widespread concerns that the withdrawal will have far-reaching negative consequences on financing and technical support for climate and clean energy. But Dagnet reminds us that  the United States did not pay its dues to the UN in 2025. The UN Chief has expressed regret over the country’s exit from UN entities and urged the Trump administration to settle what is owed to the international body, as the payments are mandatory. The United States owes the largest share, amounting to about 22 percent of the regular budget.

Similarly, before this withdrawal, the United States was already failing to fulfill many of its climate finance commitments.  While this new development, alongside past insufficient funding pledges, signals a major retreat from international climate action and support for developing nations, that challenge is  not insurmountable.

Climate financing trackers found that even during President Joe Biden’s administration, the United States’ international climate finance contributions were insufficient and fell far short of goals. Dagnet notes that while the country’s actions on multilateralism represent a setback, multilateralism is also evolving and will hopefully be capable of navigating uncharted territories.

She hails the broad recognition that climate change urgently and sustainably requires global cooperation and collaboration. She further stressed that international cooperation would expand the climate finance basket, as financial support for climate action can come not only from governments but also from a diverse array of non-state and public-private actors.

“This withdrawal is not the end of the road.”

Dagnet is one of nine members of the GHG (Greenhouse Gas) Protocol Steering Committee, which is the primary governing body providing direction and oversight to the GHG Protocol. The Protocol provides accounting standards and tools to help the corporate sector, countries and cities track progress towards climate goals.

The development of such standards is facilitated through a transparent multi-stakeholder governance process, drawing on expertise from business, finance, governments, academia, auditors and civil society in a milestone move and landmark partnership, she says.

The GHG Protocol is leading the global harmonization of greenhouse gas accounting with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), as part of the COP30 Action Agenda, to enable comprehensive decarbonization action. This collaborative effort will strengthen the enabling conditions (in terms of policy, benchmarking, and governance) that are paramount to achieving sectoral breakthrough and will shape the journey towards the next global stocktake, or inventory taking, on progress towards climate goals in line with the Paris Agreement.

Subnational efforts also keep Dagnet pragmatically optimistic and solutions-focused. Indeed, she felt energized after attending the Resilient Cities Forum 2025 in London, a remarkable highlight as a major international platform where global leaders and experts converged to tackle urban resilience, emphasizing collaboration, best practices and practical innovation for sustainable, equitable cities.  She was inspired by the various and clear visions for a healthier planet.

“The resolve was stronger than ever,” says Dagnet.

“Importantly, we have locally designed tools, international frameworks and corporate standards to turn our vision towards a more prosperous, healthier and greener future into our lived reality. The worst we can do is to give up our imagination and ability to innovate.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

The rainwater harvesting cistern is everywhere in Brazil's semi-arid region, a social technology that reduced water scarcity for its inhabitants. Elizabete Sousa Soares wanted to leave Jatobá when her daughter Maria was born 11 years ago, but decided to stay in her small rural town thanks to the cistern and other social technologies that have improved her life. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

By Mario Osava
USERRA DAS ALMAS, Brazil, Dec 29 2025 (IPS)

“The work of collecting seeds saved me from depression,” caused by her daughter’s suicide at the age of 29, said Maria do Desterro Soares, 64, who lives in the poor rural community of Jatobá in northeastern Brazil.

She drew her younger sister, Maria de Jesus Soares, 45, who lost her husband in a car accident and also struggles to avoid falling into depression, into the activity. The two walk together for nearly two hours to reach the forests where seeds abound.“The reserve is a great water reservoir. A study we conducted on avoided runoff showed this 6,285-hectare area can retain an astonishing 4.78 billion liters per year” - Gilson Miranda.

They only earn some 1,000 reais (US$185) in a “good year,” but “it’s my work, my pleasure, it’s what I want and I like doing it,” claimed Maria do Desterro, who also makes ice cream and medicines for flu and other illnesses with locally sourced juices, teas, peels, and honey.

She is one of the 121 people trained by the Caatinga Association (AC) through 2023 for the collection and management of seeds from native plants of this biome exclusive to Brazil, as a way to generate income and restore forests.

The association, founded in 1998 to protect the caatinga, the biome of the semi-arid region in the Brazilian northeast, manages the Serra das Almas Natural Reserve (RNSA) and disseminates social technologies for coexistence with the semi-arid ecoregion in surrounding communities.

The caatinga occupies 10% of Brazil’s vast territory and is home to 27 million people. Its vegetation is generally low, with twisted branches and trunks, appearing dead in the dry season and turning green just days after rain. It also features large trees that reach heights of tens of meters.

Maria de Jesus Soares and her older sister, Maria do Desterro Soares, extract seeds from the buriti coconut, a palm tree also known as moriche, found in several parts of Brazil, including its exclusive caatinga biome. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

Coexistence, instead of fighting against nature

To coexist, rather than fighting droughts, is a guiding principle of the actions that are improving life in Brazil’s poorest region, the Northeast, offering a climate lesson for the country and the world.

This slogan, set in motion by civil society organizations, spurred several social technologies as solutions for water scarcity. Best known is the rainwater harvesting cistern for domestic use, with over 1.2 million units built since 2003.

Cisterns, bio-water (a system that cleans household water for reuse in planting), green septic tanks (a concrete tank with soil, filters, and a banana plant base), solar ovens, and eco-efficient stoves are the five tecghnologies being disseminated.

The AC website reports that 1,481 of these “technologies” have been implemented.

The AC has the RNSA for environmental education and as a source of income through eco-tourism. It works in 40 communities nearby where some 4,000 families live, implementing social technologies and supporting the conservation of the reserve and the entire caatinga.

Headquartered in Fortaleza, the capital of the northeastern state of Ceará, and in Crateús, in the west of that same state near the RNSA, the association stands out from other non-governmental organizations by having this conservation unit of 6,285 hectares of dense forests and four streams.

The green septic tank, also called a biosepitic bed, treats wastewater from toilets with microorganisms that process the waste, leaving the water ready to irrigate crops in the semi-arid region of Northeast Brazil. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

The caatinga mitigates climate change

“The reserve is an open-air laboratory, where research on fauna, flora, carbon, and water takes place, so we can understand the importance of this area, and of the entire caatinga,” explained Gilson Miranda, a biologist and manager of the RNSA for the Caatinga Association.

In 2015 – 2022, the caatinga was responsible for nearly 40% of the carbon removed from the atmosphere in Brazil, he said, based on a study by São Paulo State University on greenhouse gas capture.

This is because the rapid regreening of the vegetation, an indicator of intense photosynthetic activity when it rains, makes the caatinga a major greenhouse gas sink, different from the Amazon, which is an immense carbon reservoir.

“That is why preserving and conserving the caatinga is strategic in a climate adaptation scenario,” said Miranda in an interview with IPS.

This biome, exclusive to Brazil, covers an area of 844,453 square kilometers.

Water is another wealth of Serra das Almas, which was designated a Private Natural Heritage Reserve (RPPN) in the year 2000.

“The reserve is a great water reservoir. A study we conducted on avoided runoff showed this 6,285-hectare area can retain an astonishing 4.78 billion liters per year,” said Miranda.

Around the springs, there are very tall, green trees that differ from the usual biome. The gameleira (Ficus gomelleira), can reach up to 40 or 50 meters, according to Jair Martins, the tourist guide on hikes along the six trails of Serra das Almas.

This water, retained in the soil by the forests, actually drains slowly. The four springs preserved in the reserve do not dry up, but are unable to sustain year-round the streams that feed the Poti River, whose course passes to the east and north of Serra das Almas.

Nor is this moisture enough to keep the caatinga vegetation green, which is very dry in December, with the green of some shrubs or trees more resistant to water stress.

Maria Clemente da Silva was only able to cultivate her garden when she gained access to bio-water, because the public water supply is limited to three hours a day in Jatobá, a poor community in the Brazilian caatinga. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

Mitigated drought

In the surroundings of the RNSA, the drought is harsher.

Maria Clemente da Silva, 59, relies on bio-water to supplement the water she uses to irrigate her small garden. The public water supply only operates for two to three hours per day, which is not enough for cultivating vegetables, such as lettuce and onions, or fruit trees like papaya, banana, acerola, orange, and cashew.

About 100 meters behind her house, a forest of tall, very green trees reveals that, with water, the caatinga vegetation gains exuberance. It is the moisture that remained in a low-lying area of a river that practically dried up due to deforestation and fires set to “clear” the land, explained Elisabete de Souza Soares.

Water is the most keenly felt shortage, according to Souza and other women who spoke to IPS and a group of journalism students visiting the Jatobá community, in the municipality of Buriti dos Montes, in the state of Piauí, where the AC’s socio-environmental actions benefit the population and the protection of the RNSA.

All of them received cisterns, the small three-burner ecological stove, and other “technologies” that reduced difficulties in their lives. “Before the cistern, we would fetch water from a public fountain about a kilometer away, carrying cans on our heads,” recalled Souza.

When she was pregnant with her daughter Maria, 11 years ago, she thought about moving away from the community where she had always lived in search of water. “Now I won’t leave here, where I was born,” she said.

The dry vegetation in December, the peak of the annual dry season, displays some resistant shrubs and trees that maintain green patches in the caatinga forests of Brazil’s Northeast region. Credit: Mario Osava / IPS

The Caatinga Association adopted a comprehensive conservation model with broad participation from the local population, including in the economic benefits of work within the RNSA, such as guiding ecotourists and providing other services.

The AC’s approach is always socio-environmental, a main component in protecting the reserve and the caatinga in general, stated Miranda.

Inside the reserve, there is a modest hotel that can accommodate up to 36 people. Local tourism tends to expand due to promotion by the governments of the states of Ceará and Piauí, which share the Serra das Almas Natural Reserve.

The nearby Poti River flows through a 140-kilometer-long canyon and has become a major tourist attraction.

The reserve is a legacy of the US Johnson family, owners of the SC Johnson company, which, because it uses vegetable wax for its furniture cleaning and conservation products, imported carnauba wax, a palm abundant in Ceará, Piauí, and Rio Grande do Norte, another Northeastern state.

In 1998, the leader of the family’s fourth generation, Samuel Johnson, repeated an expedition to Ceará that his father had made in 1935 and decided to establish a Caatinga Conservation Fund, using part of his fortune. This led to the RNSA and the Caatinga Association, composed of environmental specialists in the biome.

Opinions have been divided over the annual UN climate conferences. While some see COP30 in Belém, Brazil, as confirming their irrelevance, others see it as a turning point in the struggle for climate justice.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

As the world accelerates toward catastrophic warming, ecological systems are collapsing, and millions across the Global South face increasingly life-threatening situations.

Rising sea levels, extreme heat, droughts and flooding are undermining food security, displacing communities, and exacerbating inequality and living conditions.

The economic costs of climate disasters are accelerating. Social and human costs continue to rise, with lives, livelihoods and ecosystems destroyed.

Fiscal austerity and indebtedness are making things worse. Instead, governments increase military spending and subsidise fossil fuels, accelerating planetary warming.

Business interest in ‘green transitions’ focuses on new profit-making opportunities. As renewable energy grows, energy supplies increase as fossil fuels are slowly replaced.

COP of Truth?
In his opening speech to the thirtieth Conference of Parties (COP30) in Belém, host President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva promised it would be the ‘COP of Truth’.

K Kuhaneetha Bai

Although not officially present, the US continued to frustrate the climate talks by urging petrostates to resist efforts to reduce reliance on fossil fuels.

The COP30 Climate Change Performance Index exposed governments’ weak commitments to combating planetary warming over the past 21 years.

Its report analysed the policies of 63 countries responsible for 90% of the world’s greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

The top three spots were kept empty to emphasise that no country has shown sufficient ambition to do so.

For 2025, Saudi Arabia took last place, with the US, Russia and Iran not far behind. Trump’s latest policies have set the US further back.

Meanwhile, the White House threatened sanctions and tariffs against governments that support a global tax on GHG emissions by international shipping.

Just transition?
COP30 in Belém continued to fail to achieve what is urgently needed: binding GHG emission cuts, phasing out fossil fuels, meaningfully compensating for past losses and damages, or better financing for climate adaptation.

COP30 adopted the Belém Mechanism for Just Global Transition – a new UNFCCC arrangement to overcome the fragmentation and inadequacy of such efforts worldwide.

However, the mechanism lacks both finances and plans to protect those harmed by decarbonisation initiatives. Nor are there resources for ‘green industrialisation’.

Climate justice is still misrepresented as threatening livelihoods rather than as key to survival. The climate justice movement must convince the public that it is key to social progress.

Climate finance setback
Lula appealed again for increased climate financing for the Global South following the dismal record since the 2009 Copenhagen COP.

Brazil also launched the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF) to incentivise countries conserving their forests. Although it failed to raise its target of $25 billion, 53 countries endorsed the TFFF, with pledges in Belém totalling $6.6 billion.

Belém also offered new suggestions for climate finance, in its ‘Baku to Belém (B2B) Roadmap to 1.3T’ (USD1.3 trillion), and the report of the COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers (CoFM).

The CoFM involved 35 finance ministers representing three-fifths of the world’s population and its GHG emissions.

The COP30 promise to “at least triple” finance for developing countries’ climate adaptation by 2035 was again blocked by the Global North. LDC requests for grant financing were also ignored yet again.

Promoting voluntarism
Brazilian COP30 chair Corrêa do Lago proposed various compromises to encourage those disappointed by UN processes to take climate action.

His proposed ‘voluntary roadmap’ to transition from fossil fuels will be discussed at the Colombia/Netherlands-led ‘coalition of the willing’ conference in April 2026.

The chair’s other voluntary roadmap for forest conservation followed the COP30 agreement’s failure to condemn deforestation with stronger language.

The adoption of the 59 compromise indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation was delayed by poorer African countries’ inability to afford immediate implementation. The compromise was a two-year delay, referred to as the ‘Belém-Addis vision’.

Belém as turning point
For the first time, the US was officially absent from the Belém COP. With over 56,000 delegates registered, attendance was second only to Dubai, with more than 1,600 business lobbyists present.

COPs make slow progress by painstakingly extending the consensus for climate action. Belém may shift the COPs’ focus from negotiations to initiatives, a precedent which can be abused or advanced.

Belém’s Mutirão Decision (Action Agenda) focuses on delivery, drawing from the ‘whole of society’. Its 30 measurable Key Objectives were based on the 2023 Global Stocktake.

While Belém’s outcomes fell short of most expectations, many acknowledge Brazil did its best under trying circumstances. Nonetheless, climate justice is being denied by the continuing procrastination of powerful vested interests.

Although not quite the ‘COP of Truth’, inclusion and implementation that Lula promised, Belém reversed the backward slide of recent COPs, which the Global South must build upon before it is too late.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Our traditional “year-ender” usually kicks off with a grim litany of world disasters and crises over the past 12 months, highlights IPS partners and contributors and culminates in a more positive-sounding finale. This time I’d like to begin on a more personal note intended also as a metaphor.

Farhana Haque Rahman

As thousands looked for the nearest exit, a young Bangladeshi diplomat saw me and instead of joining the mass scramble, he gallantly led me through the crowds to safety. Thank you Aminul Islam Zisan for demonstrating when in crisis people can come together in unique ways.

Thankfully no one was killed in the fire; talks resumed and the Conference of Parties process survived in the form of a concluding document that could be interpreted as a small step forward in the global battle to stem the climate crisis, even while making only an oblique reference to the fossil fuels that are largely creating it.

COP’s survival was not assured given the US boycott ordered by President Donald Trump who dismissed climate change as “the greatest con job” in addressing the UN General Assembly in September.

The US absence from Belem in fact inflicted more damage to the US in terms of its global standing, just as Trump’s decision to shun the G20 talks running parallel in Johannesburg only deepened its reputational harm. Salt was diplomatically rubbed into its self-inflicted wounds by the dignity of G20 host President Cyril Ramaphosa who ignored US opposition from afar and steered adoption of a declaration addressing global challenges, notably the climate crisis.

Looking back, perhaps this was the week that quietly brought the curtain down on the Age of America. Unpredictability, chaos, violence and institutionalised cruelty are the early symptoms of the dramatic shift in 2025 towards unilateralism and protectionism.

Hundreds of Palestinians, including scores of children, have been killed since the US-brokered “truce” between Israel and Hamas began on October 11. Russian air strikes against Ukrainian civilian targets have also regularly punctuated Trump’s flip-flopping efforts to end a war he said he could finish on day one of his presidency.

Sharp cuts in US aid ordered by Trump in January have “fuelled a global humanitarian catastrophe”, according to a statement by the UN Human Rights Council on July 31. Citing two independent experts on poverty, food and human rights, the Council said: “More than 350,000 deaths stemming from the aid cuts have already been estimated, including more than 200,000 children.”

Famine is spreading with the conflict in western Sudan, and lack of finance has also led to cuts in vital UN aid to South Sudan. Over one million people caught in Myanmar’s largely forgotten civil war had their lifesaving support cut by the UN World Food Programme because of funding shortfalls.

Civicus, a global alliance of civil society organizations and activists working to strengthen citizen action, says these multiple and connected crises – conflict, climate breakdown and democratic regression – are overwhelming the international institutions designed to address the problems that states can’t or won’t resolve. US withdrawal from global bodies threatens to worsen this crisis in international cooperation.

But as CIVICUS’s 2025 State of Civil Society Report outlines, civil society has ideas about how to save the UN by putting people at its heart: a theme embraced at COP30 by Open Society Foundations President Binaifer Nowrojee who endorsed Brazil’s democratic leadership for elevating Indigenous and Afro-descendant voices and bringing human rights back to the centre of climate action.

In this rapidly shifting world order, Nowrojee sees the Global South stepping forward with new ideas and a new vision rooted in dignity, fairness, and protection of the planet.

Arguably the most important agreement emerging from COP30 was the Just Transition Mechanism which aims to ensure fair development of a global green economy, protecting the rights of all people, including workers, women and Indigenous people.

Coral Pasisi, Director of Climate Change and Sustainability for the Pacific Community (SPC), highlighted at COP30 how critical the situation has become for island nations experiencing accelerating climate impacts and hoping for meaningful breakthroughs in Belem. She raised the need for stronger support from developed countries for Loss and Damage.

The Gen Z demonstrators who have rocked regimes in South Asia and Africa are certainly stepping up with their visions for fairer futures for all, their protests aimed against nepotism and corruption among entrenched elites. They have been met with bullets in Bangladesh last year, and in Nepal – where the government was forced to resign in September – as well as Tanzania where hundreds were reported killed. Gen Z protests this year also rocked Indonesia, the Philippines and Morocco.

As Jan Lundius, a Swedish researcher, wrote in IPS: “Even though specific incidents triggered these upheavals, they were all due to long-term, shared grievances evolving from stark wealth gaps, rampant nepotism, and unlimited corruption. Above all, youngsters protested against members of powerful dynasties, favouring a wealthy and discredited political elite.”

A combination of conflict and climate disasters can have disastrous long-term consequences, particularly for children’s education. Initiatives supported by IPS like Education Cannot Wait (ECW) and the Safe Schools Declaration focus on providing quality, inclusive education to crisis-affected children to prevent long-term cycles of poverty and instability.

Hurricane Melissa which swept through the Caribbean in October served as a harsh reminder that 5.9 million children and adolescents in Latin America and the Caribbean could be pushed into poverty by 2030 due to loss of education as a result of climate change if governments do not intervene soon, according to UNICEF.

The World Bank estimated the physical damage inflicted by Hurricane Melissa on Jamaica at some $8.8 billion, or 41% of the country’s 2024 GDP.

However the Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) has also warned governments that they are underestimating or ignoring the inextricable links between climate change, nature loss and food security. Its latest assessment, approved by nearly 150 countries meeting in Windhoek, Namibia, warned that biodiversity is declining everywhere, largely as a result of human actions.

CGIAR, a global research partnership focused on food security, is facing a very different world from when it was founded nearly 50 years ago in terms of having to address climate change, biodiversity loss, and new conflicts, according to CGIAR Chief Scientist Dr Sandra Milach. A major focus is on equipping 500 million small-scale producers for climate resilience to protect their livelihoods and increase stable incomes.

A year-ender wouldn’t be complete in the run-up to festive celebrations without at least a mention of the major religious figures to dominate the news.

Pope Francis, one of the most outspoken pontiffs in modern times, died on Easter Monday. Chicago-born Robert Francis Prevost, 69, became his successor, the first North American elected to the role. Choosing to be known as Pope Leo XIV he called for an end to the ‘barbarity’ of the war in Gaza. He also took aim at climate sceptics and appealed for urgent actions to be taken by world leaders at COP30.

The Dalai Lama, spiritual leader of Tibetan Buddhism, turned 90 in exile in India, and also made a call for peace in the world. To the delight of his followers, he made clear that he would be reincarnated and that only his trusted inner circle of monks would have the “sole authority” to locate his successor. China swiftly rebuffed his declaration, saying his successor must be approved by Beijing.

In 2025 the world marked 80 years since the end of the Second World War. Minoru Harada, a Buddhist monk and head of Soka Gakkai, recalled his childhood experience of the fire-bombing of Tokyo and pledged his organisation’s determination that no one should have to endure the horrors of war.

Farhana Haque Rahman is Senior Vice President of IPS Inter Press Service and Executive Director IPS Noram; she served as the elected Director General of IPS from 2015-2019. A journalist and communications expert, she is a former senior official of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and the International Fund for Agricultural Development.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

 
CIVICUS discusses climate displacement and Tuvalu’s future with Kiali Molu, a former civil servant at Tuvalu’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and currently a PhD candidate at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji and the University of Bergen in Norway. His research focuses on state sovereignty and climate change in the Pacific.

Kiali Molu

Why have so many Tuvaluans applied for Australia’s climate mobility visa?

This visa is part of the Falepili Union Treaty agreed by Australia and Tuvalu. The treaty combines a special mobility pathway, guarantees around Tuvalu’s statehood and sovereignty and a broader security arrangement. Under the mobility component, Tuvaluans can apply for residency in Australia through a ballot system, without being forced to permanently relocate.

Many applications are driven by practical reasons, such as employment opportunities to be able to support families back home. Others value the ability to travel more freely, particularly given Australia’s historically long and uncertain visa processes. Access to education opportunities and social protections also matter. What’s important is that selection under this pathway does not require people to leave Tuvalu. It creates choice and security in a context where the future feels increasingly uncertain.

How is climate change reshaping daily life in Tuvalu?

Rising sea levels and frequent king tides regularly flood homes, public buildings and roads, interrupting community gatherings, education and work. Coastal erosion continues to reduce habitable land, while saltwater intrusion contaminates groundwater and destroys pulaka pits that are central to food security, as they’re used to grow staple root crops.

These impacts extend beyond infrastructure: higher reliance on imported food means families face rising costs, and stagnant water means a rise in waterborne diseases. Constant flooding is increasing anxiety about displacement and cultural continuity, and farming and fishing livelihoods are becoming harder to sustain. Climate change affects our food, health, housing and identity every single day.

What does potential resettlement mean for Tuvaluan culture and identity?

Our identity is inseparable from our community, our land and the ocean surrounding it. Tuvaluan culture is rooted in fenua – shared practices around agriculture and fishing, church life and the falekaupule, a community meeting house. Large-scale resettlement risks disrupting these foundations. The transmission of everyday cultural practices, language and oral history may weaken if younger Tuvaluans grow up away from the islands.

However, mobility doesn’t automatically mean cultural loss. Tuvaluan communities abroad are finding ways to preserve collective life, language and traditions through associations, churches and digital platforms. Initiatives such as the Tuvalu Digital Nation aim to safeguard cultural heritage virtually. Still, there is no substitute for ancestral land, and this raises profound questions about what it means to be Tuvaluan if our homeland becomes uninhabitable.

What climate adaptation measures does Tuvalu urgently need?

Adaptation for Tuvalu is not only about renewable energy and seawalls. While these remain essential, there’s also a critical legal and political dimension. The international system still defines statehood on the basis of physical territory, offering little protection to nations facing permanent land loss due to climate change.

We believe Tuvalu should push for a new global legal framework that rethinks sovereignty in the context of climate displacement. This would protect Tuvalu’s international legal personality, maritime boundaries and political rights even if parts of its territory become uninhabitable. This diplomatic strategy is needed as much as physical adaptation measures because it addresses national survival, not just infrastructure resilience.

What responsibilities do major polluters have towards climate-vulnerable states?

Major polluters have legal and moral obligations towards climate-vulnerable countries. International law increasingly recognises duties to reduce emissions, prevent environmental harm and cooperate in protecting those most at risk. Recent legal developments, including advisory opinions from international courts, reinforce that these responsibilities are enforceable, not optional.

These obligations go beyond emissions cuts. They include providing climate finance through mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund and the Loss and Damage Fund, supporting adaptation efforts and sharing technology. For countries like Tuvalu, this support is fundamental to preserving lives, culture and sovereignty. Continued inaction by major emitters should not be seen solely as political failure, but also as a breach of international law.

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn

SEE ALSO
‘The ICJ’s advisory opinion strengthens climate justice by establishing legal principles states cannot ignore’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Abdul Shaheed 24.Sep.2025
International Court of Justice signals end to climate impunity CIVICUS Lens 01.Aug.2025
‘Australia must turn its climate rhetoric into action’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Jacynta Fa’amau 27.Sep.2024

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Credit: Hivos

By Job Muriithi and Winny Nyawira
Dec 17 2025 (IPS)

Efforts to combat climate change too often sideline the very communities hit hardest by the crisis and who have contributed the least to it. This injustice was the core idea of the Voices for Just Climate Action (VCA) program. Now that VCA has concluded after five years, Job Muriithi and Winny Nyanwira from Hivos reflect on its achievements and share recommendations for governments and donors to ensure fair and equitable climate action.

In the coastal villages of eastern Indonesia, where turquoise waters lap against volcanic shores, we set out on a trip, reminding us of why this work matters. Traveling from Jakarta to Nusa Tenggara Timur, we saw firsthand that real progress begins with listening to communities, amplifying their voices and supporting locally led initiatives.

Climate finance reaching local communities

One thing that immediately stands out is the Next Level Grant Facility (NLGF), a climate finance mechanism under VCA. It shows what happens when local groups are entrusted to take the lead in climate funding. In Indonesia alone, 62 projects supported diverse initiatives in 11 provinces, reaching thousands across the archipelago in both coastal and highland communities. Over half of the grantees (57%) were first-time recipients of formal funding, working at the intersection of environmental justice, disability inclusion, and gender-responsive community action.

But statistics only scratch the surface. We saw firsthand how marginalized voices stepped into the spotlight. The NLGF fund manager, Samdhana Institute, Humanis and local partners, supported members of the NLGF grantees on climate literacy, financial literacy, reporting, and adaptive planning. Women fishers, long overlooked in policy discussions, are now consulting with government officials. Indigenous communities blended ancestral wisdom with modern adaptations to protect ecosystems. These groups emerged as first responders in crises, innovators in sustainability, and stewards of resources vital for survival.

A legacy in policies, people, and places

In Kupang, our local partner PIKUL supported fisherfolks. These communities have spent lifetimes interpreting the rhythm of the sea, preserving their catch using traditional methods, and nurturing coastal habitats. They did not need expertise; they brought it. VCA provided a platform, networks, credibility, and access to decision-makers.

Once invisible at decision-making tables, coastal communities are now key advisors to governments, advocating for environmental protection, climate-resilient infrastructure like breakwaters, and fair finance. Their transformation illustrates VCA’s core approach: recognizing that for coastal and island communities, oceans are not resources to be exploited but are fundamental to their food security, livelihoods, cultural identity, and survival. VCA brought this community-centered ocean perspective into Indonesia’s climate discussions, which had long focused primarily on land-based agriculture, often overlooking the realities of maritime populations.

In Indonesia, a nation of over 17,000 islands, communities in East Nusa Tenggara needed their government to understand that the sea connects rather than divides their lives and livelihoods. VCA provided the platform and capacity-strengthening support that enabled these communities to articulate their needs and traditional knowledge effectively. Through facilitated dialogues and inclusive forums that intentionally included women, youth, Indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities, community members gained the skills and confidence to engage directly with policymakers. This process enabled them to influence critical policies and to establish enduring relationships with government agencies. This exemplifies something more profound: the fundamental redistribution of decision-making power to those whose lives depend on the decisions.

Navigating shrinking spaces and resources

Yet challenges persist in the form of tightening civic spaces, scarce funding, skills shortages, and deep-rooted exclusion. As VCA wraps up, these issues are not fading – they are growing sharper amid global setbacks in climate commitments.

During our visit, one hard truth stood out: the landscape that shaped VCA in 2021 had become much tougher by 2025. Indonesia exemplifies this shift – civic freedoms have narrowed, traditional advocacy paths have grown thornier, and grassroots climate funds have dried up. A 2025 study from Hivos, examining climate vulnerability in Brazil and Zambia, reveals that women-headed households spend between 10-30% of their annual income recovering from climate shocks – costs that remain largely invisible in national budgets and climate finance mechanisms.

The study’s call to recognize care work as climate action echoes what VCA demonstrated in practice –when coastal communities in East Nusa Tenggara received direct funding and decision-making power, they did not just survive climate impacts; they innovated sustainable responses rooted in local knowledge. VCA’s success in channeling resources to first-time grantees and elevating marginalized voices offers a proven model for the kind of equitable, community-centered climate finance that research shows is desperately needed but rarely delivered.

Our Indonesian partners found a strategic workaround. Rather than pushing back through confrontation in a restricted advocacy space, they pivoted to building tangible community assets: fish-processing hubs, local food-processing facilities, mangrove cooperatives, and coral-restoration sites. These visible wins – better livelihoods that communities can see and feel – in turn open doors to advocacy and attract support from other funders. In other words, community investments serve as a bridge to advocacy when direct advocacy routes are blocked.

The results prove the strategy. Partners secured subnational policy wins and leveraged almost 400,000 USD in additional funding from both government and non-governmental sources, showing that strategic local investments can multiply impact even in unfavorable environments.

Credit: Hivos

Lessons from VCA Indonesia

Managing 62 partners across 45 districts and 18 provinces strained coordination – vast distances meant virtual check-ins often fell short, and not all received support on time. From our visit we drew concrete lessons from real hurdles, like adapting the reporting for Indigenous groups with limited technological skills.

Other concrete lessons from VCA Indonesia:

• Launch grants, monitoring, and governance early to maximize time
• Scale ambitiously but coordinate resources accordingly
• Build in flexibility for challenges like civic restrictions, coastal needs, and blue economies
• Prioritize trust through ongoing, transparent partnerships
• Design accountability that fits capacities without sacrificing standards

A call to keep listening and acting

On our final evening in Waingapu, sharing stories with fishers as the sun set, one woman said, “We had answers but no audience. VCA gave us both. We have shown it works – now others must commit.” She’s right. Locally led action produces resilient, equitable results. Communities are not victims; they are experts.

But they need more: fair climate finance, protected spaces, and partners who value their expertise. That’s why we ask donors to scale up VCA’s proven models – including trust-based grants for grassroots initiatives. We ask governments to partner with these voices to meet climate goals; this means safeguarding civic spaces above all. Climate justice demands partnership with ecosystem guardians. Indonesia’s coastal communities prove local solutions can scale globally. VCA offers a roadmap – let’s follow it closely now. The planet’s future hinges on it. Ayo – let’s advance together.

This piece reflects on Hivos’ November 2025 monitoring visit to Indonesia, conducted in partnership with the Humanis Foundation and local coalition partners, including SIPIL, ADAPTASI, KOPI, and Pangan Baik. As VCA concludes, it’s a tribute to their achievements and a plea to extend them.

Author Bios

Job Muriithi is a development practitioner with over 10 years of experience in monitoring, evaluation, accountability, research, and learning across Africa, Latin America, and Asia. He serves as Global Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Officer at Hivos for the Voices for Just Climate Action Program.

Winny Nyawira is a Certified Public Accountant and Global Finance Manager at Hivos for the Voices for Just Climate Action Program. She specializes in grants management and financial administration for international development programs.

Alicia Villamizar presents the findings of the Second Academic Report on Climate Change. Credit: Margaret López/IPS

By Margaret López
CARACAS, Dec 15 2025 (IPS)

A group of 55 researchers gathered and analyzed 1,260 bibliographic references to compile the Second Academic Report on Climate Change in Venezuela. Their final conclusion is that more local studies are still needed to record the direct impacts across different Venezuelan regions and, in particular, to provide data to design the adaptation plans necessary to address climate change.

“Vulnerability varies greatly across the country. If an adaptation policy is to be defined, it cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach. Adaptation is tailor-made, which is why local data is so important,” warned Alicia Villamizar, general coordinator of the research carried out by the Academy of Physical, Mathematical and Natural Sciences (Acfiman), in an interview with IPS.

The review of scientific papers, university research, books, global reports, and specialized databases on the impacts of climate change took four full years.

This research involved professionals from 25 different institutions, including the Universidad Central de Venezuela (UCV) and Universidad Simón Bolívar (USB). It was presented at the Palace of Academies in early December.

The researchers highlighted the lack of historical and recent data on changes in temperature, precipitation, and sea level rise at the local level, three key elements for understanding climate change in the country.

They also reported the lack of scientific studies on the risk assessment of heat waves, droughts, and forest fires for different climate scenarios in Venezuela. Nor did they identify any recent research on the genetic improvement of crops to safeguard the country’s food security following changes in national temperature.

Corals Affected by High Temperatures

Among the findings of the report that are noteworthy is that Venezuela’s average temperature increased by 0.22°C per decade between 1980 and 2015.

The southern part of Lake Maracaibo (Zulia), the Paraguaná Peninsula (Falcón), and the western plains (Apure, Barinas, and Portuguesa), all located in western Venezuela, were the areas most affected by this temperature increase, which provides evidence of climate change.

Estrella Villamizar, coordinator of the first chapter of the report and researcher at the Institute of Zoology and Tropical Ecology at the UCV, highlighted the impact that this temperature increase had on Venezuelan coral reefs.

“There is not a single coral reef that has not been affected,” said Estrella Villamizar, a specialist in the study of marine ecosystems, during the public presentation of the results in Caracas.

Higher sea temperatures are another factor that has allowed the rapid expansion of the soft coral Unomia stolonifera in Venezuelan waters. This invasive species arrived from the Indian Ocean to the coasts of Anzoátegui and Sucre in eastern Venezuela and also to the waters of Aragua in the center of the country.

It is estimated that half of the seabed of Mochima National Park (Anzoátegui) is already covered with this soft coral, according to a report by the civil association Unomia Project.

The death of native corals in this area is a consequence of the colonization of this invasive species, which has been favored by climate change conditions. The rapid expansion of Unomia stolonifera also affects starfish, sponges, and marine worms.

More Economic Risks

The research also highlighted that climate change contributed to a reduction of between 0.97 percent and 1.30 percent in the country’s gross domestic product (GDP) between 2010 and 2020, partly due to rising temperatures and increased rainfall.

Venezuela faced, for example, more than 20 flooding events between 2000 and 2019. The most direct consequences of these floods resulted in economic losses valued at more than USD 1 billion.

The GDP projection, in fact, is that Venezuela will lose another 10 points by 2030, due to rising sea levels that threaten port infrastructure, fishing activities, and tourism.

“The substantial value of this Second Academic Report is that it offers invaluable information for those who make decisions on city and national issues,” said agricultural engineer Joaquín Benítez, who participated in the project as a researcher on the sustainable development chapter, in an interview with IPS.

The main challenge with climate change in Venezuela, not surprisingly, is to get more attention from the government. The country still does not have a national law on climate change, a national climate strategy, or a national plan for climate change mitigation and adaptation.

That is why Alicia Villamizar repeated during the presentation that her goal is for this scientific report “not to remain confined to academia,” but rather to serve as a catalyst for more local scientific research and to strengthen the institutional muscle in charge of directing climate adaptation in Venezuela.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Drone view from Combu Island, with the city of Belém, where COP30 took place, in the background. Credit: Alex Ferro/COP30

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, Dec 4 2025 (IPS)

“I see more philanthropic support aligning with systems thinking, linking climate stability, biodiversity protection, Indigenous leadership, and community resilience,” says Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund.

In an interview with Inter Press Service (IPS), he says funding is increasingly moving beyond isolated interventions and siloed approaches. The intersection between climate, nature, and Indigenous rights can be considered together. He sees philanthropy moving in that direction, and the momentum is growing.

Northrop is particularly excited about the recent COP30 Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) announcement. Over the past two years, the Fund has backed the facility while in its development stages. TFFF targets the protection of 1.2 billion hectares of tropical rainforests across more than 70 low- and middle-income countries.

The TFFF was launched during COP 30 with USD 5.5 billion in commitments from sponsor countries, strong endorsements from 53 countries, and plans for delivery. It has a long-term goal of raising about USD 125 billion.

All-in-one Solution

He calls it a nature solution, a climate solution, an Indigenous peoples and local communities solution, and an economic development solution, all in one.

“The Brazilian government raised almost USD 7 billion in early contributions. They aim to secure another USD 15 billion from governments over the next 12 to 18 months, then attract USD 100 billion in private investment. This structure focuses on investment instead of grants or loans. Countries will get paid per hectare of standing forest they conserve,” Northrop told IPS.

Northrop sees this initiative as a major departure from traditional models. It rewards protection instead of exploitation and avoids burdening countries with increased debt.

He appreciates Brazil’s leadership in promoting this initiative, stating that the RBF has been working with Brazilians and other nations for nearly two years. “The current challenge is moving from concept to a mature investment mechanism that can finance forest protection at scale.”

Indigenous peoples and local communities already protect nature more effectively than any other model, he says.

“Half of the world’s remaining intact forests are within Indigenous territories. Almost 45 percent of global biodiversity exists within those lands, although formal recognition of land rights often lags. In regions such as the Amazon, the Congo Basin, and Southeast Asia, granting tenure to indigenous communities has helped protect forests, marine resources, and ways of life.”

Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, in a remote Ecuadorian Amazon rainforest. Photo: Supplied

He emphasizes that when giving sovereignty and governance responsibilities to Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs), they do not require extensive external resources.

“They need safety, legal recognition, and the freedom to live on and defend their lands. This is a powerful message that is now understood more widely.”

Single Lens Needed to Tackle Multiple Issues

One of the greatest obstacles, according to Northrop, lies in the way global systems compartmentalize climate, nature, and indigenous issues. Climate change, he says, is treated through one lens, biodiversity through another, and Indigenous rights through yet another.

These areas are interdependent but managed separately. Negotiators at UN climate summits differ from those at biodiversity forums. They often belong to different ministries, speak different scientific languages, and focus on different priorities. As a result, policy responses malfunction.”

Northrop believes the disconnect reflects human cognitive limits.

“Most people cannot think deeply about these big systems all at once. Yet he notes progress in recognizing connections, supported through the powerful visual mapping of these connections that Earth Insight did before COP30. He believes accessible visuals help experts see the interdependencies more effectively.

The fund uses field visits to identify partners. Northrop says the institution does not have a big staff, so it relies on travel and direct engagement. The Fund looks for people who think on a large scale and design strategies to solve complex problems. Reviewing paper proposals alone is insufficient. He says real understanding comes from meeting people, seeing their environments, and learning what drives them.

There are enormous numbers of positive examples of effective philanthropy, but even with these, the overall volume of the work is insufficient. He notes a generational shift in the sector that contributes to current impact.

“Earlier, philanthropic institutions often hired academics without social change and policy change experience. Today, staff are increasingly drawn from social movements, campaign organizations, and policy implementation roles.”

He finds this shift encouraging.

Michael Northrop, Program Director at the Rockefeller Brothers Fund (RBF), inspects oil pipelines in the Ecuadorian Amazon. RBF stresses that Indigenous peoples and local communities already protect nature more effectively than any other model. Photo: Supplied

Still, philanthropy cannot substitute for strong governance and policy. He points to worrying trends in the United States, where decisions that protected social and environmental systems are being reversed. He insists progress depends on government action alongside philanthropic support. Both are needed.

At COP30, Northrop notes a split in approaches among countries. “A large number wanted to phase out fossil fuels and halt deforestation. Others, including major oil-producing nations, continue to push for extraction. The world has already crossed the threshold for burning new fossil fuel reserves if it hopes to protect the planet.”

Unfortunately there is also continued pressure to industrialize forest landscapes through oil, mining, logging, and agriculture.

Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Efforts

Northrop expects philanthropy will support the 80 countries that have committed to a fossil fuel phase-out. This approach may need adoption outside the formal COP mechanisms, given the split in Belém. He also expects strong philanthropic engagement to support efforts to end deforestation.

He would like to see immediate action on phasing out fossil fuels and ending deforestation. He says the world cannot wait.

The link between forest protection and fossil fuel restraint is direct. Extraction becomes more difficult if forest areas are left intact. Keeping reserves in the ground helps safeguard forests. Northrop believes strategies must be aligned.

He sees growing collaboration among philanthropic groups focused on nature and climate—a new and expanding trend—which must continue because neither philanthropy nor policy can solve these issues alone. Both must work together with civil society and indigenous communities.

Northrop is clear about the biggest challenge for climate philanthropy—achieving scale. Philanthropy alone cannot deliver transformation at the necessary magnitude. Only policy can. Philanthropy must help develop and support strong policy and governance to scale systemic change.

His personal motivation, which developed early in life, continues to drive him. He says he’s fortunate to have met so many mission-driven people throughout his four decades of work on nature, climate, and development. He has deep respect for how social change agents’ minds work. What keeps him going, he says, is listening. He tries to understand what people are doing and what inspires them. He credits individuals who have driven major changes in the environmental, health, and education systems for inspiring his work.

Northrop believes there is more philanthropy today and that more players think globally. He welcomes new actors with practical experience in change-making. He warns that philanthropic support must be backed by stable national and international policy.

“The coming months will test whether the Tropical Forest Forever Facility advances beyond the pilot stage. If it succeeds, it could become one of the most significant efforts yet devised to reward protection instead of destruction.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Local farmer ploughing a field in Indonesia. Credit: Unsplash

By Ana Carolina Avzaradel Szklo
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, Nov 26 2025 (IPS)

The UN climate talks at COP30 once again brought the critical issue of climate finance to the forefront of global discussions.

However, while much of the debate revolved around traditional forms of aid directed at developing countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, a faster, more transformative approach lies in expanding access to carbon markets.

When emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) are equipped with the tools and knowledge needed to engage in these markets on their own terms, carbon finance can be generated and harnessed in ways that reflect their unique natural assets, governance, social contexts, and national priorities.

Achieving global climate and sustainable development goals depends on ensuring that those worst affected by climate change can fully participate in and benefit from this growing flow of finance.

EMDEs are on the frontlines of climate change — from rising sea levels threatening Pacific island nations to intensifying droughts and fires in the Amazon and Horn of Africa, and increasingly intense and frequent hurricanes in the Caribbean. These crises often hit hardest in regions that have contributed least to global emissions and in the most difficult position to react to them.

Yet, these same nations face a climate finance shortfall of $1.3 trillion per year. Carbon markets present an opportunity for these countries to bridge this gap by turning their natural advantages into climate finance assets.

Despite successful initiatives aimed at bolstering both high-integrity supply and demand for carbon credits, significant barriers to access persist, particularly for EMDEs. From fragmented policy landscapes to weak governance structures, limited institutional capacity, and low investor confidence, various obstacles prevent the vast potential of EMDEs to engage fully.

The Access Strategies Program — led by the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative — is a direct response to these challenges. It helps governments design and implement their own pathways into high-integrity carbon markets, enabling them to build the policies, institutional capacity, and investor confidence needed to meet their climate finance needs and transform their potential into progress.

Each country’s natural capital — from Brazil’s vast rainforest and agricultural landscapes, to the Caribbean’s blue carbon ecosystems, or Kenya’s grasslands and renewable energy potential — represents a unique competitive advantage, ready to be realised.

Simultaneously, no two countries share the same development goals or governance contexts. In some, carbon markets can drive forest conservation and biodiversity protection; while in others, they deliver the most impact by strengthening rural livelihoods or financing clean energy transitions.

The Access Strategies model recognises this uniqueness, tailoring its support to help countries use carbon finance in ways that align with their own specific economic and environmental strategies and goals.

For example, the Partnership for Agricultural Carbon (PAC) — developed with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) — is building capacity across Latin American and Caribbean agriculture ministries to participate in high-integrity carbon markets. It provides training, policy guidance, and decision-making tools that help governments and farmers identify viable carbon projects aligning with national agricultural and sustainability goals.

The collaboration has given small and medium producers a clearer route to investment, while positioning agriculture as a central player in regional climate strategies. Another example of the Access Strategies work is the recently launched Amazon Best Practices Guide, which will help Amazon state governments design and implement carbon market frameworks made specifically for their unique ecological and governance realities.

Moreover, in countries such as Kenya, Peru, and Benin, the Program has provided tailored support to develop policy and regulatory frameworks, strengthen institutional capacity, and attract responsible investment for high-priority climate mitigation projects — all in line with country-led goals.

These examples show what’s possible when governments have the tools and expertise to engage in high-integrity carbon markets on their own terms. More countries should seize this opportunity to tap into the growing flow of finance from carbon markets.

While carbon markets are not a silver bullet, they are one of the few scalable and self-sustaining tools available when grounded in integrity and tailored to each country’s needs.

Programs like Access Strategies do more than transfer technical knowledge — they build the enabling conditions for locally led action, drawing on countries’ unique ecological, social, and institutional insights to shape solutions that work in practice.

The focus of global climate action should not only be on new funding pledges, but on ensuring funding that is already available is effectively redirected for EMDEs countries to harness their own natural capital and promote social inclusion, while meeting their climate goals and reshaping their development pathway.

Building this kind of capacity is how we turn global ambition into lasting, locally owned progress, and moreover how carbon finance can become a true instrument of sustainable development.

Ana Carolina Avzaradel Szklo, Technical Director, Markets and Standards, Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI)

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

When the world gathered in Glasgow for COP26, the mantra was “building back better.” Two years later, in Sharm El Sheikh, COP27 promised “implementation.” This year, in Belém, Brazil, COP30 arrived with a heavier burden: to finally bridge the chasm between lofty rhetoric and the urgent, measurable steps needed to keep 1.5 °C alive.

James Alix Michel

What Was Expected of COP30 was modest yet critical. After the disappointments of Copenhagen (2009) and the optimism sparked by Paris (2015), developing nations, small island states, Indigenous groups and a swelling youth movement demanded three things:

• 1. Binding phase-out timelines for coal, oil and gas.

• 2. A fully funded Loss and Damage Facility to compensate vulnerable countries already suffering climate impacts.

3. Scaled-up adaptation finance—tripling the $120 billion a year pledge and ensuring it reaches the frontline communities that need it most.

However, the negotiations evolved into a tug-of-war between ambition and inertia. Wealthier nations, still reeling from economic shocks, offered incremental increases in adaptation funding and a new Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) worth $125 billion, with 20 percent earmarked for Indigenous stewardship. The Global Implementation Accelerator—a two-year bridge to align Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with 1.5 °C—was launched, alongside a Just Transition Mechanism to share technology and financing.

However, the text on fossil fuel phase-out remained voluntary; the Loss and Damage Fund was referenced but not capitalized; and the $120 billion adaptation pledge fell short of the $310 billion annual need.

But there were Voices That Could Not Be Ignored.

Developing Nations (the G77+China) reminded the plenary that climate justice is not a charity—it is a legal obligation under the UNFCCC. They demanded that historic emitters honor their “common but differentiated responsibilities.”

Island States (AOSIS) warned that sea level rise is no longer a future scenario; it is eroding coastlines and displacing entire cultures. Their plea: “1.5 °C is our survival, not a bargaining chip.”

Indigenous Peoples highlighted the destruction of Amazon and Boreal forests, urging that 30 percent of all climate finance flow directly to communities that protect 80 percent of biodiversity.

Youth — The Gen Z generation—marched outside the venue, chanting, “We will not be diluted,” demanding binding commitments and accountability mechanisms.

The Legacy of Copenhagen, Paris, and the Empty COPs

I attended COP15 in Copenhagen (2009), where the “Danish draft” was rejected, and the summit collapsed amid accusations of exclusion. The disappointment lingered until Paris (2015), where the 1.5 °C aspiration was enshrined, sparking hope that multilateralism could still work. Since then, COPs have been a carousel of promises: the Green Climate Fund fell $20 billion short; the 2022 Glasgow Climate Pact promised “phasing out coal” but left loopholes. Each iteration has chipped away at trust.

COP30 was billed as the moment to reverse that trend.

And the result? Partial progress, but far from the transformational shift required.

Did We Achieve What We Hoped For?

In blunt terms: No. The pledges secured are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 °C, and critical gaps—binding fossil fuel timelines, robust loss and damage funding, and true equity in finance—remain unfilled.

Yet, there are glimmers. The tripling of adaptation finance, the first concrete allocation for Indigenous led forest protection, and the creation of an Implementation Accelerator signal that the architecture for change exists. The challenge now is to fill it with real money and accountability.

Let us look at ‘What Must Happen Next

• 1. Full Capitalisation of Loss and Damage Fund

• – G20 nations must commit 0.1 % of GDP and disburse within 12 months.

• 2. Binding Fossil Fuel Phase out – Coal, oil and gas with just transition financing for workers.

• 3. Scale Adaptation Finance to $310 billion/yr

• – Re channel subsidies from fossil fuels to resilience projects.

• 4. Direct Funding for Indigenous and Youth Initiatives

• – Allocate 30 % of climate finance to community led stewardship.

• 5. Strengthen Accountability

– Mandate annual NDC updates with independent verification and penalties for noncompliance.

But for all this to become reality, there must be a determined effort to achieve Future Actions.
We have watched promises fade after every COP, yet the physics of climate change remain unforgiving. The urgency is not new; the window to act is shrinking. But hope endures – in the solar panels lighting remote villages, in mangroves being restored to buffer storms, and in the relentless energy of young activists demanding a livable planet.

Humanity has the knowledge, technology, and resources. What we need now is the collective political will to use them. Let COP30 be remembered not as another empty summit, but as the turning point where the world chose survival over complacency.

The future is not written; we write it with every decision we make today.

James Alix Michel, Former President Republic of Seychelles, Member Club de Madrid.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau