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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gascon emphasised that discussions with donor countries are still ongoing.

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

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

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

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

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

Gascon clarified how blended finance is structured within GEF operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eighth Assembly – a ‘Forward-Looking’ Forum

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

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

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

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

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

Country Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

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

By IPS Correspondent
SAMARKAND, Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The projects include:

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

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

Looking to the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, at the 71st GEF Council Meeting. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Stella Paul
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

On day 2 of the Global Environment Facility’s 71st Council Meeting, which focused on process and procedure, a clear message emerged: global environmental governance cannot afford fragmentation.

With six major multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) under its financial mechanism – the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (UNCBD), the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs), the Minamata Convention on Mercury, the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), and the emerging Agreement on Marine Biological Diversity of Areas beyond National Jurisdiction – the GEF sits at the centre of a complex reporting architecture.

For many convention secretariats, reporting requirements have become increasingly difficult for countries, constrained by limited staffing and multilayered requirements. Calls for greater synergies, including simpler processes across conventions, have taken on new urgency.

“This is the year of three COPs – a great opportunity for us to create synergies,” said Asad Naqvi, representing the CBD, setting the tone for discussions.

A System Under Strain

Across conventions, similar challenges surfaced: fragmented reporting, misaligned data requirements, and duplication, especially for smaller secretariats and developing countries.

Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, highlighted the gap between global commitments and local realities while acknowledging GEF’s progress in integrating Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (IPLCs). She pointed to artisanal and small-scale gold mining – one of the largest sources of mercury emissions – that often occurs in indigenous territories. Yet many affected communities remain unaware of how the issue is addressed under the convention. Without meaningful engagement, broader goals such as biodiversity conservation become difficult to achieve.

“If Indigenous Peoples are not adequately engaged in combating mercury pollution, even biodiversity goals will fall short,” she warned, calling for stronger integration across conventions.

Delegates at the 71st GEF Council Meeting debated how to remove fragmentation in the management of funding across six major multilateral environmental agreements. Stella Paul/IPS

The ‘Minefield’ of Reporting

The complexity of reporting was underscored by Dr Rolph Payet, Executive Secretary of the Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm (BRS) Conventions. Despite efforts to build synergies within the chemicals and waste cluster, reporting remains what he described as a “minefield”.

“We have one convention where reporting has started and others where reporting formats have changed; some stakeholders still prefer paper-based systems, while others want digital platforms – and they do not always share data,” Payet explained.

The result is a system that remains difficult for countries to navigate. Still, Payet struck a cautiously optimistic note, pointing to ongoing efforts to harmonise compliance mechanisms and streamline data collection.

“This is not something we should run away from,” he said. “We have a unique opportunity to bring our heads together and find ways to make reporting easier, more effective, and more useful for measuring impact.”

From Silos to Systems

For Naqvi and others, synergies go beyond administrative efficiency; they are essential for addressing interconnected global crises.

Synergies are not just about efficiency but addressing interconnected crises, says Naqvi. The Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) is often viewed as a conservation blueprint.

“All these challenges – climate, biodiversity, land degradation, pollution – are interconnected,” he said. “The global financial landscape does not allow us to continue with siloed projects.”

He urged the GEF to leverage its role as a financial mechanism for multiple conventions to deepen integration. Existing coordination platforms, such as the Joint Liaison Group among the three Rio Conventions, could be expanded to include chemicals, waste, and emerging issues.

Equally important, he added, is shifting the focus from outputs to systemic change – understanding and addressing the economic drivers behind environmental degradation.

“We must not only fight the flames but also turn off the tap that fuels the fire,” Naqvi said.

Financing the Transition

Across conventions, the scale of investment required far exceeds available grant resources, creating an urgent need for innovative financing.

Stankiewicz highlighted the funding gap for mercury pollution and hazardous chemicals, noting that grants alone are insufficient. She pointed to blended finance – combining public, private, and sovereign capital – as a key pathway.

“Grants can catalyse,” she said. “They can crowd in larger investments and unlock development opportunities while addressing environmental challenges.”

According to her, emerging examples reflect this approach. For example, the GEF-supported PCB animation project not only reports on the destruction of Persistent Organic Pollutants (POPs) but also on co-benefits such as emissions reduced through energy efficiency.

“That will be integration in practice. And I hope the implementation agencies will also join us on this important job,” Stankiewicz said.

Land, Drought, and Resilience

From the UNCCD perspective, synergies closely link to scaling investment and building resilience, particularly in vulnerable regions.

Cathrine Mutambirwa, Programme Coordinator at the UNCCD’s Global Mechanism, stressed the need to mobilise private capital and expand blended finance models beyond pilot initiatives. This is especially critical in drylands and drought-prone regions where financing remains limited.

She welcomed the proposed integrated programmes on drought and land restoration under GEF-9 as a timely response to country needs.

“These are precisely the kinds of cross-sectoral approaches that affected countries are asking for,” she said.

Mutambirwa also highlighted partnerships with multilateral development banks and regional institutions, showing how coordinated financing can bring together resources – including GEF, climate funds, and development banks – into cohesive programmes.

Speakers also stressed that integration must be inclusive, placing Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, and vulnerable communities at the centre and supported by accessible information and simplified systems.

“There has been too much fragmentation,” Naqvi of UNCBD acknowledged. “We need to ensure that our processes work for those who are custodians of biodiversity and natural resources.”

A Pivotal Moment

The Eighth GEF Assembly comes at a critical time. With multiple COPs scheduled in the same year and the GEF entering its ninth replenishment cycle (GEF-9), there is a rare alignment of political attention, financing, and institutional momentum.

Speakers were clear: this moment must not be missed.

Greater synergies in reporting, financing, and programme design are essential to reduce burdens and improve their impact.

If implemented effectively, such integration could transform global environmental governance from parallel efforts into a coherent system capable of addressing the world’s most pressing challenges.

As Naqvi put it, the opportunity is clear: to move beyond fragmentation and build a system where sustainability is not just a goal but a pathway to inclusive and resilient development.

The speakers revealed that UN agencies and conventions were cutting operational costs – through reduced travel and the use of technologies like AI. At such a time, they are expected to push for simpler reporting systems that align with tighter budgets, smaller teams, and growing workloads. It will be telling to see how the GEF-9 cycle reflects these constraints in both design and implementation.

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Odo Tevi, Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN, speaks at the General Assembly. Credit : UN WEB TV

By Naureen Hossain
UNITED NATIONS, May 21 2026 (IPS)

Member states this week (May 20) deliberated over a draft resolution on states’ obligations in respect of climate change following the advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The General Assembly agreed to take measures to uphold the ICJ’s advisory opinion for member states to meet their existing obligations to climate justice under international law and multilateral frameworks.

The draft resolution (A/80/L.65) passed with 141 votes in favor, 8 votes against, and 28 abstentions. It was brought forward by the Republic of Vanuatu, along with the Core Group of States leading the UN General Assembly resolution responding to the ICJ advisory opinion. The resolution was introduced after a long period of consultations between member states. It outlines member states’ obligations to ensure the protection of the climate system by calling for multilateral cooperation to address what the ICJ has called an “existential problem of planetary proportions that imperils all forms of life and the very health of our planet.”

“This day will be remembered. It will be remembered as the moment the United Nations received the considered judgment of its highest court of its defining challenge of our time and decided what to do with it. Vanuatu and the Core Group believe this Assembly should meet that moment with unity, with seriousness, and with respect for the law and one another,” said Odo Tevi, Permanent Representative of Vanuatu to the UN.

Voting Record of Resolution A-80-L.65. Credit: UN TV

When introducing the draft resolution to the Assembly, Tevi remarked that the ICJ opinion “confirms that the protection of the climate system is a matter of legal obligation, not political discretion.” It would not replace or challenge existing agreements such as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol or the Paris Agreement, but rather reinforce them as the primary legislations and forums for the world’s response to climate change.

Amendments to the resolution were brought forward by a small group of member states, which included Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Algeria. Those that argued for the amendments posited that the current resolution required further legal clarity, particularly as it related to the measures required to support developing countries in mitigation and adaptation. At the same time, there were concerns that the amendments weakened the language around the actions and responsibilities of member states, and tabling them so late into the provision would risk undermining the careful negotiations. Ultimately though, the amendments did not pass and the resolution was adopted without them.

In their remarks following the vote, member states welcomed the adoption of the resolution in light of recognizing climate change as a defining existential issue of the modern age, commending Vanuatu for its leadership in pushing for the resolution.

Speaking on behalf of the Pacific Small-Island Developing States (SIDS), Filipo Tarakinikini, Permanent Representative of Fiji to the UN, welcomed the resolution, remarking that it was an “affirmation of survival” for island nations that have been uniquely threatened by climate change, experiencing lasting damages to their homes and their connection to heritage.

“We do not come to this hall asking for mercy. We come demanding justice. Justice that is today grounded in the authoritative voice of the world’s highest court. The Pacific will not disappear, and neither will our resolve,” said Tarakinikini.

Jérôme Bonnafont, Permanent Representative of France, said that this General Assembly decision was welcome in light of an “international context marred by many crises.”

“[France] will continue to defend ambitious climate action, multilateralism, respect for international law, and a science-based approach for sustainable development and for future generations,” Bonnafont said.

James Larsen, Permanent Representative of Australia, hoped that this resolution would “galvanize practical efforts” to protect the climate system and that the case for multilateralism has “never been stronger.” With Australia set to host COP31 later this year, Larsen remarked his country would continue working together with member states to accelerate climate action.

Among those that abstained from voting or were against the resolution are states accused of being major carbon emitters, including G77 members like India and Saudi Arabia. Both the United States of America and the Russian Federation voted against the resolution.

Prior to the vote, the United States expressed that their opposition was based on their “serious legal and policy concerns” about the resolution. The U.S. delegate noted that the resolution called for states to fulfill alleged obligations based on a non-binding ruling from the ICJ, and opposed the resolution’s “inappropriate political demands” to address climate issues.

The Russian Federation’s delegate argued after that member states’ climate obligations, such as the 1.5 degree Celsius threshold, were more of a political obligation rather than normative and that the resolution was an effort to circumvent existing climate agreements.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres welcomed the adoption of the resolution, commending the leadership of Pacific Island countries, SIDs and the students and activists whose “moral clarity helped bring the world to this moment.”

“The world’s highest court has spoken. Today, the General Assembly has answered,” said Guterres. “This is a powerful affirmation of international law, climate justice, science, and the responsibility of states to protect people from the escalating climate crisis… Those least responsible for climate change are paying the highest price. That injustice must end.”

Reacting to the debate, Yamide Dagnet, NRDC’s Senior Vice President, International, said, “Climate justice prevails! The world sent a loud signal that multilateralism and science matter and can deliver for the people and the planet.”

While congratulating the Small Island States, the youths and frontline communities who refused to stand down for their energy, tenacity and leadership, she noted,  “There will be a lot of noise about the difficulty in enforcing this resolution, but the reality is that it represents a watershed moment for polluter accountability. Moving forward, regulators and courts have an additional tool in their arsenal to force nations and companies to look at how they can put people over pollution and better protect the world’s most impacted communities and countries with dignity.”

The Prime Minister of the Republic of Vanuatu, Jotham Napat, said the country expressed profound gratitude to 141 Member States that voted in favor of the UNGA resolution welcoming the Advisory Opinion of the ICJ on climate change and to the 90 States that stood together as co-sponsors of this historic initiative.

“This outcome is a powerful affirmation that the international community remains committed to the rule of law, multilateral cooperation, and climate justice at a time when these principles are being tested,” Napat said while acknowledging that the resolution was the first step in a new journey.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Luther Bois Anukur, Regional Director of IUCN ESARO, interviewed at the IUCN Regional Headquarters in Nairobi, Kenya. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IP

By Isaiah Esipisu
NAIROBI, Mar 3 2026 (IPS)

As the global community marks 2026 World Wildlife Day today (March 3), this year’s focus is on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Conserving Health, Heritage and Livelihoods. However, beneath these celebrations, a difficult question emerges: who will bear the cost of conservation when traditional donor funding becomes uncertain and in the face of climate change?

With geopolitical shifts causing traditional funders to tighten their budgets, conservation across Africa has reached a critical juncture.

In an exclusive interview with Luther Bois Anukur, the Regional Director for the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Eastern and Southern Africa, we explore how governments must now go further by creating space for community-led biodiversity conservation initiatives to evolve into sustainable enterprises. We discuss why protecting biodiversity matters as much as maintaining roads or power grids and why national budgets should consider it a priority.

IPS: With conservation donors tightening their budget, how serious is this funding shift for Africa, and what risks does it create for biodiversity protection?

Anukur: Overall, there has been a shrinking of financing for biodiversity conservation, especially with the closing of USAID, which was a big financier for biodiversity work in Africa. This came as a shock and certainly slowed down the work of biodiversity conservation in Africa because some organisations have gone under, and some projects have closed altogether.

However, having said that, there is a huge opportunity for Africa to relook at biodiversity financing models. Indeed, relying on donor funding is not the right way to finance biodiversity conservation. Biodiversity is not a charitable cause. It is actually part of the sovereign natural assets, and so we need to look at ways in which countries can link their economies to biodiversity conservation.

For example, you’ll find that what underpins our economies in Africa is fresh water, agriculture, tourism, and energy, and all these form the backbone of biodiversity conservation.

IPS: African communities often live with wildlife and bear the costs of conservation. How possibly can this be turned into community-led initiatives that can evolve into sustainable enterprises?

Anukur: First and foremost, people in Africa have lived alongside wildlife for many years. However, the cost of living with wildlife has been very high, because you find there’s crop loss, there’s loss of livestock, and even loss of lives. Yet, we have not seen benefits go to communities in a proportional manner.

To change this, there is certainly a need to rethink and redesign our conservation efforts so that communities can be right at the centre. We need to see benefits going to communities in an equitable manner that is commensurate to the services and the sacrifices they provide by living alongside wildlife.

We need to stop seeing communities as beneficiaries but as leaders of conservation efforts. And when we do that, then we will go a long way in conserving wildlife.

IPS: Why should finance ministries in Africa treat conservation as a core national investment rather than an environmental afterthought

Anukur: In many cases, ministers of finance look at risks, they look at assets, and they look at returns. That is what they usually understand. But very clearly, nature is Africa’s largest asset. And so investing in our environment basically means that we are supporting our water systems, our agriculture, our fisheries, and our ecosystems. That basically means that we are strengthening our economies.

The reverse is true. If we do not support that, we will face disasters. We are going to have a higher impact from climate change, and we are going to get into food imports. When you balance the books, investing in conservation makes sense, as it will ultimately affect national economies. So investing in natural assets will greatly support the GDPs of our countries and the livelihoods of our people.

IPS: Can you share examples of models that governments should be using to support protection of biodiversity as well as community-led conservation initiatives?

Anukur: There have been good examples in Namibia, Zimbabwe, and Kenya, among other countries, which have been able to demonstrate that community-led conservation can generate not only ecological recoveries but also economic returns.

But the key thing with these models is that you need to secure the land rights, make sure that there is accountable governance, and that revenue flows directly to communities. There is also a need to have partnerships with multi-stakeholders, especially the ethical private sector.

IPS: Tools like the IUCN Red List and Green List provide data on species and protected areas. How can governments better use these frameworks to move beyond reactive conservation decisions toward long-term, evidence-based policies?

Anukur: IUCN has got quite a number of tools; we have the red list of species, which basically looks at extinction risk, but we also have the green list, which looks at how effectively we manage our ecosystems. Governments have extensively used these tools as reference documents.

However, we would want to see these tools being used to build evidence for planning. This is because when you plan well, then you are able to avert risks. For instance, you need these tools to plan roads, infrastructure, agriculture, and mining.

IPS: Many African governments face pressure to expand infrastructure, agriculture, and extractive industries. What strategies can realistically balance economic development with ecosystem protection, especially for communities living closest to nature?

Anukur: There has been a big debate for a very long time about whether Africa should prioritise development or whether it should be conservation. But that debate is now very old. What we are focusing on is moving from extractive growth to generative growth. We also need to balance everything. For example, you can do agriculture but ensure that you have healthy soils. You can do energy transition in a manner that is not degrading to the environment. Or even create infrastructure that avoids critical ecosystems.

The most important thing is that there should be cross-sectoral collaboration. We have seen environmental and conservation issues treated as an afterthought. We would want the environment to be right at the centre of budget projections, as well; communities should also be brought to the centre for people to benefit from natural assets.

IPS: As we celebrate World Wildlife Day, what message would you give to African governments regarding the conservation of biodiversity?

Anukur: This time is an opportune moment when the world is changing. At the moment we have a lot of geopolitical change. We also do have a lot of geo-economic change. If Africa is to look at itself, the biggest asset is already what we have. The continent is viewed as poor, but the truth is that Africa is not poor. All we need is to connect with our natural assets and use them for development.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Two men at a pond wash and bathe in the shadow of wind energy in West Bengal Country, India. Credit: Climate Visuals

By Umar Manzoor Shah
NAIROBI & SRINAGAR, India, Jan 22 2026 (IPS)

The world is pouring trillions of dollars each year into activities that destroy nature while investing only a fraction of that amount in protecting and restoring the ecosystems on which economies depend, according to a new United Nations report released on January 22.

The State of Finance for Nature 2026 report by the United Nations Environment Programme finds that finance flows directly harmful to nature reached USD 7.3 trillion in 2023. By contrast, investment in nature-based solutions amounted to just USD 220 billion in the same year. The imbalance means that for every dollar invested in protecting nature, more than USD 30 is spent degrading it.

“Globally, finance flows continue to be heavily skewed toward negative activities, which threaten ecosystems, economies and human well-being,” the report titled Nature in the red. Powering the trillion dollar nature transition economy says. Nearly half of global economic output depends moderately or highly on nature, yet current financial systems continue to erode what the authors describe as humanity’s collective nature bank account.

Nathalie Olsen of the Climate Finance Unit at UNEP  and the report’s lead author said that the barriers to reforming environmentally harmful subsidies are primarily political and structural, rather than economic.

“Our report identifies several key challenges in this regard. On the political front, entrenched interests pose a significant obstacle. Many harmful subsidies benefit powerful industries, such as fossil fuels and industrial agriculture, which actively resist change,” she said in an exclusive interview with IPS.

An ex-coal mine reworked as North Macedonia’s first large solar plant. Credit: WeBalkans EU/Climate Visuals

She added subsidy reform often leads to increased costs for consumers or producers in the short term, making such reforms politically unpopular, even when the long-term benefits are clear. Furthermore, many subsidies are deeply embedded within tax codes and budget structures, making them difficult to isolate and reform.

According to Olsen, structural challenges also play a crucial role. She says that the subsidies tend to create path dependency, establishing business models and infrastructure investments that lock in nature-negative practices.

“For instance, free or underpriced water can lead to the depletion of aquifers for irrigation, while fossil fuel subsidies artificially lower energy costs across the economy, including for products like fertilizers. Despite international commitments, such as the Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF) Target 18—which aims to reduce harmful incentives by at least USD 500 billion per year—implementation remains weak due to a lack of political will.”

Economically, however, the case for reform is strong, according to Olsen.  She says that reforming harmful subsidies would free up government resources for nature-positive investments and reduce economic risks.

“Currently, the USD 2.4 trillion in public environmentally harmful subsidies far exceeds the USD 220 billion invested in Nature-based Solutions.

Successful reform is feasible.

As highlighted in our Nature Transition X-Curve framework, it requires just transition strategies to support workers and businesses during the shift, clear communication about long-term economic benefits, concurrent investment in nature-positive alternatives, and gender-responsive approaches to ensure equitable outcomes,” She said.

Olsen  says that notable examples, such as Costa Rica’s fossil fuel levy financing reforestation and Denmark’s energy taxes supporting the transition to wind energy, demonstrate that reform is politically achievable when accompanied by visible investment in sustainable alternatives.

The report warns that business as usual will deepen ecosystem degradation and expose economies to rising risks. It argues that governments, businesses, consumers and investors still have the power to redirect capital flows and unlock resilience, equity and long-term growth if they act quickly.

In 2023, public and private finance that directly damaged nature totaled USD 7.3 trillion. About USD 2.4 trillion came from public sources, mostly in the form of subsidies that hurt the environment. These included USD 1.1 trillion for fossil fuels, about USD 400 billion each for agriculture and water use, and significant support for transport, construction and fisheries.

Private finance made up the larger share, at about USD 4.9 trillion. A small number of high-impact sectors received the majority of these flows. Utilities alone accounted for around USD 1.6 trillion, followed by industrials at USD 1.4 trillion, energy at about USD 700 billion and basic materials, including fertilizers and agricultural inputs, at a similar level.

The report notes that public subsidies and private investment often reinforce each other, locking capital into nature-negative sectors. Below-market prices for water, energy and other government-provided goods encourage overuse of natural resources and increase financial risks over time.

Against this backdrop, finance for nature-based solutions remains limited. Total global spending on nature-based solutions reached USD 220 billion in 2023, a modest five percent increase from the previous year. Public finance dominated, accounting for about USD 197 billion, or roughly 90 percent of the total.

Transition pathways to nature-positive outcomes. Credit: UNEP

“Our Nature Transition X-Curve framework shows these tools work best when deployed together—combining regulatory “push” (disclosure, subsidy phase-out) with financial “pull” (de-risking, incentives). Over 730 organizations representing $22.4 trillion in assets have adopted TNFD, showing willingness exists when clear frameworks are provided. The challenge isn’t lack of tools—it’s political will to deploy them at scale,” Olsen said.

Public domestic expenditure was the single largest source of funding, reaching USD 190 billion in 2023, as per the report. Spending on biodiversity and landscape protection grew by 11 percent, although support for agriculture, forestry and fisheries declined. Even so, public spending on nature-based solutions remains small compared to the more than USD 2 trillion governments spend each year on environmentally harmful subsidies.

Official Development Finance targeted at nature-based solutions reached USD 6.8 billion in 2023. This represented a 22 percent increase from 2022 and a 55 percent rise compared to 2015. The report describes development finance as a critical enabler for scaling nature-based solutions in developing countries, while warning that geopolitical pressures could constrain future budgets.

Private finance for nature-based solutions reached USD 23.4 billion in 2023. Although small in absolute terms, the report says these flows show positive momentum. Biodiversity offsets channelled more than USD 7 billion, certified commodity supply chains attracted over USD 4 billion, and biodiversity-related bonds and funds mobilized around USD 5 billion. Nature-based carbon markets accounted for about USD 1.3 billion.

“With the right enabling environment, standards and risk-sharing instruments, private capital could scale rapidly and become a game changer in closing the nature-based solutions finance gap,” the report says.

To meet global commitments under the three Rio Conventions on climate change, biodiversity, and land degradation, the report estimates that annual investment in nature-based solutions must rise to USD 571 billion by 2030. This would require a two-and-a-half-fold increase from current levels. The report projects that annual investment needs will reach approximately USD 771 billion by 2050.

The report frames investment in nature-based solutions as a form of essential maintenance for natural infrastructure. It highlights evidence that restoring degraded land can yield returns of between USD 7 and 30 for every dollar invested, if ecosystem services such as water regulation, soil fertility and disaster risk reduction are taken into account.

A review cited in the report found that in 65 percent of disaster risk reduction projects, nature-based solutions were more effective at reducing hazards than traditional engineering approaches. Floodable wetlands and permeable pavements in cities are two examples. They soak up stormwater and take some of the stress off drainage systems.

Despite these benefits, the authors contend that increasing investments in nature won’t suffice unless they eliminate harmful finance. Nature-negative finance, they say, remains the single biggest obstacle to a transition toward nature-positive outcomes.

The report introduces a new analytical framework called the Nature Transition X curve. The framework illustrates the dual challenge facing policymakers and investors. On one side, harmful activities and finance flows must be reduced and phased out. On the other hand, investment in nature-based solutions and other nature-positive activities must be scaled up rapidly.

Olsen said that the X-Curve is a diagnostic tool helping policymakers identify context-specific leverage points, sequence reforms to build political support, and ensure coherence between phasing out harmful finance and scaling up nature-positive alternatives.

“This is not just an environmental agenda but an economic transformation,” the report says. Redirecting harmful subsidies, integrating nature into fiscal frameworks and mobilizing private finance are described as central to building resilient and inclusive economies.

Olsen told IPS news that there is a need for a “Big Nature Turnaround” that repurposes trillions of dollars currently flowing into destructive activities. Key priorities include reforming environmentally harmful subsidies, aligning national budgets with biodiversity and climate targets, and mandating disclosure of nature-related risks and impacts.

More than 730 organizations have now adopted the Taskforce on Nature-related Financial Disclosures framework, representing assets under management worth USD 22.4 trillion. According to the report, this growing awareness of nature-related financial risks is starting to influence corporate and investment decisions, although progress remains uneven.

The report also points to rising legal and regulatory pressures. In some jurisdictions, courts are increasingly questioning whether financial leaders are meeting their fiduciary duties if they ignore environmental risks. At the same time, the authors warn that regulatory rollbacks in other regions could create uncertainty and delay action.

While the scale of the challenge is daunting, the report strikes a cautiously optimistic tone. Better data, a clearer framework, and growing awareness are creating conditions for faster action. The transition to a nature-positive economy, the authors argue, could unlock a trillion-dollar nature transition economy across sectors ranging from food and agriculture to construction, energy and urban infrastructure.

“Turning the wheel towards nature-positive finance is essential,” the report concludes. Without a decisive shift in how money flows through the global economy, the gap between what nature needs and what it receives will continue to widen, with profound consequences for ecosystems, livelihoods and long-term economic stability.

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
  

A family poses in front of their home rebuilt as part of the Sindh People’s Housing for Flood Affectees (SPHF). At COP30 the project was showcased for its significant successes in empowering women in the rehousing the families of the devastating 2022 floods. Credit: SPHF

By Cecilia Russell
BELÉM, Brazil, Dec 12 2025 (IPS)

By any comparison, the statistics for Sindh People’s Housing for Flood Affectees (SPHF) are phenomenal.

In 2022, photographs from the region showed people treading carefully through waist-deep water with their few belongings grasped firmly above their heads in an attempt to escape the flooding caused by 784 percent more than average monsoon rains.

Tents housed tens of thousands of families as they contemplated an uncertain future, with estimates of 15 million people displaced and more than 1,700 dead.

That’s where the story ends for many international survivors of floods and other climate-related disasters. They need to pick up the pieces themselves. The financing for adaptation and loss and damage is still “running on empty.”

And if there was to be clarity at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, the so-called ‘adaptation COP,’ countries that arrived with clear objectives of leaving the negotiations with a roadmap for adaptation that included grant-based adaptation finance and increased support left disappointed.

The final Mutirão Decision calls for efforts to triple adaptation finance by 2035 (compared to 2025 levels). While this reaffirms the previous Glasgow goal of doubling it by 2025, the new goal was a compromise because the deadline was pushed from 2030 to 2035.

Amy Giliam Thorp, writing for Africa-based think tank Power Shift Africa, summed up the opinion of many analysts who say, although the final decision refers to “efforts to at least triple adaptation finance,” the language is “politically evasive and obscures who is responsible.”

Flashback: A flooded village in Matiari, in the Sindh province of Pakistan. Credit: UNICEF/Asad Zaidi

Yet, COP30 provided an opportunity to showcase the best that adaptation finance, albeit as loans and not grant-based, can achieve.

Let’s get back to those statistics.

Speaking at a swelteringly hot and humid Pakistan hall at COP30 Khalid Mehmood Shaikh, CEO of SPHF, reeled off the achievements of the housing project—it is in the process of constructing 2.1 million multi-hazard-resistant houses, directly benefitting over 15 million people—more than the population of 154 countries.

Currently, the construction of 1.45 million houses is underway, with 650,000 already completed and an additional 50,000 each month.

Photos displayed at the COP side event, Women Leading Climate Action in Sindh through SPHF: The World’s Largest Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction Program, showed women and their families involved in various stages of building their new homes.

The pictures showcased construction methods that the Asian Development Bank (ADB) calls “multi-hazard resilient” architecture—high plinths to prevent floodwaters from entering homes, as well as windows and ventilation systems that improve air flow and reduce temperatures during heatwaves; the region sometimes experiences temperatures exceeding 45 °C. Additionally, there is a transition from kutcha, which uses natural local materials like mud, straw, and bamboo, to pucca, constructed with modern materials such as brick, cement, steel, and concrete.

Completed homes, colorfully decorated, stand as testimony to a project that creates both shelter and dignity.

Speakers at a COP30 side event, Women Leading Climate Action in Sindh through SPHF: The World’s Largest Post-Disaster Housing Reconstruction Program. Credit: SPHF

The programme, fully managed by the private sector, began with a USD 500 million loan from the World Bank and PKR 50 billion (more than USD 178 million) from the Government of Sindh.

While this wasn’t enough to build the required 2.1 million houses, with a “robust system” of delivery with partners EY, KPMG, and PwC, and utilizing technology for monitoring, the SPHF was able to mobilize a further USD 2 billion from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), and additional support from the World Bank.

Apart from the loans, the project has benefitted women and those considered to be ‘unbanked,’ with 1.5 million bank accounts opened.

One of the achievements they list is the “largest residential asset transfer in the history of Pakistan,” benefitting women.

“About 800,000 women are direct beneficiaries, while the land title for each house is being awarded in women’s names—the largest residential asset transfer in the history of Pakistan,” Shaikh said. “This ensures that those most vulnerable to climate change, including women-headed households, widows, and elderly women, gain long-term security and financial inclusion, embedding justice and resilience into the recovery process.”

The manager of the Climate Change & Environment Division at the Islamic Development Bank (IsDB), Daouda Ben Oumar Ndiaye, said the project reflected the bank’s focus on gender integration, especially for women, widows, and the elderly.

“The scale and transparency of SPHF set a new benchmark for climate adaptation projects worldwide. We are creating synergies in Pakistan, particularly in Sindh, with integrated health and women empowerment projects,” he said.

The director of Climate Change at the Asian Development Bank (ADB), Noelle O’Brien, was impressed by SPHF’s transformative approach—especially as it linked financial inclusion and resilient infrastructure.

“SPHF demonstrates what true resilience in action looks like—placing women at the center of adaptation, finance, and governance. This is the kind of scalable, gender-responsive model the world needs.”
IPS UN Bureau Report

This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

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:

By Rabab Fatima
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 2025 (IPS)

As we gather in Doha for the High-Level Meeting on “Forging Ambitious Global Partnerships for Sustainable and Resilient Graduation of Least Developed Countries,” the stakes could not be higher. A record number of fourteen countries-equally divided between Asia and Africa are now on graduation track. Graduation from the Least Developed Country (LDC) category is a landmark national achievement—a recognition of hard-won gains in income, human development, and resilience. Yet, for too many countries, this milestone comes with new vulnerabilities that risk undermining the very gains that enabled graduation.

Since the establishment of the LDC category in 1971, only eight countries have graduated. Today, 44 countries remain in the group, representing 14% of the world’s population, but contributing less than 1.3% to global GDP. The Doha Programme of Action (DPoA) charts an ambitious yet achievable target: enabling at least 15 additional countries to graduate by 2031. But as the DPoA underscores graduation must be sustainable, resilient and irreversible. It must serve as a springboard for transformation— not a moment of exposure to new risks.

USG Rabab Fatima

Yet within these challenges also lie opportunities. With the right policies, partnerships, and incentives, graduation can catalyse deeper structural transformation, expand access to new financing windows, strengthen institutions, and unlock pathways to diversified, resilient, and inclusive growth. The task before us is to manage risks while harnessing these opportunities—ensuring that no country graduates without momentum.

Smooth Transition Strategies: A National Imperative
The DPoA calls for every graduating country to develop inclusive, nationally owned Smooth Transition Strategies (STS) well-ahead of the graduation date. These strategies must be fully integrated into national development plans and SDG frameworks, ensuring coherence and resilience. They should prioritize diversification, human capital investment, and adaptive governance, while placing women, youth, and local actors at the center of design and oversight. STS must be living documents—flexible, participatory, and backed by robust monitoring and financing.

Reinvigorated Global Partnerships: The essential Pillar
No country can navigate this transition alone. The Doha Programme of Action calls for an incentive-based international support structure that extends beyond graduation. For LDCs with high utilization of trade preferences – the withdrawal of preferential market access must be carefully sequenced to avoid abrupt disruptions. For climate-vulnerable SIDS and LLDCs, enhanced access to climate finance, debt solutions, and resilience support are key elements in their efforts to tackle post-graduation challenges.

Deepened South-South and triangular cooperation, innovative financing instruments, blended finance, and strengthened private-sector engagement will be essential to building productive capacities and unlocking opportunities in digital transformation, green and blue economies, and regional market integration.

iGRAD: A Transformative Tool
The operationalization of the Sustainable Graduation Support Facility—iGRAD—is a concrete step forward. By providing tailored advisory services, capacity-building, and peer learning, iGRAD can serve as a critical tool to help countries anticipate risks, manage transitions, and sustain development momentum. Its success, however, hinges on strong political support and adequate, predictable resourcing from development partners.

Graduation as a Catalyst for Transformation
Graduation should not be the end of the story—it should be the beginning of a new chapter of resilience and opportunity. With integrated national strategies and reinvigorated global partnerships, we can turn graduation into a catalyst for inclusive, sustainable development. Let us seize this moment in Doha to reaffirm our collective commitment: no country should graduate into vulnerability. Together, we can ensure that graduation delivers on its promise—for communities, for economies, and for future generations.

Rabab Fatima is UN Under Secretary General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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
  

COP30 in Belém is not just another annual climate meeting; it is the 32-year report card of the world governance architecture that was conceived at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. And that is what report card says: delivery has been sporadic, cosmetic and perilously disconnected with the physics of climatic breakdown.

M. Zakir Hossain Khan

The Amazon, which was once regarded in Rio as an ecological miracle of the world, is now on the verge of an irreversible precipice. Even the communities that struggled to protect it over millennia also demonstrate against COP30 to make it clear that they do not oppose multilateralism, but because multilateralism has marginalized them many times.

Rio Promised Rights, Take Part, and Protection, But Delivery Has Been Fragmented

Rio Summit gave birth to three pillars of international environmental control: UNFCCC (climate), CBD (biodiversity) and UNCCD (desertification). Every one of them was supposed to be participating, equitable and accountable. But progressively delivery disintegrated:

• • Rio has only achieved 34 per cent biodiversity commitments (CBD GBO-5).

• • CO₂ emissions rose over 60% since 1992.

• • The globe is headed to 2.7 o C with the existing policies (UNEP 2024).

• The funding obligations are in a chronic state of arrears, adaptation requirements are three times higher than the real flows.

Rio gave the world a vision. COP30 demonstrates the fact that that vision is yet to be developed.

The Rights Gap: The Key Failure between Rio and Belém

Although Rio pledged to involve Indigenous people, Indigenous people today are only getting less than 1 percent of climate finance. In addition, it caused a rising trend of carbon market-related land grabs and resource exploitation, because of the lack of binding power in the decisions regarding climate. This is not a delivery gap but a right gap. COP30 has been improved technically but has failed to redress the inherent imbalance at Rio that remained unaddressed: decision-making in the absence of custodianship.

The Sleepiness Menace Came to Rio and Detonated by COP30

Rio established three overlapping conventions that lacked a single governance structure. Climate to oceans, food, forests, finance, security, and technology; CBD to traditional knowledge, access and benefit-sharing, and UNCCD to migration, peace and livelihoods all increased over the decades.

The outcome is an institution that is too broad to govern effectively, making watered-down decisions and poor accountability. COP30 is being developed, however, within a system that was never intended to deal with planetary collapse on this level.

The Amazon: The Ultimate Test of Rio on Prognosis

Rio glorified forests as the breathing organs of the world. However, three decades later:

• • Amazon was deforested by 17 per cent and was close to the 20-25 per cent dieback mark.

• • Native land protectors become increasingly violent.

• Carbon markets run the risk of stimulating extraction in the name of green growth.

Another pledge is not required by Amazon. It requires energy from its protectors. That was missing in Rio. It is still missing in COP30. Indigenous people depicted in CoP30 in all their frustration and agitation are the consequences of the system failure to provide them with a say in the decision-making process and the unceasing denial of their natural rights.

Young: The Post-Rio Generation that was Duped by Incrementalism

The post-Rio generation (those that were born after the year 30) is more than 50 percent of the world population. They left behind a) tripled fossil subsidy regime; b) soaring climate debt; c) ever-turbid biodiversity collapse; d) rising climate disasters; and e) inability to send up $100B/year finance on time.

They are only impatient not because of emotions. They observe that a system that was developed in 1992 to address a slow-paced crisis can no longer be applied to the fast emergency of 2025.

Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG): Making Good What Rio Left, but Left Incomplete

Natural Rights-Led Governance (NRLG) provides the structural correction that Rio has evaded: a) Nature as a law-rights holder, not a resource; b) Indigenous peoples as co-governors, not consultants; c) Compulsory ecological and rights-based control, not voluntary reporting; d) Direct financing to custodians, not bureaucratic leakage; e) Accountability enforceable in law, not conditional on political comfort. NRLG is not the alternative to the vision of Rio, it is the long-deserved update that will turn the arguments of Rio into reality.

The Verdict: COP30 Moves forward, yet Rio Business Unfinished Haunts it

The advancement of COP30 with its stronger fossil language, more comprehensible measurements of adaptation, new pressure on financing is a reality that is inadequate. It advances the paperwork. It is yet to develop the power shift that would safeguard nature or humanity. As long as rights are not yet non-negotiable, the Rio-to-COP30 trip will be a tale of great promises, half-fulfilled and increasingly dangerous.

What the World Must Do Now

Include nature and Indigenous rights in the COP document; construct governance based on custodianship and co-decision; a system of NCQG to deliver finance to communities; no longer voluntary but obligatory commitments reflecting the final Advisory of ICJ assuming integration of natural rights as a prelude to human rights; and use NRLG as the backbone to all future multilateral climate action.

Rio taught us what to do. COP30 is an education about the consequences of procrastinating. The 30-year period is not going to forgive the errors made in the previous 30. The world should stop being a promise and change to power, negotiate to justice, Rio dream of NRLG deliveries. The deadline is not 2050. It is now.

Rio had sworn justice and rights, but COP30 taught a crueler lesson: the world made promises and not protection. Emission increased, ecosystems failed, money is not spent on fulfilling the finances and Indigenous guardians, to the last remaining forests, continue to get less than 1% of climate money and nearly no say. It is not a policy gap but a failure of rights and governance. If the leaders of the world do not recalibrate climate architecture based on natural rights, since co-decision of the Indigenous and on binding commitments rather than a voluntary one, COP30 will be remembered as the moment when the system was exposed as limiting, not as the moment when the system was fixed. This is no longer a promising problem it is a power problem. And the deadline is not 2050. It is now.

M Zakir Hossain Khan is the Chief Executive at Change Initiative, a Dhaka based think-tank, Observer of Climate Investment Fund (CIF); Architect and Proponent of Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG).

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

André Corrêa do Lago, COP30 President of Brazil, during a highly charged closing plenary. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 23 2025 (IPS)

Following tense, nightlong negotiations and bitter rows between more than 190 country delegations, a “politically charged Belém package” was finally forged at COP30—so named because of the highly contentious and difficult-to-negotiate issues within the climate talks. Belém was supposed to be ‘a how’ climate conference. Decisions made at the 30th Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change would shape how the Paris Agreement moves from word to action and to what extent global climate actions can be reached. In this COP of “implementation and multilateralism in action,” politics carried the day in more ways than one.

Observers, such as Wesley Githaiga from the Civil Society, told IPS that issues touching on trade, climate finance, and fossil fuels are politically charged because of competing and conflicting national interests.

Gavel came out without a roadmap for ending fossil fuels. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

“Some countries bear more responsibility for the climate crises than others and have a higher financial responsibility to address climate change,” Githaiga said. “Striking a balance between the needs of vulnerable developing nations and the economic priorities of developed wealthy countries is difficult.”

Conflicting national interests escalated when COP30 was suspended for additional side consultations just one hour before the final outcome on Saturday, following an argument that broke out over procedural issues.

The Elephant in the Room: Fossil Fuels

On one hand, a few highly organized petrostates from the Arab Group of nations, including Saudi Arabia, were opposed to Colombia, which was supported by the European Union and other Latin American countries like Panama and Uruguay regarding fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are by far the largest contributors to global warming. Scientists have warned of catastrophic temperature rises of up to 2.5°C by mid-century.

Githaiga says the issue was procedural because Colombia was objecting to an already-approved text. The main point of contention was the transition away from fossil fuels. COP28 achieved a historic breakthrough by advocating for a global shift away from fossil fuels. How to transition had been the most highly contentious issue at Belém.

So contentious that COP30 ultimately decided to sidestep ‘fossil fuels’ altogether.

Despite nearly 80 developed and developing countries standing firm demanding an end to the use of planet-warming fossil fuels, there is no mention of fossil fuels in the final COP30 agreement, only an oblique reference to the ‘UAE consensus.’ Despite the demands of Brazil’s neighbors Colombia, Panama, and Uruguay for stronger language, the announcement of a voluntary roadmap outside the UN process went ahead.

Throughout the tense climate talks, observers speculated that the COP30 outcome would include text on either “phasing away” from fossil fuels or “phasing down.” The end result did not include a roadmap for abandoning oil, gas, and coal. Recognizing that the world expected more ambition, Brazilian COP30 President André Aranha Corrêa do Lago told delegates, “We know some of you had greater ambitions for some of the issues at hand.”

Despite the lack of consensus, the COP30 President announced on Saturday that the presidency would publish a “side text” on fossil fuels and forest protection due to the lack of agreement. There will be two roadmaps on these two issues. The work will be done outside of the formal negotiations headed by President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and the Brazilian COP Presidency.

Climate Finance

Nevertheless, all was not lost. According to Mohamed Adow, the Director of Power Shift Africa, the creation of a Just Transition Action Mechanism emerged as a positive development, acknowledging that the global shift away from fossil fuels will not abandon workers and frontline communities.

Adow nonetheless stressed that “developed countries have betrayed vulnerable nations by both failing to deliver science-aligned national emission reduction plans and also blocked talks on finance to help poor countries adapt to climate change caused by the global north.”

“Rich countries cannot make a genuine call for a roadmap if they continue to drive in the opposite direction themselves and refuse to pay up for the vehicles they stole from the rest of the convoy.”

Disagreements are not about climate finance in itself but about how funds will flow from the wealthy to the vulnerable, poor states. But the lack of ambition did not cut across the eight-page declaration developed at the mouth of the world largest rainforest—the Amazon.

The negotiations did succeed in their determination to deliver an economic transition, even though there are concerns that some of the climate finance agreements, such as those on adaptation, are too sweeping, too general, and lacking in specifics. COP 29 raised the annual climate finance target of developing nations from USD 100 billion to USD 300 billion. COP30 agreed to scale finance and to specifically mobilize USD 1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action.

On adaptation, Adow said, “Belém restored some integrity to the Global Goal on Adaptation, removing dangerous indicators that would have penalized poorer countries simply for being poor.”

“The slow pace of finance negotiations is worrying. The promise to triple adaptation lacks clarity on a base year and has now been delayed to 2035, leaving vulnerable countries without support to match the escalating needs frontline communities are facing. As it stands, this outcome does nothing to narrow the adaptation finance gap.”

Adow continues, “COP30 was intended to focus significantly on raising funds to assist vulnerable nations in adapting to climate change; however, European nations have undermined these discussions and removed the protections that poorer countries were seeking in Belem.”

“Europe, which colonized much of the global south and then imperiled it further through its industrialized carbon emissions, now works against even efforts to help it adapt to the climate crisis.”

Many of the countries that have submitted their National Adaptation Plans lack funding. The agreement moving forward is to double adaptation finance by 2025 and triple it by 2035. But it is not clear where this money will come from—public financing, private or wealthy nations.

On the frontlines of the climate crises, Sierra Leone challenged the emphasis on private capital to fund climate adaptation efforts, stating that the private sector is not known for its robust support of adaptation. Observers like Githaiga say instead, there is a need to triple public funding for adaptation.

“If you read the text carefully, you actually realize there is no agreement requiring countries to contribute more funds for climate activities,” he says.

Loss and Damage

On the Loss and Damage Fund, operationalization and replenishment cycles are now confirmed. A first in the history of COPs, trade was and will be discussed within the UNFCCC rather than just the World Trade Organization, in recognition of the intersection between trade and climate change.

The UN climate summit also delivered new initiatives such as the launch of the Global Implementation Accelerator and the Belém Mission to 1.5°C to drive ambition and implementation. This is about meeting the ambition gap by cutting emissions. The ‘Belem Package’ seeks to raise ambition by setting a new 1.5°C warming target to match the pace of the climate crisis. There was also a commitment to promote information integrity and counter false narratives.

Ultimately, COP30 will be remembered for increased climate activism and, more so, the visibility of Indigenous Peoples and the recognition of Afro-descendants. Importantly, it’s the recognition of the cross section between climate change and action and racial justice—although the reaction from some Indigenous peoples is that they would like to have a formal seat at the table.

Belém also raised ambitions for protecting the world’s forests, as the Forest Finance Roadmap is already backed by 36 governments, accounting for 45 percent of global forest cover and 65 percent of GDP. This roadmap seeks to close a USD 66.8 billion annual gap for tropical forest protection and restoration.

UN Climate Change Executive Secretary Simon Stiell summed up the positives.

“So COP30 showed that climate cooperation is alive and kicking. Keeping humanity in the fight for a livable planet. And that’s despite roaring political headwinds. That while one country stepped back. 194 countries have stood firm in solidarity. Rock-solid in support of climate cooperation.

“With or without Navigation Aids, the direction of travel is clear: the shift from fossil fuels to renewables and resilience is unstoppable, and it’s gathering pace,” Stiell said at a press conference at the end of the COP.

However, many others will also remember COP30 for its lack of ambition to deliver on a 2023 promise made to the world to phase out fossil fuels. The lack of a science-based pathway to facilitate a fast, fair and funded phaseout of fossil fuels is a blemish on Belém’s climate deal.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Children and youth engaging at COP. Credit: UN Climate Change/Zô Guimarães

By Cheena Kapoor
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 21 2025 (IPS)

Jyoti Kumari missed her online classes again today. Her father, a vegetable seller in West Delhi’s vegetable market, had to go to work, taking with him the only smartphone the family uses. Kumari has been taking online classes since November 11, when the state government declared a shutdown of all elementary schools due to air pollution hitting the “severe” category.

A class five student in a government school, she relies on her father’s mobile phone to attend her classes. But her class timings coincide with her father’s work time, and due to this clash, the 10-year-old has been missing her lessons.

She represents what has become a common story in India—children missing school due to extreme weather events caused by climate change.

“Their schools shut down several times during peak summer months due to heatwaves, and the closing of schools due to air pollution in October/November has become a regular thing over the last few years. Now that the winters are starting, they will close again when the mercury drops to a freezing point,” said her father, Devendra Kumar.

In a country that has seen remarkable progress in girls’ education only in the last decade, these regular disruptions due to climatic events are threatening the progress. The school closures, compounded with poverty and loss of income due to extreme weather, threaten to push girls like Kumari into child marriage.

In Delhi, the Air Quality Index has been hovering between the “very poor” (300-400) and “severe” (over 400) categories since last week. Since November 11, when Kumari’s school shut, the government imposed stage three of the Graded Response Action Plan, or GRAP, under which nonessential construction and industrial activities are banned in the city. Civil rights groups and college students have been staging protests demanding immediate action to improve the national capital’s air quality.

But Kumari, who wants to become a scientist when she grows up, does not understand the government’s imposition and worries about her classes, which she has been missing.

As per a UNICEF report from earlier this year, climate-related extreme events disrupted education for 54.7 million students in India in 2024 alone. “April saw the highest global climate-related school disruptions, with heatwaves as the leading hazard affecting at least 118 million children in Bangladesh, Cambodia, India, the Philippines, and Thailand,” stated the report. It also added that fast-onset hazards like cyclones and landslides cause destruction of schools, while environmental stressors like air pollution and extreme heat are hindering school attendance.

Against this backdrop, world leaders have gathered in Belém for the 30th Conference of the Parties, in what is called the world’s largest climate negotiation platform. Decisions taken here will directly affect the future of children like Kumari. But by the 10th day of the summit, it is clear that non-economic loss and damage, or NELD, a term coined for all losses that are not directly related to finance, including mental health effects, loss of biodiversity, education, displacement, and culture, are not a priority.

While negotiators, packed in closed rooms, engage in high-level discussions around climate finance, adaptation targets, and fossil fuels, NELD waits to be noticed through the back door despite its growing relevance. It featured in only one side event where some experts highlighted its urgency, but it remains largely absent from the agenda.

“Social impacts of climate change are already worsening, and long-term impacts can lead to stunted education,” said Saqib Huq, Managing Director at the International Centre for Climate Change and Development (ICCCAD). “Within the Warsaw International Mechanism for Loss and Damage, experts are collating data and knowledge regarding NELD, but we keep hearing that we need more data and more policy. Meanwhile, impacts are escalating.”

Part of the challenge, researchers say, is that NELD does not fit into a straightforward financial evaluation. While economic losses like collapsed infrastructure and destroyed crops are easier to quantify and thus draw funding, non-economic harms require more subtle accounting. Lost childhoods and interrupted learning do not fit into traditional finance frameworks.

But for Jyoti, the next few days do not depend on the negotiations and draft text in Belém, but rather on whether the pollution in Delhi falls enough for her to go to school again.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Negotiations take place throughout the day and now late into the night. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 19 2025 (IPS)

At a Conference of the Parties, where science intersects with politics, reaching agreements is often a tricky business. What is inside the last-minute negotiations as the COP presidency tries to get the parties to agreement at the final plenary?

COP negotiators are diplomats and government officials who meet at the Conference of the Parties to negotiate and agree on how to address climate change. They are also often joined by COP delegates’ representatives from civil society, social movements and businesses.

As representatives of their respective countries that are parties to the UNFCCC treaty, they discuss, debate, and haggle over their preferred wording of texts and legally binding agreements regarding how to address climate change during closed-door sessions.

Windowless Closed-Door Meetings

These closed-door meetings are often also windowless, and negotiators often lose track of time as they work through extensive documentation and diverse national positions to form a final agreement towards the end of the COP summit schedule.

COP 30, Belém, is posting a daily photographic glimpse into the collective effort to build trust, dialogue, and cooperation to accelerate meaningful climate action and deliver its benefits to all. Many hope this message will permeate inside these rooms.

The UN climate summit has now entered its final stages. The Brazilian COP30 Presidency has extended working hours, scheduling late-night meetings for the last two nights—Monday and Tuesday, Nov 17 and 18, 2025.

Tonight might not be any different, as the COP30 Presidency pushes for a rapid compromise and conclusion of a significant part of negotiations to pave the way for a “plenary to gavel the Belém political package.”

After all, the COP is where the science of the Paris Agreement intersects with politics.

The Elusive True Mutirão 

The COP30 Presidency is urging all “negotiators to join in a true mutirão—a collective mobilization of minds, hearts, and hands,” saying this approach helps “accelerate the pace, bridge divides, and focus not on what separates us, but on what unites us in purpose and humanity.”

But this is the point in the negotiations, even in a ‘COP of truth,’ as COP30 was staged to be, where the real claws come out amid accusations of protectionism, trade tensions and geopolitical dynamics as the worlds of business, politics and human survival intersect.

Even as UN officials urge parties to accelerate the pace, warning that “tactical delays and procedural obstructions are no longer tenable” and that deferring challenging issues to overtime results in collective loss, reconciling deep differences among nations is proving easier said than done even within the Global Mutirão—a concept championed by the COP30 presidency.

It calls for worldwide collective action on climate change, inspired by the Brazilian and Indigenous Tupi-Guarani tradition of mutirão, which means “collective effort.” The bone of contention at this juncture is what some parties see as weak climate commitments, insufficient financial pledges from the global North to South, and trade measures.

Protectionism

Trade measures are turning contentious and deeply debatable in Belém because of a difference of perspective—developing countries view them as protectionism, while some developed countries see them as necessary to level the playing field for their climate policies.

For developing countries, protectionism is a deliberate strategy by more developed countries to limit imports to protect their industries from foreign competition and therefore give them an undue advantage.  Developing nations say this is unfair because it restricts their ability to export and gain access to larger markets.

The core of the debate at COP30 is the inclusion of issues like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in climate talks. For some countries, CBAM is a direct part of climate action and belongs at COP. Others say it is an agenda best discussed at the World Trade Organization.

The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a tool to put a price on the carbon emissions of certain imported goods, ensuring that the carbon price for imports is equivalent to that for domestic EU production. Its main goals are to prevent “carbon leakage,” or companies moving production to countries with weaker climate policies, encourage cleaner production globally, and protect EU businesses by creating a level playing field.

How to Go About a Just Transition?

The business of climate change is not the only thing that is complex and divisive. There are also small island states calling for rapid emissions cuts vis-à-vis the positions of major emerging economies. G77 and China are an intergovernmental coalition of 134 developing countries that work together to promote their collective economic and developmental interests within the United Nations framework.

China is not an official member and does not pay dues. It has been a partner since 1976, providing significant financial support and political backing to the G77. Developed countries such as the UK, Norway, Japan, and Australia are pushing back against their proposed global just transition, thereby prolonging the negotiations.

Developed nations are refusing the global just transition proposal by the G77 and China because they see it as a new and unnecessary mechanism and a duplication of existing structures. They refuse to accept the financial and technical support these countries are asking for to facilitate this transition. Simply put, they want a less strict framework that allows their own interpretations of existing institutions and funding structures for the just transition.

Where is the Adaptation Financing?

Finance for adaptation is similarly a sticking point. Developed nations are dragging their feet around committing sufficient funds to support developing nations to adapt to climate impacts and transition their energy systems. It is still not clear whether financial commitments will be embedded inside adaptation goals or remain as they are—separate.

Lobbyists and the Fossil Fuel Debate

Amidst growing tensions, it is also not clear whether this COP will phase out or phase down fossil fuels in the final agreement. The large delegation of fossil fuel lobbyists suggests it is too early to call. On the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), those who want indicators for measuring adaptation progress directly linked to financial commitments will not budge. The settlement of this matter could potentially take two years (or more).

Disagreements are ongoing about the mandate of the Mitigation Work Program, which seeks to raise ambitions on national emissions reduction. In general, insiders to the negotiations are saying general negotiation tactics are at play.

Some participants are employing delay tactics to buy time and ultimately weasel out of certain commitments; a lack of trust continues, as it has in previous COPs, along with generally slow progress on building consensus around various contentious issues.

This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

COP30 Belém Amazônia (DAY 03) - PCOP Daily Press Briefing. Credit: Rafa Neddermeyer/COP30 Brasil Amazônia

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 17 2025 (IPS)

COP30 negotiations are midway. So far, talks about historic agreements are moving forward, backward, or stalling, depending on who you ask. The most pressing issues on the table are finances, adaptation, fossil fuel phase-outs, and climate justice.

Wide-ranging and ambitious promises across these issues are not translating smoothly into action. On the first day of COP30, the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage [established at COP27 and operationalized at COP28] launched the call for funding requests for its startup phase.

From December 15, 2025, developing countries will have six months to request funding for projects and programs of between USD 5 and 20 million. The entire kitty has USD 250 million, which compares poorly to what is needed. On matters of loss and damage, developing countries needed USD 395 billion in 2025 alone.

The issue of finance is not a sticking point in itself at COP30, but has been identified as the thread that connects all other thematic areas as encapsulated in the ‘Baku to Belém Roadmap.’  When COP29 in Baku failed to deliver an ambitious climate finance package deal, this roadmap was added on at the last minute to build on the USD300 billion per year in financing agreed upon in Baku.

But this roadmap is not a singular goal to be achieved; it is about coming together to ‘scale up climate finance in the short and long term to ensure that annual climate financing climbs from USD 300 billion to at least USD 1.3 trillion a year by 2035. The roadmap is about increasing finance across all climate funds, be it for preventing, reducing or adapting to climate change.

Climate finance discussions have focused on mobilizing new funding sources, including innovative mechanisms like the proposed Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF). Brazil has defined oceans and forests as the twin priority areas for discussion at COP30.

TFFF is a Brazil-led initiative that aims to mobilize nearly USD 125 billion for tropical forest conservation. It is a radical new solution to combat deforestation.

Brazil has, however, been left ‘surprised’ the UK would not be joining Germany, Norway and other nations towards contributing to the TFFF funds, despite the UK having helped design the tropical forest conservation initiative.

COP30 is determined to build a bridge between promises and performance, words and actions, and there are multiple sticking points in the development of this bridge. In other words, it’s a ‘COP of implementation.’

Unlike the emotive issues of fossil fuel phase-outs and finances that defined recent COPs, COP30 seems to be where the rubber meets the road. After all is said and done, with the agreements to move away from fossil fuels, the Loss and Damage Fund, and the calls for climate adaptation financing, the technical details of how these promises become actions are the sticking point.

For fossil fuels, those whose economies are not dependent on oil, gas, or coal want an immediate transition. Those that depend on fossil fuels are asking for time to find a pathway that helps the transition as they seek alternatives to cushion their economies. This is one of the most contentious climate mitigation issues.

But still all is not lost; there seems to be notable movement in this direction, in 2024 alone, more than USD 2.2 trillion was put into renewable energy—which is more than the GDP of over 180 countries.

Amidst fragile and fragmented geopolitics, COP30 is multilateralism under test. Leaders of China, the US, Russia and India are absent. Some say this is symbolic and could derail climate talks, but many observers say taking this as a sign that political support for international climate initiatives is waning is misleading.

Some observers from the natural-resource-rich African continent say the developing world simply needs to start conducting the climate business differently, particularly in how they trade with the global North over their natural resources.

To be clear, what defines this COP is not necessarily finance, adaptation, fossil fuels or even climate justice; for many, this is a COP implementation. The ongoing negotiations face challenges in translating ambitious promises into action.

Brazil has already launched the COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers—a key initiative under the COP30 presidency to support the development of the Baku to Belém roadmap. This circle will be a platform for regular consultations throughout 2025.

Another first in the history of COPs is that the Asset Owners Summit is included in the official COP agenda. Asset owners representing approximately USD 10 trillion met in Belém in the first week of the COP to work with climate scientists, multilateral development banks, and governments to meet the climate’s financial needs.

A major point of discussion is how to shift from loans to other forms of finance, with a focus on increasing funding for adaptation and ensuring transparency. Climate finance loans remain an unresolved issue.

For developing nations, developed nations whose industrial revolution is responsible for altering the climate system have a moral obligation to climate finance on terms and conditions that take into account that developing nations are the victims. Developed nations, on the other hand, see climate finance loans as a business opportunity—for every five dollars received in climate finance loans, they repay seven dollars.

Activism has been a defining issue at COP30, as has been the increased participation and visibility of indigenous people. It is a step in the right direction when 15 national governments, including Brazil, Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Ghana, Tanzania, the United Kingdom and Germany, and one sub-national government have formally announced their support for the Intergovernmental Land Tenure Commitment, a landmark global agreement to secure and strengthen the land tenure rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities on 160 million hectares in tropical forest countries.

As to how COP30 pans out, the next few days will be critical as the UN Climate Summit nears its conclusion.

IPS UN Bureau Report

This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Indigenous leaders at COP30 in Belem. They are demanding active participation in the negotiation process. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

By Tanka Dhakal
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)

Indigenous leaders from across the Amazon region are calling on climate negotiators to base climate initiatives on the recognition of the land rights of affected Indigenous communities. From the COP30 venue in Belém, these leaders are demanding full participation in the design and implementation of proposed projects.

The Indigenous leaders presented evidence that reforestation initiatives, carbon market schemes, and renewable energy projects could displace Indigenous and local communities and harm ecosystems if they are developed without community involvement and respect for their rights. According to the UNFCCC assessment report, active participation of Indigenous and local communities is key to the success of climate change-related initiatives, whether funded by public or private sources.

In this context, IPS spoke with Elcio Severino da Silva Manchineri (also known as Toya Manchineri), an Indigenous leader from the Manchineri people of Brazil. Manchineri is the General Coordinator of the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB).

Elcio Severino da Silva Manchineri at COP30. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

IPS: COP30 is happening on the land of Indigenous people here in Belém. What is the call from the Indigenous community to the negotiators?

Toya: Our main request to negotiators is to include Indigenous land demarcation as a climate solution—recognizing Indigenous lands as a climate response strategy.

IPS: Why is the recognition of land rights for Indigenous communities in climate negotiations so important?

Toya: It’s important because 80 percent of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories, which means we conserve life. Land titling here and in other countries is crucial. If countries want to meet their targets for zero deforestation, they need to title Indigenous lands.

IPS: What is your view on reforestation efforts that happen without negotiation with Indigenous communities?

Toya: Reforestation is one of the key issues. But really—who is going to take care of those forests? We are the ones who care for them. We will be responsible for those forests. It’s been proven that 98 percent of our territories are well preserved. So, the real issue behind reforestation is guaranteeing the rights of Indigenous peoples to ensure our survival as well.

IPS: My follow-up question is: how can Indigenous communities and climate finance or climate progress come together? Is there a way?

Toya: We are working on climate hack finance and direct access to climate finance. Only direct access will strengthen what people are already doing in their territories. At the heart of it is the question: how can climate finance support what we’re already doing? That’s the important part.

IPS: To gain direct access to finance, you might need a place at the negotiation table. Do you think there is space for Indigenous leaders like you?

Toya: No, I don’t have a place—and that’s the problem. We need countries to consider us as negotiators, as part of official delegations, because we are the ones who know how to care for the forest and the environment.

IPS: Since you don’t have a place at the negotiation table, but Indigenous people have the knowledge to mitigate and adapt to climate change, how can climate projects or negotiations integrate Indigenous knowledge? Is there a way for Indigenous communities, their knowledge, and the negotiation process to come together?

Toya: It’s not only our traditional knowledge that can help mitigate climate change—we can also influence scientific knowledge. Sometimes scientists think they’re the only ones who can speak, but we can too. Our lands capture large amounts of carbon, which helps clear the air and reduce emissions. That’s the knowledge and practice we bring.

IPS: Finally, is there anything you want to see come out of the Belém climate conference? What is your top agenda?

Toya: What we really want to see in the final document is countries recognizing land titling for Indigenous peoples as a climate strategy—as a climate mitigation strategy. The just transition needs clear timelines to be effective. It must be just, but we also need to know by when.

Note: This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt: