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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPIN is designed to dismantle these barriers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Hawa Hussein Farah, a market trader in Garissa Town, Kenya, says extreme heat has shortened her working hours and reduced her daily earnings. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

By Chemtai Kirui
GARISSA, Kenya , Feb 16 2026 (IPS)

By 9 a.m. on a Wednesday, Hawa Hussein Farah is already watching the temperature climb. Awake since 6 a.m., she has prepared her three children for school before walking them to class and heading to Suuq Mugdi, an open-air market in Garissa town, to buy the fruit she will sell.

When she settles into her modest stall, built from wooden poles and covered with draped fabric, the heat is already intensifying beneath the canopy.

On a wooden table, yellow bananas rest in neat clusters beside green-striped watermelons. Mangoes, some blushed red, others golden, are stacked in small pyramids. The shade shields the fruits from direct sunlight, but the air beneath stays warm and dry.

“When it gets this hot, the customers disappear,” Farah says, lifting a bottle of water. “We have to close and go home to rest until it cools.”

Situated in Kenya’s arid northeast, Garissa is in its hottest season. Between January and March, daytime highs typically hover around 36°C (96.8°F).

In early February 2026, temperatures reached 38°C (100.4°F), with “feels-like” readings topping 41°C (107°F), according to Samuel Odhiambo, the county director of meteorological services.

While similar peaks have been recorded in previous years, Odhiambo said recent data show hot conditions are lasting longer, with more consecutive days above seasonal averages. The meteorological agency has issued a biometeorological advisory, warning residents that prolonged exposure increases the risk of heat stress, dehydration, and skin damage.

“If the current pattern continues, temperatures could exceed 40°C (104°F) in March,” he said.

For Farah, these degrees translate into a shorter workday. By noon, exhaustion sets in.

“My body feels weak and I sweat a lot. I drink two or three litres of water in the morning. I don’t even know if it helps.”

She now closes her stall roughly four hours earlier than in cooler months, cutting deeply into her already thin margins.

On cooler days, she brings in about 7,000 shillings (USD 54) in weekly sales. In prolonged heat, that falls to around 4,000 (USD 31), nearly half her usual takings.

Unsold fruit quickly softens, and after two days she lowers prices or sells it to nearby food kiosks for juice to avoid larger losses.

With no fixed salary or protections, each lost hour translates directly into lost income.

As the largest trade hub in northeastern Kenya, Garissa’s economy is anchored by its livestock markets. Data from the International Livestock Research Institute (ILRI)  indicate that this economic dependence makes the region uniquely vulnerable: when extreme heat degrades livestock health and keeps buyers away, the resulting financial contagion directly shrinks customer flow for small vendors like Farah.

Emily Ndung’e, a motorcycle taxi rider in Garissa Town, northeastern Kenya, says prolonged high
temperatures are affecting her income as fewer customers travel during the hottest hours. Credit: Chemtai Kirui/IPS

Emily Ndung’e, a motorcycle taxi rider, said she is facing similar losses.

Ndung’e says her daily income has plummeted from 1,500 shillings (USD 11.50) to just 500 (USD 3.80) during the heatwave.

Wearing  protective riding gear traps heat against her skin, and she often waits for hours between rides under the relentless sun.

“The heat gives me rashes and I sweat a lot,” Ndung’e says. “But I have to be out here. This is the work I depend on to feed my children.”

She describes the heat as devastating for both her income and her health. With few shaded areas along the roadside, she moves between scattered tree canopies, waiting for the next client.

Even after sunset, the heat lingers in Garissa’s concrete homes and corrugated roofs, offering little relief to those who have spent the day working outdoors.

Patricia Nying’uro, a climate scientist at the Kenya Meteorological Department who serves as the national focal point for the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says that hotter nights strip away the body’s ability to recover between hot days.

“When temperatures approach 39°C, or even lower in humid conditions, the risk to outdoor workers increases sharply, particularly with prolonged exposure,” Nying’uro said.

Concerns over rising temperatures in Garissa have previously reached Parliament.

In 2022, Aden Duale, then the Garissa Township lawmaker, formally petitioned the Ministry of Environment regarding ‘public concerns’ over rising temperatures. The ministry acknowledged above-average temperatures linked to climate change. In Garissa’s markets, those shifts now translate into extreme heat events that disrupt daily survival.

Duale now serves as Cabinet Secretary for Health and in October 2025 presided over the launch of Kenya’s Climate Change and Health Strategy (2024–2029), marking the first time heat-related mortality is formally tracked at the national level.

Yet, responsibility for addressing the impacts of extreme heat remains limited.

Garissa has a County Climate Change Action Plan (2023–2028), but it focuses largely on drought, floods and livestock disease. Specific provisions for extreme heat, such as adjusted working hours, public cooling spaces or hydration points – are absent.

The National Drought Management Authority said its mandate centres on drought-related risks, adding that extreme heat on its own does not fall within its response frameworks. Officials directed heat-related enquiries to the Kenya Meteorological Department.

For Farah, that gap is tangible.

“We don’t get any help from the government. We need shade because we suffer in the heat,” she said. “I still pay taxes to the county, but the loss is mine to bear.”

Across Kenya, informal workers like Farah account for roughly 80 percent of the workforce. According to a July 2024 report by the International Labour Organization (ILO), Africa now faces the world’s highest heat exposure, affecting 92.9 percent of its workers.

The agency warns that labour capacity can decline by up to 50 percent under extreme heat—a productivity drain contributing to projected global losses of ISD 2.4 trillion by 2030.

Extreme heat poses a direct challenge to United Nations Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 8.8, which mandates safe working environments for all.

Without safeguards against extreme heat, this promise remains unfulfilled, exposing a critical gap in Kenya’s climate strategy and undermining SDG 13’s call for national resilience.

The current National Climate Change Action Plan (NCCAP) prioritises large-scale agriculture and energy infrastructure. It offers few explicit protections for informal market labour.

While the heat is universal, its toll is gendered. Researchers say that women in Garissa face a “double exposure”, navigating extreme temperatures at the stall and then managing the unpaid care of children and seniors in overheated, unventilated homes, facing nearly a 24-hour cycle of stress.

A study by the The Atlantic Council’s Climate Resilience Center found that heat increases a woman’s total work burden by 260 percent when domestic labour is included.

“It’s a regressive tax,” says Kathy Baughman McLeod, CEO of Climate Resilience for All (CRA), citing research in cities like Freetown, Sierra Leone, where informal market women can lose up to 60% of their income during heat-driven disruptions.

“The body perpetually believes it’s under attack,” McLeod adds, “without tools like ‘heat insurance’, currently being piloted in India but absent in Kenya, the crisis erodes both income and physical recovery.”

Sierra Leone was the first country in Africa to adopt a national Heat Action Plan (HAP), which is a comprehensive policy framework designed to prepare for, respond to, and mitigate the health and economic impacts of extreme heat.

According to Dr Joyce Kimutai, who co-authored the State of the Climate Kenya 2024 report alongside Nying’uro, establishing localised Heat Action Plans is now the “most urgent task” for national adaptation.

“Heat continues to be a silent killer,” Kimutai said, adding that because the economic impacts remain poorly quantified, policy responses continue to lag behind the rising mercury.

Nairobi County is currently piloting a draft heat-response framework that would allow authorities to trigger adjusted working hours and open public cooling spaces during extreme conditions.

The proposal has not yet been formally adopted, but Kimutai says she hopes it could serve as a model for other counties.

As temperatures in Garissa edge toward 40°C, Farah’s adaptation strategy remains a solitary one. She packs her unsold, softening fruit, shutters her stall four hours early, and absorbs the financial blow.

For now, there is no policy to shield her livelihood, only the heat.

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

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

By Tobias Ide
Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

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

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

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

Climate extremes do not drive conflict risks

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

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

How to make sense of the absence of conflict

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

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

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

Avoid doomsday thinking – and provide tailored support

Which insights can decision makers draw from these findings?

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A woman in a remote hamlet in Kashmir, India, migrates to a safer location with her child as floodwater inundates her hometown. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR & NEW DELHI, Feb 9 2026 (IPS)

When the rain begins in Kashmir’s capital Srinagar, Ghulam Nabi Bhat does not watch the clouds with relief anymore. He watches them with calculation. How much can the gutters take? How fast will the river rise? Which corner of the house will leak first? Where should the children sleep if the floor turns damp?

“Earlier, rain meant comfort,” said Bhat, a resident of a low-lying neighbourhood close to the city’s waterways. “Now it feels like a warning.”

On many days, the rain does not need to become a flood to change life. Streets fill up within hours. Shops shut early. The school van turns back. A phone call spreads across families, asking the same question, “How is your area?”

For millions across India and the wider region of emerging Asia (a group of rapidly developing countries in the region, including China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam), this is the new normal. Disasters no longer arrive as rare, once-in-a-generation ruptures. They come as repeated shocks, each one leaving behind repair bills, lost wages, and a deeper sense that recovery has become a permanent routine.

A recent analysis from the OECD Development Centre shows that emerging Asia has been facing an average of around 100 disasters a year over the past decade, affecting roughly 80 million people annually. The rising trend is powered by floods, storms, and droughts. The report estimates that natural disasters have cost India an average of 0.4 percent of GDP every year between 1990 and 2024.

Behind the national figure lies a quieter, more poignant story. It is the story of how repeated climate and weather shocks get absorbed by households and not just spreadsheets. By the savings a family built for a daughter’s education. By a shopkeeper’s stock bought on credit. By a farmer’s seed money saved from the last season.

In the north Indian state of Bihar’s flood-prone belt, Sunita Devi, a mother of three, says she has stopped storing anything valuable on the floor. Clothes sit on higher shelves. The grain container has moved to a safer corner. The family’s documents stay wrapped in plastic.

Local residents in Kashmir’s capital, Srinagar, stack sandbags to safeguard their homes from floods in 2025. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS

“When water comes, you run with children,” she said. “The rest is left to fate. You can rebuild a wall. You cannot bring back the days you lost.”

Her village has lived with floods for decades, but she says what has changed is frequency, uncertainty, and cost. It is not only about big river floods that make headlines. It is also about sudden waterlogging, damaged roads, broken embankments, and illnesses that rise after the water recedes.

“Earlier we could predict. Now we cannot. Sometimes the water comes fast. Sometimes it stays. Sometimes it leaves and then comes again,” Devi told IPS.

Professor Kaveh Madani, director of the United Nations University’s Institute for Water, Environment, and Health, told IPS that water bankruptcy in Asia should be treated as a national security issue, not a sector issue.

“The priority is shifting from crisis response to bankruptcy management: honest accounting, enforceable limits, protection of natural capital, and a just transition that protects farmers and vulnerable communities,” said Madani.

Across emerging Asia, floods have emerged as one of the strongest rising trends since the early 2000s, the OECD Development Centre report notes. The reasons vary from place to place, but the result looks familiar: disrupted lives, damaged homes, and a cycle of repair that drains communities.

In Kashmir’s capital Srinagar, small shop owner Bashir Ahmad keeps an old wooden rack near the entrance. It is not for display. It is for emergencies. When rain intensifies, he quickly moves cartons of goods off the floor.

“My shop is small; my margin is smaller. One day of water is enough to destroy many things. Customers do not come. Deliveries stop. You just wait and watch,” Ahmad said.

He says the biggest loss is not always the damaged stock. It is the days without work. For families that live week to week, even a short shutdown becomes a long crisis. Rent does not pause. School fees do not pause. Loans do not pause.

The OECD analysis, while regional in scope, points to a hard truth that communities already know. It claims that disasters have economic aftershocks that last long after television cameras leave. When repeated losses occur every year, they reduce growth and reshape choices. Families postpone building stronger houses. They avoid investing in small businesses. They spend more time recovering than progressing.

“Disasters are no longer exceptional events. They have become recurring economic shocks. The problem is not only the immediate damage. It is the repetition. Repetition breaks household resilience,” Dr Ritu Sharma, a climate risk researcher based in Delhi, said.

Sharma says India’s disaster losses should not be viewed as a headline percentage alone.

They should be viewed as accumulated pressure on ordinary life.

“A flood does not only damage a bridge. It delays healthcare visits. It interrupts immunisation drives. It breaks supply chains for food and medicines. It can push vulnerable families into debt traps. What looks like a climate event becomes a social event. It becomes a health event. It becomes an education event.”

In the report’s regional comparisons, the burden is uneven. Some countries face higher average annual losses as a share of GDP, especially those exposed to cyclones and floods. India’s size allows it to absorb shocks on paper, but that size also means more people remain exposed. From Himalayan slopes vulnerable to landslides to coastal districts bracing for cyclones to plains dealing with floods and heat, risk is spread across geography and across livelihoods.

Prof. Nasar Ali, an economist who studies climate impacts, says the real damage is often hidden in the informal economy.

“A formal sector company can claim insurance, borrow on better terms, and restart faster. A vegetable vendor cannot. A small grocery shop cannot. A family with a single daily wage earner cannot. Their loss is immediate and personal. They also take the longest to recover,” Ali said.

He believes disaster impacts also deepen inequality because the poorest households lose what they cannot replace.

“A damaged roof for a rich family is a renovation problem. A damaged roof for a poor family can mean sleeping in damp rooms for weeks, infections, missed work and children dropping out temporarily.”

The report also turns attention toward a policy question that has become urgent across Asia: how should governments pay for disasters in a way that does not repeatedly divert development funds?

The analysis highlights disaster risk finance, tools that help governments prepare money in advance rather than relying mainly on post-disaster relief. This includes dedicated disaster funds, insurance mechanisms, and rapid financing that can be triggered quickly after a shock.

For communities, the debate may sound distant. But the outcomes are visible in the speed of recovery and the dignity of response.

“When a disaster happens, help should come fast,” said Meena Devi, who runs a small grocery shop in Jammu’s RS Pura area and has seen repeated waterlogging during intense rains. “We close our shop. Milk spoils. People cannot buy things. Then we borrow money to restart. If support is slow, we fall behind.”

She said her biggest fear is not a single disaster but the feeling that another one is always near.

“If it happens once, you survive. If it happens again and again, you get tired from inside,” she said.

For Sharma, preparedness must be more than emergency drills. It must include planning that reduces exposure in the first place.

“Some risks are unavoidable, but many are amplified by where and how we build,” she said. “If cities expand without drainage capacity, or if construction spreads into floodplains, then disasters become predictable. That is not nature alone. That is policy.”

In Srinagar, Bhat says residents often feel they fight the same battle every year. Cleaning drains. Stacking sandbags. Moving belongings. Calling relatives. Watching the river level updates. The work looks small, but it is exhausting because it never ends.

He pointed to marks on a wall that show where water once reached.

“We always think, maybe this year it will be better,” he said. “Then rain comes, and your heart starts beating faster.”

Asked what would make him feel safe, he did not talk about big promises. He spoke about basics. A drain that works. A road that does not collapse. A warning that comes early. Help that comes on time.

For Sunita Devi in Bihar, the dream is even simpler: a season where the family can plan without fear.

“We want to live like normal people. We want to save money, not spend it on repairing what the water broke,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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
  

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

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

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

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

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

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

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

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

K Kuhaneetha Bai

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

Farhana Haque Rahman

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A global crackdown on civic freedoms is intensifying – and women are on the frontlines of the attack. CIVICUS’s 2025 People Power Under Attack report analyses the extent to which freedoms of association, expression and peaceful assembly are being respected or violated. The report reveals that people in 83 countries now live in conditions where their freedoms are routinely denied, compared to 67 in 2020. In 2020, 13 per cent of the world’s population lived in countries where civic freedoms were broadly respected; now it’s more like 7 per cent. Among the most documented violations in 2025 were detention of human rights defenders, journalists and protesters, and women human rights defenders (WHRDs) were among the most affected.

Reylynne Dela Paz

WHRDs are women and girls, in all their diversity, working on any human rights issue, and those who promote women’s and girls’ rights and gender justice. They include people in civil society who might not self-identify as human rights defenders and those who work in fields such as environmental activism, humanitarian response, journalism and peacebuilding.

WHRDs are at a higher risk of being discriminated against and abused not only for what they do, but also because of who they are. By virtue of their gender identity, they challenge societal norms and patriarchal structures. The 2025 People Power Under Attack report, for example, documents numerous examples of online intimidation and threats against women journalists, both because of their journalistic work and because they’re women.

Attacks against women and girls in general and WHRDs in particular are increasingly being fuelled by rising authoritarian rule, fundamentalism and populism. Governments, politicians and non-state groups are taking more confident and strident anti-rights actions, fuelling an environment where repression and violence against WHRDs is not only possible but celebrated.

Anti-rights networks, led by populist politicians and fundamentalist religious groups, are engaging in coordinated, sustained and increasingly influential work to stigmatise campaigns for women’s rights and gender justice and those involved in them. They spread the idea that gender justice and those who strive for it threaten children’s welfare, families, religious beliefs, national security and traditional and cultural norms. They’re manipulating public narratives and weaponising disinformation to gain public support.

This has given rise to decreased support for HIV prevention projects, queer movements, sexual, reproductive health and rights initiatives, women’s and girls’ participation in decision-making spaces and any human rights effort led by women, including those on climate and environmental justice, disability, Indigenous rights and peace and security.

CIVICUS’s Stand As My Witness Campaign, which calls for the release of unjustly detained human rights defenders, shows how brutal the current context is for WHRDs. It documents stories of violent arrests, inhumane treatment and other cruel actions against women who have dedicated their lives to pursuing justice and resisting repressive governments. WHRDs Pakhshan Azizi, Sharifeh Mohammadi and Verisheh Moradi are facing death sentences in Iran. Narges Mohammadi, an Iranian human rights activist and journalist who was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2023, has also been imprisoned repeatedly for her work.

Other WHRDs who have been arbitrarily arrested include Chow Hang-Tung from Hong Kong, who advocated for the protection and promotion of labour rights and the rights of persecuted human rights defenders in mainland China, Marfa Rabkova, coordinator of Viasna Center for Human Rights’ network of volunteers in Belarus, Kenia Hernandez, coordinator of Zapata Vive, a peasant movement that defends land rights in Mexico, and Hoda Abdel Moneim, a human rights lawyer from Egypt.

I know a mother who helped farmers learn about their rights but was falsely accused of illegally possessing firearms. She was dragged from her house carrying her newborn child. I recall an old woman who has spent her days helping empower Indigenous people but who was harshly arrested and denied medical treatment while in jail, a trans woman who joined a protest and was arrested for no other reason than being a trans protester, and a girl activist who was harassed online for sharing her thoughts against child marriage.

Beyond commemoration

These few painful stories represent only a fraction of reality. The problem is systemic. The world is dominated by cowardly rulers who draw confidence and power from dominant systems of patriarchy and support from anti-rights networks. The restriction of freedoms online and offline make it more difficult and dangerous to hold those in power accountable.

The intensifying repression of civic space, as documented in People Power Under Attack, demands coordinated and sustained action to defend and support the work of activists, human rights defenders and journalists. Increasing threats against WHRDs demand a proactive response to dismantle the gender discriminatory norms and patriarchal rules that underpin and enable human rights violations.

There’s a great need for intersectional protection mechanisms and gender transformative responses from national, regional and international human rights institutions. It’s time for policies that protect human rights defenders but also recognise the distinct needs and lived experiences of WHRDs in all their diversity.

Multilateral institutions should hold member states to account for the international commitments they have made. Regional and global intergovernmental institutions should invest in closely monitoring the situation of WHRDs and in protecting them, and hold perpetrators accountable for abuses. There should be increased investment and coordinated efforts to promote gender justice as part of human rights and respond to the disinformation and false narratives being spread online by governments and the private sector.

The Sustainable Development Goals, backed by all states when they were agreed in 2015, recognise gender equality as a fundamental part of achieving sustainable development, yet little effort has gone into ensuring the people who strive for this are safe and able to work. Women and girls play a vital role in the pursuit of peace and justice, but they increasingly suffer. They don’t need to be merely recognised and remembered: they need to be protected and supported in the face of growing attacks.

Reylynne Dela Paz is Advocacy Lead at CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.

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:

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
  

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:

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:

Kumi Naidoo with Brazilian First Lady Janja Lula da Silva and Brazilian Cultural Minister Margareth Menezes and others at a panel called “Narratives and Storytelling to Face the Climate Crisis” during the 30th Conference of the Parties (COP30). Credit: Aline Massuda/COP30

By Joyce Chimbi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 18 2025 (IPS)

Decades ago, a little girl was born in a place called Cleveland, Ohio, in the heart of the United States of America. Born to a woman from the deep South, the place of Martin Luther King, her mother left her ancestral lands for the economic opportunities in the north.

“Off she went, making it all the way to the east side of Cleveland,” says Rev. Dr. Angelique Walker-Smith. “To the place where most people who look like me lived, and still live, and are subjected to policies of injustice, race and gender.”

Here, she found a more pressing issue.

“I couldn’t breathe, my mother couldn’t breathe, and we all couldn’t breathe,” she narrates.

This urbanization, driven by fossil fuels, occurred in Cleveland, Ohio, where her mother relocated and where her relatives still live today. During the Great Migration, over six million people of African descent traveled from the South, believing that economic opportunities would be better in the North.

Rev. Dr Angelique Walker-Smith, regional president of the World Council of Churches, speaks at an event titled ‘Faith for Fossil Free Future.’ Credit: IPS

“Upon our arrival, we discovered that we just couldn’t breathe.”

As one of eight regional presidents representing the World Council of Churches, Walker-Smith says for the World Council of Churches in over 105 countries, over 350 million adherents, and over 350 national churches all over the world, supporting the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty “is all about the issue of injustice, life and life more abundantly.”

“We are saying yes to the transition from fossil fuels to renewable life-giving energy.”

Kumi Naidoo, a prominent South African human rights and environmental justice activist and the President of the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, says if the goal is renewable life-giving energy, the world has been going the wrong way for the past 30 years.

“If you come home from work and see water coming from the bathroom, you pick up the mop. But then you realized you left the tap running and the sink stopper on. What will you do first? Of course! You’ll turn off the water and pull the stopper. You will not start mopping the floor first.”

“For 30 years since the time science told us we need to change our energy system and many of our other systems, what we’ve been doing is mopping up the floor. If fossil fuels—oil, coal, and gas—account for 86 percent of what drives climate change, then we must turn off the tap.”

Masahiro Yokoyama was speaking at an event titled Faith for a Fossil-Free Future co-sponsored by Soka Gakkai International. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Naidoo was speaking at an event titled ‘Faith for Fossil Free Future’ co-sponsored by several organizations, including Soka Gakkai International (SGI), Laudato Si’ Movement, GreenFaith—a global interfaith environmental coalition and EcoJudaism, a Jewish charity leading the UK Jewish Community’s response to the climate and nature crisis.

He spoke about the contradiction of the climate talks at the doorsteps of the Amazon, while licensing for drilling is still ongoing in the Amazon even as the people in the Amazon protest, calling for a fossil-free Amazon.

Continuing with the thread of contradictions, Naidoo said, “Some of you might be shocked that even though fossil fuels are 86 percent of the cause of climate change, it took 28 years before the words ‘fossil fuels’ could even be mentioned in the COP document. It is as absurd as Alcoholics Anonymous holding 28 years of conferences before they get the backbone to mention alcohol in an outcome document. If we continue on this path, we'll warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can't plant food. The end result is that we'll be gone. The planet will still be here. And the good news is, once we become extinct as a species, the forests will grow back, and the oceans will recover.

“And actually, staying with that analogy, can you imagine how absurd it is that the largest delegation to this COP this year, last year, and every year is not even the host country?

“It’s not even Brazil—for every 25 delegates that are attending the COP, one of them is from the fossil fuel industry. That’s the equivalent of Alcoholics Anonymous having the largest delegation to its conference annually from the alcohol industry.”

People, groups and movements of different faiths and consciousness are increasingly raising their voices in robust support of a rapid fossil fuel phase-out, a massive and equitable upsurge in renewable energy, and the resources to make it happen—in the form of a Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Naidoo says the treaty is “a critical success ingredient for us not (only) to save the planet, but to secure our children and their children’s future, reminding ourselves that the planet does not need any saving.

“If we continue on this path, we warm up the planet to the point where we destroy our soil and water, and it becomes so hot we can’t plant food. The end result is that we’ll be gone. The planet will still be here. And the good news is, once we become extinct as a species, the forests will grow back, and the oceans will recover.”

This treaty is a proposed global agreement to halt the expansion of new fossil fuel exploration and production and to phase out existing sources like coal, oil, and gas in a just and equitable manner.

The initiative seeks to provide a legal framework to complement the Paris Agreement by directly addressing the supply side of fossil fuels.

Its ultimate goal is to support a global transition to renewable energy and is supported by a growing coalition of countries, cities, organizations, scientists, and activists. More importantly, it has multi-faith support.

Masahiro Yokoyama of the SGI, which is a diverse global community of individuals in 192 countries and territories who practice Nichiren Buddhism, spoke about the intersection between faith and energy transition and why the fossil fuel phase-out cannot wait.

“The just transition is also about how young people in faith can be the driving force to transformations.”

“So, a fossil fuel non-proliferation treaty, in my view, is not only about phasing out other fossil fuels but it also represents an ethical framework.”

“It’s a way to move forward while protecting people’s livelihoods and dignity within the context of the environment and also the local business and economies. So, a just transition is not merely a technical issue but a question of ethics, inclusion and solidarity,” Masahiro Yokoyama said.

The most pressing issue at hand is how to implement the treaty in the current environmental context.

“The pathway that we are following is a pathway that has been followed before. We are not going to negotiate this treaty within the COP or within the United Nations system. We’re going to do what the Landmine Treaty did.

“The landmine treaty was negotiated by 44 countries outside of the UN system and then brought to the UN General Assembly for ratification. The second question that people ask, justifiably, is, what about the powerful exporting countries, for example?” Naidoo asked.

“They’re not going to sign it. And to that we find answers in the landmine treaty. Up to today, the United States, Russia and China have not signed the Landmine treaty. But once the treaty was signed, the social license to continue as business as usual was taken away. And you saw a drastic change.”

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By External Source
Nov 18 2025 (IPS)

 
I greet the particular Churches of the Global South gathered at the Amazonian Museum of Belém, joining the prophetic voice of my brother Cardinals who have taken part in COP 30, telling the world with words and gestures that the Amazon region remains a living symbol of creation with an urgent need for care.

You chose hope and action over despair, building a global community that works together. This has delivered progress, but not enough. Hope and determination must be renewed, not only in words and aspirations, but also in concrete actions.

The creation is crying out in floods, droughts, storms and relentless heat. One in three people live in great vulnerability because of these climate changes. To them, climate change is not a distant threat, and to ignore these people is to deny our shared humanity. There is still time to keep the rise in global temperature below 1.5°C, but the window is closing. As stewards of God’s creation, we are called to act swiftly, with faith and prophecy, to protect the gift He entrusted to us.

The Paris Agreement has driven real progress and remains our strongest tool for protecting people and the planet. But we must be honest: it is not the Agreement that is failing, we are failing in our response. What is failing is the political will of some. True leadership means service, and support at a scale that will truly make a difference. Stronger climate actions will create stronger and fairer economic systems. Strong climate actions and policies, both are an investment in a more just and stable world.

We walk alongside scientists, leaders and pastors of every nation and creed. We are guardians of creation, not rivals for its spoils. Let us send a clear global signal together: nations standing in unwavering solidarity behind the Paris Agreement and behind climate cooperation.

Let this Amazonic Museum be remembered as the space where humanity chose cooperation over division and denial.

And may God bless all of you in your efforts to continue caring for God’s creation. In the name of the father, the son, and the holy spirit. Amen.

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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:

Credit: R_Tee / shutterstock.com

By Ambika Vishwanath and Treesa Shaju
Nov 17 2025 (IPS)

 
Emerging research on the nexus between climate, peace and security (CPS) supports the integration of climate adaptation and mitigation methods to advance sustainable peace. While climate change itself may not be the direct cause of conflict, its cascading effects such as resource scarcity, displacement, and economic stress could become focal points of tension. Although these links remain debated, meaningful responses could have delayed stabilizing effects. Locally driven responses become essential in addressing climate change as a security concern, to mitigate future cycles of conflict. A nuanced CPS framing can support smarter climate action while enhancing security at multiple levels. India’s scalable local models, Germany’s technical expertise, and Australia’s Pacific engagement pose an opportunity for the three countries to collaborate on advancing integrated CPS approaches.

How is this playing out in the Indo-Pacific?

The Indo-Pacific, one of the fastest growing regions from an economic, trade and development standpoint, is facing some of the most complex challenges arising from climate change and geopolitical developments. These are compounded by non-traditional security issues such as rising food, water and health insecurities, the intensity of which often eclipses traditional security concerns for regional policy makers. The COP27 Presidency initiative “Climate Responses for Sustaining Peace” (CRSP), spearheaded a pivot from a climate security nexus towards a climate and peacebuilding nexus that becomes useful to adapt for the Indo-Pacific region. The dichotomy of need, approach and security response provides countries a new potential for innovative engagement across the region.

Innovative approaches require acknowledging that current development models and business as usual will no longer be sustainable. As risks and challenges intensify with global repercussions, new partners must step-up with skills, knowledge and resources for ground up, contextual transformation. Germany, India and Australia have very different historical contexts and regional approaches, yet these growing global powers must respond proactively and in a coordinated manner.

Beyond solely relying on existing multilateral institutions, it is pragmatic to explore new configurations that address gaps left by larger organizations. Smaller groupings working with local actors can deliver ground-up solutions that states can sustain beyond donor cycles/political changes. They are also better equipped to pursue integrated approaches while working towards larger strategic balance and security concerns.

As one of the oldest and largest partners in the region, Australia has committed to being a principled and reliable partner to countries in the Pacific as well as the wider Indian Ocean region. Its 2024 National Defence Strategy, International Development Policy and remarks by senior leadership over the last few years suggest a strong commitment to relationships, with a global security agenda that is (debatably) climate-forward, ranging from disaster response to renewable energy. As a founding member of the India Ocean Rim Association (IORA) and the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), it remains the largest donor with deep ties and networks despite a chequered legacy.

India positions itself as the primary security provider for the Indian Ocean region, evolving from a regionally focused Neighbourhood First Policy to a more comprehensive Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR) initiative. It is a founding member of the International Solar Alliance which focuses on climate positive solutions especially for LDCs and SIDS. While India has had a longer history in the Indian Ocean, its engagement with the Pacific Island Countries (PICs) has steadily increased through grants, lines of credit, concessional loans, humanitarian assistance, capacity building, and technical assistance in areas like Health, IT, education, and community development. India’s development cooperation is guided by the principles of South-South cooperation, anchored on low-cost development solutions and non-conditional aid.

While Germany’s engagement in the region has been more recent in comparison, it brings technical knowledge and capacity in climate adaptation, ecosystem-based solutions, and capacity-building initiatives. German universities and research organizations are engaged in developing cutting edge climate tech solutions, which can be contextualised with regional partner countries. For example, the ‘Ensuring climate-resilient access to water and sanitation’ project strengthened rural water, sanitation, and hygiene (WASH) systems by integrating modern climate-resilient technologies.

Unlikely partners make for innovative engagement

Though minilateral cooperation has tended to proceed ad hoc or with a strict focus on blue economy or marine pollution issues, it offers a nuanced approach to balance traditional security concerns and emerging climate related risks and challenges. While many trilateral and quadrilateral efforts exist, a more efficient streamlining of projects, knowledge and resources can benefit small island countries in the Indian and Pacific Ocean that are often overwhelmed by attention. Many current efforts consume valuable resources while primarily functioning as discussion forums with limited tangible impact on ground. While Germany, India and Australia might seem like unlikely partners, their unique and complementary skills and resources can implement a more nuanced CPS agenda with partners across the Indo-Pacific. Their potential lies in addressing overlooked areas such as smaller projects, research, financing options and capacity building.

One way to begin collaboration is by establishing a trilateral technical cooperation track with the Pacific Nationally Determined Contributions (NDC) Hub, a coordinated regional support mechanism for PICs to implement and finance their climate commitments. While Germany and Australia are already among the key financiers, this track could leverage Australia’s regional presence and expertise while Germany and India could offer institutional support on low grade technology, low-cost project design merging modern technology with traditional knowledge. The track could commence with scaled down water security related projects, a key area of concern for many Pacific nations.

Another possibility is expanding the India–Australia Centre of Excellence for Disaster Management to include Germany-based Karlsruhe Institute of Technology (KIT) that specializes in technology such as AI for Pandemics and Disaster Risk Reduction. Together, they could jointly develop, and pilot dual-use disaster risk resilience technologies and capacity-building programs tailored for the Indo-Pacific region.

While both India and Germany have ongoing capacity constraints, their technical knowledge can complement Australia’s operations in the Pacific. Ignoring these opportunities risks leaving the region trapped in reactive cycles of crisis management, without solutions that are locally owned and sustainable. Innovative approaches that focus on filling the gaps can address the complex ways in which CPS linkages play out. Moving forward, strategic coordination among partners will be essential to translating these approaches into sustained regional impact.

Related articles:
Reconstructing the China–India Climate Diplomacy
The Case for a Climate-First Maritime Reframing of the Indian Ocean Region
The Indus Water Treaty Suspension: A Wake-Up Call for Asia–Pacific Unity?
Left Behind: Why Afghanistan Cannot Tackle Climate Change Alone

Ambika Vishwanath is the Founder Director of Kubernein Initiative and a Principal Research Fellow at La Trobe Asia. She is a geopolitical expert and works at the intersection of emerging security challenges, climate security, and foreign policy.

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau