Irene Velez Torres, Director of the Colombian National Environmental Agency, during a panel discussion with policy experts at the Santa Marta Conference. Credit: Supplied

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, India, May 6 2026 (IPS)

The First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels in Santa Marta, Colombia, may eventually be remembered as a defining moment in global climate politics, not because it produced a treaty or a formal negotiation outcome, but because it changed the tone, structure, and ambition of the conversation itself.

For decades, international climate diplomacy has been about managing emissions, not addressing the source of those emissions: fossil fuels. Governments continued to discuss carbon markets, offsets and adaptation funds but so too did the growth in oil, gas and coal production. Within the UN climate process itself, producer nations and powerful economic interests often blocked direct discussion of phasing out fossil fuels. However, there was no such case as Santa Marta.

The conference, co-hosted by Colombia and the Netherlands and attended by delegates from almost 60 nations, was not intended to be another COP-style negotiation. It was explicitly designed as a political and practical platform for those countries willing to move faster on the fossil fuel phase-out. That makes a difference.

“This was not a negotiating conference. This is about dialogue and looking together at what we can do and how we can apply our creativity, our collaboration, and the science to find new opportunities,” said Stientje van Veldhoven-van der Meer, Dutch Climate and Green Growth Minister.

The conference’s most important accomplishment might be the single transition from negotiation to problem-solving.

Traditional COP summits often descend into exercises in diplomatic survival, with countries fighting over language late into the night and protecting narrow interests. In Santa Marta, ministers repeatedly stressed that participants were not there to defend positions but to create solutions.

“The contrast was stark,” said Minina Talia, Tuvalu’s Minister for Home Affairs, Climate Change and Environment.

“I’ve been to a lot of COPs over the years and I’ve never felt like this. More chilled, ready to go home. We are not here to bargain. We’re here to find solutions,” he told reporters on the concluding day of the conference.

For small island states like Tuvalu, where climate change is an existential threat now rather than a future risk, this difference is significant. It is the politics of survival.

Several Concrete Results

Ireland and Tuvalu will co-host a second conference, ensuring continuity and signalling a conscious North-South partnership. A dedicated science panel will support countries and regions in their transition away from fossil fuels. Three work streams were established: pathways to transition away from fossil fuels; decarbonisation of trade balances; and new financial mechanisms to finance the transition.

These are not symbols for deliverables. They went to the core of the politics of dependence on fossil fuels.

The biggest challenge in climate politics is no longer to prove that climate change is real. It’s trying to work out how countries that rely on fossil fuel revenues can survive the transition without economic collapse, social unrest or widening inequality.

That means dealing with debt, subsidies, tax systems, labour transitions, industrial planning and trade balances. The focus on financial architecture in Santa Marta is a sign of awareness on the part of the participants.

The debate over fossil fuel subsidies was particularly important. Ministers emphasised the need for transparency on the location of fossil fuel incentives, revenues and dependencies within national economies. This is important because fossil fuels are not just an energy issue. They’re so entrenched in national budgets, banking systems, foreign policy and power structures.

The war in the Middle East, the disruption of oil supplies and the general insecurity of world energy have hastened the need for change. But unlike previous oil crises, this time renewable energy is getting cheaper and cheaper compared to fossil fuels, and electric vehicles are scaling up very fast.

Participants argued that the war has revealed not the need for more oil drilling, but the danger of fossil fuel dependence itself.

“The war really opened up peoples’ eyes to how fragile the fossil fuel system is,” a speaker said. “And this war comes at a time when renewables are cheaper than fossil fuels.

This shifts the transition from a strictly environmental imperative to a strategic economic and security priority.

Action on climate is no longer simply about saving the planet. It’s about stabilising economies, reducing geopolitical vulnerability and avoiding the financial risks of stranded fossil assets.

The reason this is a powerful shift is that finance ministers tend to move faster than environment ministers.

Another remarkable strength of Santa Marta was its insistence on being inclusive. Indigenous Peoples, parliamentarians, peasants, women, NGOs and even children were brought into the heart of the conversation.

“This is a new climate democracy, where governments are no longer the only actors making climate decisions,” said Irene Velez Torres, Director of the Colombian National Environmental Agency.

One of the strongest interventions at the conference came from Indigenous representatives, who warned that a clean energy transition without land justice would simply mean another wave of colonial extraction. Their declaration rejects a future where extraction of fossil fuels is replaced by mining for transition minerals, mega dams or industrial projects imposed on Indigenous lands without consent.

“If we are not part of building the just transition and the phase-out of fossil fuels, it will not be just,” they said in a joint declaration at the end of the conference on April 29.

This revealed one of the deepest contradictions in global climate policy: many governments speak of a green transition but continue with extractive models under a new name.

Indigenous leaders demanded free, prior and informed consent, legal recognition of the rights to their territories, direct access to climate finance and protection for land defenders at risk of criminalisation and violence.

The Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty initiative continues to be central. Tuvalu has been one of its earliest supporters, demanding a legally binding international framework to stop expansion and ensure a fair phase-out of fossil fuels.

Talia welcomed the treaty for raising the bar in terms of moral pressure and providing governments with clearer information but warned against limiting the whole transition conversation to one mechanism.

He said: “The treaty is an initiative. We want to look at all other initiatives so that we have a fair, balanced outcome.”

That’s a sign of strategic maturity. One treaty will not kill the most profitable industry in modern history.

These include UNFCCC processes, national policy, fossil fuel treaty mechanisms, regional declarations, central bank reforms and the involvement of financial institutions.

Participants highlighted China’s green lending strategies and said banking systems need to stop rewarding fossil fuel dependence and instead finance transition at scale.

Likewise, Pacific island nations are advocating for regional “fossil fuel-free zones”, supported by new declarations and intergovernmental task forces. These efforts matter because regional leadership often moves quicker than global consensus.

Hence, the choice of Tuvalu as the venue for the next conference is very significant. It’s shifting the discussion from the diplomatic capitals to one of the world’s most climate-vulnerable countries. It forces political leaders to confront the human reality of rising seas, disappearing land and threatened sovereignty.

History in the Making

Santa Marta won’t solve the fossil fuel crisis. It doesn’t stop new drilling. It does not yet impose binding obligations.But it may have done something more important, which is to make fossil fuel phase-out politically discussable at scale. For years, people saw talking straight about ending oil, gas, and coal as too radical, too unrealistic, or too politically dangerous. In Santa Marta it became the focus of the room.

If this coalition grows from 60 to 100 countries, if its outcomes feed into COP31 and national climate plans, if the finance systems start to shift, and if the Pacific conference deepens the legal momentum, then Santa Marta could be remembered not as a one-off summit but as the moment when climate diplomacy finally stopped treating the symptoms and started tackling the disease. That would be history.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Protests ahead of the 1st Conference Transitioning away from Fossil Fuels. Credit: Kefas Matos

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR, Apr 24 2026 (IPS)

A high-stakes international summit in Colombia starting today (April 24) is expected to sharpen global efforts to phase out fossil fuels, as governments, scientists and Indigenous leaders warn that the world is running out of time to avert irreversible climate damage.

During a virtual press briefing on April 16, Colombia’s Environment Ministry and a diverse panel of experts outlined expectations from the upcoming Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Summit in Santa Marta. The event is being positioned as a critical platform to accelerate energy transition and address mounting pressure from Indigenous communities living on the frontlines of extraction.

It was at the Belém Climate Conference in 2025, wherein a coalition of over 80 countries unanimously decided to act decisively to phase out fossil fuels that have been driving three quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions.

On the sidelines, 24 countries went further: they issued the Belém Declaration, pledging to work collectively toward a just, orderly, and equitable transition aligned with 1.5°C pathways. To this end, Colombia and the Netherlands volunteered to co-host the First International Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels.

The Conference is taking place from 24 to 29 April 2026 in Santa Marta, Colombia. The organisers invited 97 national governments and 30 subnational governments. The high-level segment convenes on April 28–29, 2026.

“We are in a moment of no return. It is clear that there is climate change and that there is no denialism. This is the moment… to accelerate the transition and the progressive elimination of fossil fuels,” said Luz Dary Carmona Moreno, Colombia’s Vice Minister for Environmental Land Use Planning.

The summit comes at a time of growing geopolitical tension and continued global dependence on fossil fuels. Carmona noted that conflicts and economic instability continue to be shaped by oil, gas, and coal and stressed that there is an urgent need for structural change.

“The economy continues depending on fossil fuels,” she said, pointing to global crises that reflect the entrenched role of hydrocarbons.

Colombia has framed the Santa Marta conference around three strategic pillars. The first focuses on overcoming global dependence on fossil fuels. The second addresses transformation of supply and demand systems. The third seeks to rethink multilateral cooperation frameworks.

Carmona emphasised that the conference aims to produce a concrete roadmap, backed by science, public participation, and political will.

“This conference seeks common points to accelerate the transition, concrete actions and enablers that allow that acceleration,” she said.

The event has already drawn strong international participation. According to Colombian officials, 45 countries have confirmed attendance, along with 13 ministers and a broad coalition of civil society groups, indigenous organisations, academics, and private sector actors.

More than 2,800 participants, including grassroots organisations, Indigenous communities, youth groups, and labour unions, have registered to take part.

Indigenous Leaders Warn of “Unjust Transition”

For Indigenous leaders, however, the urgency of the climate crisis is matched by frustration over what they describe as a gap between rhetoric and reality.

Oswaldo Muca, General Coordinator of the Organisation of Indigenous Peoples of the Colombian Amazon (OPIAC), said communities continue to bear the brunt of extraction despite promises of a “just transition”.

“We are very concerned. We talk about a just transition, but in practice it is not true,” Muca said.

He described ongoing environmental degradation in Indigenous territories, including illegal mining, deforestation and mercury contamination.

“Mining continues. Extraction continues. Deforestation continues. The territories and Indigenous peoples continue suffering this problem, and it is becoming more serious every day,” he said.

Muca also criticised the lack of direct benefits for local communities, noting that profits from extraction often leave the country while environmental damage remains.

“The resources do not reach Indigenous territories but they destroy the territory and leave the damage,” he said.

He called for Indigenous participation at every stage of policymaking, from design to implementation, across technical, political, legal and financial dimensions.

Science Points to Sharp Cuts

Scientific findings presented during the briefing reinforced the scale of transformation required.

Dr Marcel Llavero Pasquina, a researcher at the University of Barcelona, said limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius would require drastic reductions in fossil fuel production.

“Eighty-six percent of oil and gas reserves currently under production should be prematurely decommissioned,” he said.

Even under a less ambitious 2-degree scenario, at least 12% of producing reserves would need to be phased out.

Pasquina also warned that no new fossil fuel exploration is compatible with global climate targets. “At least 10,000 of the existing oil and gas extraction contracts should be cancelled,” he said.

He highlighted the economic tensions shaping climate negotiations, noting that fossil fuel companies stand to lose trillions of dollars under transition scenarios.

“Fossil fuel companies… have a material and quantifiable conflict of interest,” he said, arguing they should be excluded from climate policymaking.

At the same time, governments face significant fiscal challenges, with potential revenue losses estimated at US$117 trillion globally under a 1.5-degree pathway. Still, Pasquina stressed that these costs are outweighed by the human and environmental toll of inaction.

“These transition costs are dwarfed by the climate costs communities would otherwise suffer,” he said.

Policy Momentum Builds

Despite the scale of the challenge, policy experts pointed to growing momentum worldwide.

Paola Yanguas Parra, a policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development, said governments have already begun implementing measures to restrict fossil fuel expansion.

“We found… 58 active restrictions, which go from bans and moratoria to exploration and licensing,” she said.

These measures include protections for ecologically and culturally significant areas such as the Amazon, as well as restrictions on extraction methods like fracking.

Yanguas Parra noted that such policies often make economic sense in addition to environmental benefits.

“You would take a huge environmental, social and climate cost… for something that would not even make you enough profit,” she said, referring to unviable extraction projects in remote regions.

She added that the summit offers an opportunity to shift global discussions from whether to transition away from fossil fuels to how to implement that transition effectively.

“This coalition will focus on implementation, on learning from each other,” she said.

Amazon at a Crossroads

Speakers from across the Amazon basin warned that the region is increasingly being treated as a new frontier for fossil fuel expansion.

Alana Manchineri, an Indigenous leader from Brazil, described the climate crisis as an immediate reality rather than a distant threat.

“There is no more space for delays,” she said.

She warned that oil and gas projects are already causing widespread damage, including water contamination, biodiversity loss and rising conflict.

“It is not just environmental damage but violations of rights and ways of life,” she said.

According to Indigenous organisations, more than 320,000 square kilometres of Indigenous land in the Amazon basin are already affected by oil and gas blocks.

Manchineri stressed that any transition must fully incorporate Indigenous knowledge and leadership.

“This path will only be legitimate and effective with the full participation of Indigenous peoples,” she said.

Beyond COP: Complement, Not Replacement

Panellists repeatedly emphasised that the Santa Marta summit is not intended to replace existing UN climate processes but to complement them.

“There are groups of countries… that have gathered to discuss more focused issues,” Yanguas Parra said, describing the summit as part of a broader ecosystem of climate cooperation.

Pasquina offered a more critical view, arguing that while UN climate negotiations have produced frameworks like the Paris Agreement, they have failed to curb rising emissions.

“The COP  has been a great success on paper. In reality, emissions have only been increasing,” he said.

He suggested that initiatives like Santa Marta could increase pressure on countries that have resisted stronger action.

A Test of Political Will

As preparations intensify, expectations for the summit remain high. Colombian officials say the final outcome will be a report outlining actionable steps and mechanisms to accelerate transition.

“We want the report not to remain just another document. We expect people to turn it into action,” Carmona said.

For many participants, the success of the summit will depend on whether it delivers concrete commitments rather than broad declarations.

Indigenous leaders, in particular, say the credibility of the process hinges on real inclusion and tangible change on the ground.

“If we do not take real and effective actions. We can talk about a just transition, but in reality, other mechanisms will continue destroying the territory,” Muca warned.

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
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let’s get back to those statistics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

All-in-one Solution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Single Lens Needed to Tackle Multiple Issues

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

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

Northrop believes the disconnect reflects human cognitive limits.

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

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

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

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

He finds this shift encouraging.

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

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

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

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

Fossil Fuel Phase-Out Efforts

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Local farmer ploughing a field in Indonesia. Credit: Unsplash

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

James Alix Michel

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there were Voices That Could Not Be Ignored.

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

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

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

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

The Legacy of Copenhagen, Paris, and the Empty COPs

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

COP30 was billed as the moment to reverse that trend.

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

Did We Achieve What We Hoped For?

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

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

Let us look at ‘What Must Happen Next

• 1. Full Capitalisation of Loss and Damage Fund

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

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

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

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

• 4. Direct Funding for Indigenous and Youth Initiatives

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

• 5. Strengthen Accountability

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

M. Zakir Hossain Khan

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

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

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

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

• • CO₂ emissions rose over 60% since 1992.

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

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

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

The Rights Gap: The Key Failure between Rio and Belém

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

The Sleepiness Menace Came to Rio and Detonated by COP30

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

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

The Amazon: The Ultimate Test of Rio on Prognosis

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

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

• • Native land protectors become increasingly violent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What the World Must Do Now

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Elephant in the Room: Fossil Fuels

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss and Damage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

It is urgent to rethink and transform agrifood systems by accelerating mitigation and adaptation measures. But doing so requires addressing a critical financing gap. Credit: @FAO/Miguel Arreátegui

By René Orellana Halkyer
SANTIAGO, Nov 20 2025 (IPS)

Climate change is no longer a future threat; it is a reality that is reshaping agrifood systems and compromising global food security. Its impacts are evident in both the quantity and quality of food, affecting agricultural yields, water availability, pest emergence, disease spread, and fundamental processes such as pollination. Even changes in atmospheric CO₂ concentration are altering crop biomass and nutritional value.

In 2024, climate shocks were the main driver of food crises in 18 countries, affecting 72 million people experiencing high levels of food insecurity. Hurricane Mellisa, which struck Jamaica, Haiti, and Cuba, is a recent example of the severe effects these events have on agrifood systems.

Over the past five decades, climate change has reduced global cereal yields by 2%-5%; in Latin America alone, maize yields have declined by around 5%. Since 1961, climate change has reduced global agricultural productivity by 21%, which is equivalent to losing seven years of progress.

If we truly want agrifood systems that are more sustainable and resilient, climate financing must prioritize agriculture and the livelihoods of rural communities. Without sufficient resources, international commitments will remain words on paper rather than concrete results

These figures make one conclusion clear: it is urgent to rethink and transform agrifood systems by accelerating mitigation and adaptation measures. But doing so requires addressing a critical financing gap.

Despite the urgency, in 2023 only 4% of climate-related development financing was allocated to agriculture, livestock, fisheries, and forestry. This imbalance threatens the ability of the most vulnerable countries to adapt and transition toward sustainable production models.

If we truly want agrifood systems that are more sustainable and resilient, climate financing must prioritize agriculture and the livelihoods of rural communities. Without sufficient resources, international commitments will remain words on paper rather than concrete results.

In this context, COP30 is decisive. The promotion of agroforestry projects in the Amazon, which restore degraded lands and directly benefit local communities, is a fundamental element for the sustainability of ecosystems related to food and agriculture.

The presentation of the Tropical Forests Forever Fund (TFFF), led by Brazil with support from the World Bank, proposes an innovative model to finance global forest conservation, seeking to mobilize USD 25 billion from countries and USD 100 billion from private investors. This approach shows that sustainability can also be an economic opportunity when there are vision and commitment.

The early approval of the COP30 agenda demonstrates political will to advance on climate financing, energy transition, adaptation, and resilience. The challenge now is to turn commitments into concrete targets, with clear deadlines and real resources. History has shown that promises without action do not feed anyone.

At FAO, we are promoting strategies that combine mitigation and adaptation, such as integrated fire management, whose Call to Action was launched at this COP under the leadership of Brazil and with the support of 50 countries.

COP30 arrives at a crucial moment to place agriculture, food, and the role of Indigenous Peoples and rural communities at the center of global discussions.

The future of food, sustainability, and global stability depends on COP30 being more than a Summit: it must be the beginning of a new era of climate action centered on agrifood systems.

Excerpt:

A Community Health Worker in a door-to-door campaign to vaccinate people in communities in Nanyamba village, Mtwara Region, in southeastern Tanzania. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

By Desta Lakew and Richard Muyungi
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS)

Around the world, the climate crisis is fast becoming the biggest public-health threat of the century. Extreme heat now kills more Europeans than any other natural disaster. Floods in Asia displace millions and contaminate water supplies. Mosquito-borne diseases once confined to the tropics are appearing in southern Europe and the United States.

Nowhere, however, are these impacts more visible—or the responses more instructive—than in Africa, which stands at a pivotal moment in the global climate discourse. Home to 17 percent of the world’s people yet responsible for less than four percent of global emissions, the continent is on the frontline of a crisis it did little to cause.

From the Horn of Africa to the Sahel, droughts, floods, and heatwaves are fueling outbreaks of malaria, cholera, and dengue, while undermining already fragile health systems. The climate crisis is no longer a distant environmental threat; it is a daily public health emergency.

Desta Lakew, Amref Health Africa Group Director for Partnerships & External Affairs

While the Paris Agreement implicitly recognized the importance of health in climate action, it was COP28 in Dubai that marked a watershed moment. For the first time, the world finally began to acknowledge what communities across Africa have long known: climate policy is health policy.

The UAE Declaration on Climate and Health, endorsed by more than 120 countries, acknowledged that every degree of warming worsens public health outcomes and that protecting health systems is essential to climate resilience. Africa’s negotiators were central to that breakthrough—pushing health from the margins to the main stage of climate diplomacy.

Their advocacy has paved the way for the next critical milestone: the Belém Health Action Plan, being launched at COP30 in Brazil. The plan’s pillars—disease surveillance, early-warning systems, climate-smart health infrastructure, and health equity—mirror the priorities laid out in the Common African Position on Climate and Health adopted in Lilongwe and reaffirmed in the Africa Group of Negotiators’ (AGN) Declaration, which came out of the Africa Climate Summit in Addis Ababa.

The AGN was decisive in appointing a climate and health lead coordinator to ensure that health is a key thematic stream within the group, and it is now a key component of their work. The message from Africa is clear: protecting people’s health is the clearest measure of whether climate action succeeds.

Yet the global financing system has not caught up. Less than one percent of adaptation finance targets health, even as climate-sensitive diseases multiply. Despite new pledges at COP28—$300 million from the Global Fund and $100 million from the Rockefeller Foundation—the gap is measured in the hundreds of billions. Africa alone will need roughly $300 billion annually by 2030 to build resilient systems and respond to climate-related loss and damage.

Dr. Richard Muyungi, African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change (AGN) Chair

Philanthropy is waking up—the recently formed Climate and Health Funders Coalition brings together 35 institutional and individual funders and they have just committed an initial $300 million at COP30, but structural challenges remain.

Most existing climate funds remain locked behind complex applications or arrive as loans that deepen debt in economies already under strain. That approach is not solidarity—it is self-defeat. Pandemics, heat-related mortality, and vector-borne diseases do not respect borders. A health emergency anywhere can quickly become a threat everywhere.

COP30 offers the chance to change course. The Belém Health Action Plan must not become another well-intentioned declaration—it needs financing hardwired to outcomes that save lives: clinics able to function through heatwaves and floods, vaccine cold chains powered by clean energy, and community health workers trained to respond to shifting disease patterns.

To make that happen, global donors, multilateral banks, and high-emitting nations should agree on three urgent steps. First, earmark a defined share of climate finance for health adaptation—not as an afterthought but as a performance metric in every climate-finance report; second, shift from loans to grants for health-related climate resilience to prevent compounding debt crises; third, invest in African-led solutions that the rest of the world can adopt or learn from—from Kenya’s heat-health action plans in Nairobi to Tanzania’s clean cooking agenda.

Africa’s experiences offer valuable lessons for the world. The ingenuity that kept health services running through droughts and pandemics is precisely what other countries will need as wildfires, vector migration, and heat emergencies escalate globally. The world should be studying and scaling these innovations—not waiting for crises to reach their own doorsteps.

Ultimately, if the climate crisis has taught us anything, it is that health security is climate security. What happens in Nairobi or Niamey reverberates in New York and New Delhi. COP30 must deliver ambitious and just outcomes that strengthen adaptation and protect the most vulnerable. We will consider COP30 a failure if it does not deliver an ambitious adaptation decision that resonates with Africa’s climate change impacts and realities.

Leaving Belém with promises alone would be a failure of vision and of justice. Leaving with funded commitments would signal a turning point: proof that the world finally understands that safeguarding health is not a regional concern—it is the foundation of collective resilience and of our shared future.

Desta Lakew is Amref Health Africa Group Director for Partnerships & External Affairs; Dr. Richard Muyungi is African Group of Negotiators on Climate Change (AGN) Chair

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Delegates met at the Global Climate-Smart Agriculture Conference in Brasília before the COP30 climate talks. Credit: 2025Clim-Eat/Flickr

By Ana Maria Loboguerrero and Dhanush Dinesh
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS)

The language of agricultural sustainability changes like the seasons—from “climate-smart” to “regenerative,” “agroecological,” and “nature-positive.” Each term reflects good intentions, but the growing list risks duplication, confusion and delays.

The recent CSA Conference in Brasília gathered leaders from policy, science and finance ahead of COP30 to focus not on buzzwords but on the shared foundations of sustainable food systems, which is all the more important in the Grave New World. For all the various theories of change, many share the same principles of soil health, crop innovation, inclusive finance and resilient livestock production.

In the midst of the COP30 climate talks, consensus will depend on recognizing that climate action and protecting livelihoods must advance together. Leaders must challenge themselves to measure success not only in emissions reduced, but also in the quality of life sustained by a thriving and resilient rural economy. With Brazil’s COP presidency determined to accelerate agreements into action, the challenge now is to accept and advance context-specific approaches in pursuit of a shared goal.

At present, fragmentation continues to divide institutions, donors, NGOs and producers, with competing ideologies slowing progress toward sustainability at the speed and scale required. For example, while a vast number of organizations are currently backing the concept of regenerative agriculture, others tread the paths of sustainable intensification or climate-smart agriculture. But some of the practices, such as agroforestry, could fall under each of these concepts.

And the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA), established prior to COP26, has been succeeded by Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on the Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security and yet farmers are still waiting for clear national strategies to emerge from years of workshops and working papers. While the principles underpinning these joint work programs are sound, they have not generated action at the speed needed.

On the other hand, the six CSA Conference themes—from soil health and crop innovation to finance and policy—offer a fundamental framework around which there is already much agreement and can deliver results under whichever buzzword it is categorized. The themes also reflect the priorities of Brazil’s Action Agenda and ABC+ Plan, highlighting practical areas of consensus.

Brazil’s experience offers tangible examples of how shared priorities can move from discussion to delivery. The ABC+ Plan (2020–2030) forms the backbone of the country’s low-carbon agriculture strategy, integrating sustainable practices like no-till farming, pasture recovery and biological nitrogen fixation into a coherent national framework. It represents a direct contribution to the COP30’s Action Agenda’s agricultural pillar, transforming abstract goals on soil health and productivity into measurable outcomes.

Building on this, Brazil’s RENOVAGRO is the financing arm that enables the implementation of the ABC+ Plan, demonstrating how public policy can activate private investment to move all Action Agenda ambitions forward together. By tying credit eligibility to verified adoption of low-carbon practices, the program allows farmers to commit to transitions that would otherwise be out of reach. This realizes the ABC+ Plan’s policy objectives and shows that progress depends not necessarily on new ideas, but on acting decisively on the systems that already work.

At COP30, the challenge is not to settle on the right language but to sustain the right actions—whatever this might look like according to local circumstances and resources. Progress depends on scaling what we already agree on: sound policies, accessible finance that doesn’t exclude vulnerable populations and resilient food systems that keep production within environmental limits. The next phase must prioritize implementation over invention.

Leaders have an opportunity to move from promises to performance. The task ahead is to scale what already works—not to define new concepts, but to deliver proven solutions faster.

Brazil’s example shows that integration works better than focusing on the continued search for a universal solution. There is no single path forward, only a combination of context-specific approaches bound by diplomatic agreement and sustainable financing.

By focusing on fundamentals, we can avoid the paralysis of competing definitions and begin to act collectively by applying the policies and practices we know work in ways that fit local realities.

Ana Maria Loboguerrero, Director, Adaptive and Equitable Food Systems at Gates Foundation
Dhanush Dinesh, Chief Climate Catalyst at Clim-Eat

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Entrance to the Hangar Convention Center of the Amazonia in the northeastern Brazilian city of Belém. The climate summit, which began on November 10 and is due to conclude on Friday the 21st, is debating issues such as the phase-out of fossil fuels and adaptation goals. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

By Emilio Godoy
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS)

The heat in the Hangar Convention Center of the Amazonia, in the northeastern Brazilian city of Belém, has reached the negotiation rooms of the climate summit. Over the past 72 hours, one of the most delicate and significant discussions of this climate meeting has been taking place: the path to progressively abandon the production and use of coal, gas, and oil.

In recent hours, a global coalition of rich and developing countries, led by Colombia, has doubled down on pushing for a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap, while major producer countries resist it.

“The plan must have differentiated commitments, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the reform of the international financial system, because foreign debt payments are punishing us,” Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez explained to IPS.

For the official, the 30th United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP30) on climate change must result in a roadmap. “People are mobilizing, demanding climate action; we have to start now,” she urged.

In Belém, the gateway to the planet’s largest rainforest, it is no longer just about reducing emissions but about transforming the foundation of the energy system, thus acquiring a moral, political, and scientific urgency. What was initially meant to be the “Amazon COP” has mutated into the “end-of-the-fossil-era-COP,” but the roadmap to achieve it is a toss-up.“The plan must have differentiated commitments, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the reform of the international financial system, because external debt payments are punishing us” –Irene Vélez.

Two years after the world agreed at COP28, held in 2023 in Dubai, to move away from fossil fuels, Belém is the moment of truth, upon which the effort to keep global warming below the 1.5° Celsius limit largely depends—a goal considered vital to avoid devastating and inevitable effects on ecosystems and human life.

Thus, the discussion among the 197 parties to the United Nations climate convention has shifted from the “what” to the “how,” and especially to the “when,” questions that have turned potential coordinates into a geopolitical labyrinth.

In that vein, a coalition of over 80 countries emerged on Tuesday the 18th to push the roadmap, including Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, and Panama among the Latin American countries.

One challenge for the roadmap advocates is that the issue is not explicitly part of the main agenda, a resource that the Brazilian presidency of COP30 could use to shirk responsibility on the matter.

The issue appears on the thematic menu of COP30, which started on the 10th and is scheduled to conclude on the 21st, and whose official objectives include approving the Global Goal on Adaptation to climate change and securing sufficient funds for that adaptation.

Approximately 40,000 people are attending this climate summit, including government representatives, multilateral agencies, academia, and civil society organizations.

An unprecedented indigenous presence is also in attendance, with about 900 delegates from native peoples, drawn by the ancestral call of the Amazon, a symbol of the menu of solutions to the climate catastrophe and simultaneously a victim of its causes.

Also present and very active in Belém are about 1,600 lobbyists from the hydrocarbon industry, 12% more than at the 2024 COP, according to the international coalition Kick Big Polluters Out.

The clamor from civil society demands an institutional structure with governance, clear criteria, measurable objectives, and justice mechanisms.

“The roadmap has become a difficult issue to ignore; it is already at the center of these negotiations, and no country can ignore it. The breadth of support is surprising, with rich and poor countries, producers and non-producers, indicating that an agreement is about to fall,” Antonio Hill, Just Transitions advisor for the non-governmental and international Natural Resource Governance Institute, told IPS.

Activists protest on Wednesday the 19th against fossil fuel exploitation at the entrance to the venue of the Belém climate summit, in the Amazonian northeast of Brazil. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

Poisoned

The push for the roadmap comes from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, promoted by civil society organizations, strongly adopted by Colombia, and which so far has the support of 18 nations, but no hydrocarbon-producing Latin American country, such as Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, or Venezuela.

Colombia, despite also being a producer and exporter of fossil fuels, has presented its Roadmap for a Just Energy Transition, with which it seeks to replace income from coal and oil with investments in tourism and renewable energy.

Colombia’s 2022-2052 National Energy Plan projects long-term reductions in fossil fuel production. The country announced US$14.5 billion for the energy transition to less polluting forms of energy production.

But for the rest of the region, the duality between maintaining fossil fuels and promoting renewable energies persists.

A prime example of this duality is the COP30 host country itself, Brazil. While the host President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Marina Silva, have insisted on the need to abandon fossil fuels, the government is promoting expansive oil and gas extraction plans.

In fact, just weeks before the opening of COP30, the state-owned oil group Petrobras received a permit for oil exploration in the Atlantic, just kilometers from the mouth of the Amazon River.

But Lula and his team committed that this summit in the heart of the Amazon would be “the COP of truth” and “the COP of implementation,” and the issue of fossil fuels has become central to the negotiations, which Lula joined on Wednesday the 19th to give a push to the talks and the outcomes.

In their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—the set of mitigation and adaptation policies countries must present to comply with the Paris Agreement on climate change signed in 2015 at COP21—Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, or Chile avoid mentioning a managed phase-out of fossil fuels.

Simply put, they argue they cannot let go of the old vine before grasping the new one. This stance also involves a delicate aspect, as nations like Ecuador depend on revenues from hydrocarbon exploitation.

Therefore, the Global South has insisted on its demand for funding from rich nations, due to their contribution to the climate disaster through fossil fuel exploitation since the 17th century.

The result of the presented policies is alarming: although many countries have increased their emission reduction targets on paper, they lack details on phasing out production. The only existing roadmap is the growing extractive one.

In fact, the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement process, originating from COP28, demanded that countries take measures to move towards a fossil-free era.

The argument is unequivocal: various estimates indicate that fossil fuels contribute 86% of greenhouse gas emissions, the cause of global warming.

But a key point is where to start. For Uitoto indigenous leader Fanny Kuiru Castro, the new general coordinator of the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin –which  brings together the more than 350 native peoples of the eight countries sharing the biome–, the starting point must precisely be at-risk regions like the Amazon.

“It is a priority. If there isn’t a clear signal that we must proceed gradually, it means the summit has failed and does not want to adopt that commitment. We will have another 30 years of speeches,” she told IPS, alluding to that number of summits without substantial results.

In the Amazon, oil blocks threaten 31 million hectares or 12% of the total area, mining threatens 9.8 million, and timber concessions threaten 2.4 million.

And in that direction, a major obstacle arises: how to finance the phase-out. The roadmap has a direct link to the financial goals aimed at the Global South, with a demand for US$1.2 trillion in funding for climate action starting in 2035.

“Can the COP deliver the financial backing that countries need to reinvent their economies in time to guarantee just and inclusive development?” Hill questioned.

The atmosphere in Belém is of a different urgency compared to Dubai or Baku, where COP29 was held a year ago. The roadmap to a world free of fossil fuel smoke remains a blurry map, drawn freehand on ground that is heating up far too quickly.

In Belém, humanity is deciding whether to brake gradually or to accelerate, with the air conditioning on and a full tank.

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:

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: