Tomorrow, Africa hosts the Our Ocean Conference on its own shores for the first time, in Mombasa.

This is more than a diplomatic milestone. It is a test of whether we, as Africans, are prepared to safeguard our ocean as a shared heritage and a pillar of our future prosperity.

James Alix Michel

As former President of Seychelles, I had the privilege to help pioneer the blue economy concept in Seychelles and the South West Indian Ocean. That vision, born from our own lived reality, was simple but profound: our economic future depends on a healthy ocean. We must build prosperity not by exhausting marine wealth, but by restoring and protecting it.

Today, as the world gathers in Kenya under the theme “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future”, that same blue economy vision must guide Africa’s choices. The theme is not a slogan to open a conference; it is a call to re imagine the relationship between our societies and the sea. It demands that we treat the ocean as a living heritage we hold in trust, not a frontier for short term extraction.

Earlier this year, together with Dona Bertarelli, we called for a moratorium on deep sea mining and for stronger protection of Africa’s ocean. We did so in anticipation of the Mombasa conference, knowing that the decisions taken there – or avoided there – will echo across our continent and far beyond. Africa’s voice on the ocean has to be heard clearly, and our commitments will be judged not by the elegance of our words, but by the protections that reach people and nature.

Deep sea mining crystallises what is at stake. The deep ocean is one of the last largely unknown frontiers on our planet. It supports ecosystems that have taken millennia to form and that play roles in global processes we are only beginning to understand. To open this fragile realm to industrial mining without robust, independent science and effective governance would be to gamble with consequences we cannot foresee and cannot reverse.

For Africa, the risks are even more acute. Many of our states are still building their scientific and regulatory capacities. Many of our coastal communities and small scale fishers already face pressure from climate change, pollution and overfishing. To layer the uncertain impacts of deep sea mining on top of these existing stresses would be reckless.

This is why I support a precautionary pause on deep sea mining. Precaution is not anti development. It is responsible leadership in a time of profound uncertainty. It says: we will not mortgage the ocean that sustains us for promises of quick gain, especially when those gains may flow elsewhere while the damage remains with us.

Africa’s seas underpin our food security, our climate resilience, our blue economies, our cultures and our identities as ocean peoples. They are the living foundation for millions of coastal and island communities across the continent, from the Western Indian Ocean to the Atlantic and Mediterranean shores. To treat them as mere repositories of minerals is to ignore their true value and the rights of those who depend on them.

As leaders, negotiators and experts gather in Mombasa, I believe Africa should speak with one clear, principled message.

First, our ocean is not a frontier for unchecked extraction, but a heritage we hold in trust. Decisions taken in Mombasa must respect the ocean’s ecological limits and recognise the special vulnerabilities and rights of small island developing states and coastal nations.

Second, any activity in the deep sea must proceed only when independent science shows it will not cause irreversible harm. That means investing in African and global scientific capacity and listening to evidence, not to pressure for rapid exploitation.

Third, ocean decisions must prioritise coastal communities, small scale fishers, women and youth, and the countries that depend on the sea every day. The benefits of a blue economy must be shared fairly, and its governance must be inclusive. Communities on the frontlines of change must be at the centre of decision making, not at the margins.

From Seychelles, we know that it is possible to chart a different course. Through marine spatial planning, marine protected areas, innovative financing and a strong commitment to conservation, we have shown that protecting the ocean can go hand in hand with creating opportunities for our people. The blue economy is not a theory for us. It is a lived pathway, built through hard choices and long term vision.

From Mombasa, Africa now has a chance to lead. True ocean leadership requires more than ambitious speeches. It requires restraint as well as innovation, protection as well as investment. It demands that we say “not yet” when the science is uncertain and the risks are too great. It asks us to measure success not only in money raised, but in coral reefs saved, fish stocks rebuilt and communities strengthened.

The Our Ocean Conference was created to move the world from promises to action. Let us ensure that the action that emerges from Mombasa honours its theme: “Our Ocean, Our Heritage, Our Future.” Let us ensure that the legacy of this conference is a safer ocean for Africa and for the world, not new risks passed on to our children.

From Victoria to Mombasa, from Seychelles to the African mainland, our message should be united and firm: Africa’s ocean is not for sacrifice. It is for stewardship. It is for our people. And it is for our future.

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

An aerial view of a beach with a ferris wheel, Ain Dubai, Bluewaters, Dubai, UAE. Credit: Unsplash/Nelemson Guevarra

By Maximilian Malawista
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 12 2026 (IPS)

The global ocean economy continues its expansion, with ocean-related trade reaching USD 2.5 trillion as of 2025. Ocean services now make up the majority of the ocean trade, accounting for 58.9 percent of the composition, up from 47.8 percent in 2020.

Ocean services alone are now valued at USD 1.44 trillion dollars, an increase of USD 1.2 trillion since 2020; a rate greater than the entire global ocean trade in 2020. While 2020 was a year filled with disruptions, economies contracting, and consumer smoothing, this number is an increase of USD 476 billion dollars since 2015, a 49.5 percent growth from 2015, where the ocean services trade generated USD 961 billion.

“The ocean economy is expanding rapidly across sectors such as aquaculture, tourism, and shipping. While this growth is vital for food security, employment, and economic development, it’s increasingly constrained by the declining health of the ocean,” said Rafael González Quiroz, co-director of the United Nations ‘Third World Ocean Assessment’ and director of Spain’s Oceanographic center of Gijón (IEO-CSIC), during a press briefing held on World Ocean Day (June 8).

The UN World Ocean Assessment is a global integrated assessment of the world’s ocean following environmental, economic and social aspects, with interdisciplinary inputs from more than 650 experts to provide scientific basis for the consideration of ocean issues by governments and policy makers, among other stakeholders involved in the regulation and protection of the ocean.

Quiroz’s assessment reflect the broader expansion and changes within the ocean economy, where services have an increasingly dominant role in the global ocean economy. The strongest example of such is the recovery of marine and coastal tourism, which has turned sharply since the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic.

Credit: IPS/Maximilian Malawista

Today, marine and coastal tourism now accounts for 32 percent of global ocean trade, up from 16 percent in 2020. 32 percent representing USD 785 billion, over half of all ocean services trade. Maritime freight transport remains the second highest, at roughly USD 487 billion or 20 percent of total ocean trade. Quiroz emphasized that a “sustainable ocean economy can only exist if it’s built upon a healthy and resilient ocean”.

One of the key challenges highlighted during the briefing was marine pollution, especially plastics. Within global plastics trade, only 10 percent of all plastics are recycled. 52 million tonnes of such plastic waste every year enters the ocean, which the United Nations states is affecting at least 4,000 marine species.

In response, the international community has spent the past six years working on negotiating a “global plastics treaty”, an agreement which would put a ceiling on plastic production, and limit the USD 1.1 trillion dollar industry, ensuring waste management standards, recycling requirements, and creating market space for sustainable alternatives.

Achieving this may require changes to global trade incentives. UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD) finds that “the key barrier is an uneven national and trade policy field.”

According to UNCTAD, tariffs on plastics have fallen from 34 percent to 7.2 percent over the past 3 decades, giving plastic producers a larger incentive to keep making more plastic. While plastic tariffs have decreased, alternatives to plastics like bamboo, natural fibers, paper, and seaweed have had tariffs double to the rate of 14.4 percent. As a result of such tariffs, conventional plastics remain the cheaper option for manufacturers.

However, recent volatility in the energy markets stemming from the current Strait of Hormuz crisis has increased the cost of plastic production. Reports from UNCTAD show that because plastics are approximately 98 percent derived from fossil fuels, the cost of plastic prices has risen 70-80 percent in the European markets. This market shock could open the door for sustainable alternatives, giving real reason for companies to develop products free of polyethylene resin and other plastics, further developing the sustainable alternatives industry.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

GA During NPT Review Conference. Credit: Jonathan Granoff

By Jonathan Granoff
NEW YORK, Jun 10 2026 (IPS)

Martin Luther King Jr. , when he received the Nobel Peace Prize, reminded us of “The fact that most of the time human beings put the truth about the nature and risks of the nuclear war out of their minds because it is too painful and therefore not ‘acceptable’, does not alter the nature and risks of such war. The device of ‘rejection’ may temporarily cover up anxiety, but it does not bestow peace of mind and emotional security.” I have devoted many decades of my life to not ignoring the risk of nuclear annihilation and since 1995 have attended every Review Conference of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty to learn and hopefully contributed to a saner safer world.

The 191 nations which are parties to the third most important legal instrument of the 20th Century, the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT), recently finished a Review Conference at the United Nations in which the future of humanity was soberly discussed. It took place from April 27-May 22, 2026. Social media, major news outlets, and other media virtually ignored the gravity and importance of the deliberations. Only the UN Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are arguably of greater significance than the NPT.

Without it there would likely be dozens of states with nuclear arsenals. Because of it there are only nine. Five – US, UK, France, China, and Russia — are members of the Treaty and India, Israel, Pakistan, and North Korea are the only nations in the world not parties to the Treaty.

The NPT arose because intelligence estimates during the 1960s reported that, by the end of the 1970s, there would be twenty-five to thirty states with nuclear weapons integrated into their national arsenals and ready for use. The Treaty entered into force in 1970. It is based on a bargain. In exchange for a commitment from the non-nuclear weapon states (today, some 186 nations) not to develop or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons and to submit to international safeguards intended to verify compliance with the commitment, the five NPT nuclear weapon states promised unfettered access to peaceful nuclear technologies (e.g. nuclear power reactors and nuclear medicine), and pledged to engage in good faith disarmament negotiations to achieve the elimination of their nuclear arsenals.

This promise of disarmament is the only expression by the five that they are legally bound to negotiate nuclear disarmament. It is reinforced by the historic 1996 Advisory Opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which unanimously ruled that an obligation exists to pursue in good faith and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict, effective international control. This finding interpreted Article VI of the NPT as a binding requirement not to just negotiate in good faith but asserted an affirmative obligation to pursue and conclude negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament.

The Treaty had a provision that after 25 years it would be reviewed to be determined whether it would terminate, be extended for another specific period of time, or be extended indefinitely. It was agreed in 1995 that it would be extended indefinitely. However, there is an ongoing legal obligation that every five years there is a review conference to analyze compliance and establish commitments to action to fulfill the core bargain. This process should not be ignored.

A context of previous commitments that have been made and remain outstanding are worth noting. Yes, diplomatic and especially legal language is boring but remember these words are the best tools we have for preventing suffering at scales and horror beyond our capacity to imagine.

The choice is either the tools of law and diplomacy or facing the consequence of explosions giving off heat three times the face of the sun, fireballs tens of miles wide throwing tons of soot into the stratosphere rending the agricultural base of civilization destroyed, radiation spreading across the globe, and the callous use of devices which dwarf the destruction of Hiroshima or Nagasaki by magnitudes the mind cannot easily grasp.

The atomic bombs of World War II were each less than the equivalent of 20 tons of TNT. There are now bombs in the million tons ranges. If used they will not discriminate between children, elderly, or even other species. As the first generation that must decide not to be the last, we will have failed our duty to future generations and our duty to live as human beings during our brief journey together.

So, please look at the progress that has taken place and could take place again if we can generate the knowledge in the public and political will of leaders to simply save humanity from a fire of our own creation.

A bargain to gain the indefinite extension of the NPT was obtained in 1995. It was based on a Statement of Principles and Objectives for Nuclear Nonproliferation and Disarmament which “politically, if not legally, condition[ed] the indefinite extension of the treaty.” The Statement pledged to accomplish the following:

1. Complete a “Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) by the end of 1996”
2. Reaffirm the commitment “to pursue . . . nuclear disarmament”
3. Commence “negotiations for a treaty to stop” production “of nuclear bomb material[s]”
4. “[S]harply reduce global nuclear arsenals”
5. Encourage “the creation of nuclear-weapon-free zones”
6. Vigorously work to make the treaty universal by bringing in Israel, Pakistan and India, who have nuclear weapons and remain outside the treaty
7. Enhance IAEA [ Atomic Energy Agency] safeguards and verification capacity 8. Reinforce negative security assurances already given to NNWS (Non-Nuclear Weapons States) “against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons against them . . . .” (This means to not threaten to use nuclear weapons against states which have renounced nuclear weapons for themselves .)

At the first Review Conference of the Treaty in 2000 the here are some of the terms upon which unanimous agreement was obtained:

1. Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty

The importance and urgency of signature and ratification, without delay and without conditions and in accordance with constitutional processes, to achieve the early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.

2. Nuclear Test Moratorium

A moratorium on nuclear weapon test explosions or any other nuclear explosions pending entry into force of that Treaty.

3. Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty

The necessity of negotiations in the Conference on Disarmament on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and internationally and effectively verifiable treaty banning the production of fissile material for nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.

6. Elimination of Nuclear Arsenals

An unequivocal undertaking by the nuclear-weapon States to accomplish the total elimination of their nuclear arsenals leading to nuclear disarmament to which all States parties are committed under Article VI.

7. The START II, START III, and ABM Treaties

The early entry into force and full implementation of START II and the conclusion of START III as soon as possible while preserving and strengthening the ABM Treaty as a cornerstone of strategic stability and as a basis for further reductions of strategic offensive weapons, in accordance with its provisions. (These treaties have been ended.)

9. Other Nuclear-Weapon States’ Actions

Steps by all the nuclear-weapon States leading to nuclear disarmament in a way that promotes international stability, and based on the principle of undiminished security for all:

– Further efforts by the nuclear-weapon States to reduce their nuclear arsenals unilaterally

– Increased transparency by the nuclear-weapon States with regard to the nuclear weapons capabilities and the implementation of agreements pursuant to Article VI and as a voluntary confidence-building measure to support further progress on nuclear disarmament

– The further reduction of non-strategic nuclear weapons, based on unilateral initiatives and as an integral part of the nuclear arms reduction and disarmament process

– Concrete agreed measures to further reduce the operational status of nuclear weapons systems

– A diminishing role for nuclear weapons in security policies to minimize the risk that these weapons ever be used and to facilitate the process of their total elimination

– The engagement as soon as appropriate of all the nuclear-weapon States in the process leading to the total elimination of their nuclear weapons

10. Excess Fissile Material

Arrangements by all nuclear-weapon States to place, as soon as practicable, fissile material designated by each of them as no longer required for military purposes under IAEA or other relevant international verification and arrangements for the disposition of such material for peaceful purposes, to ensure that such material remains permanently outside of military programmes.

13. Verification

The further development of the verification capabilities that will be required to provide assurance of compliance with nuclear disarmament agreements for the achievement and maintenance of a nuclear-weapon-free world.

In 2010 over 60 further commitments to making the world safer were made.

I recount the accomplishment of these commitments to highlight the diplomatic failure of the 2026 Conference where no final statement of agreement could be reached. We must be sober and recognize that the five states with nuclear weapons are either modernizing and thus making more usable their nuclear arsenals and/or expanding them, and the web of agreements that have constrained and contained proliferation and reduced risk have been eliminated by the actions of Russia and the US which possess over 85% of the world’s over 12,000 nuclear weapons. Threats of use are daily reported in the papers.

Treaty words and promises must mean something or else bullets become the verbs of communication. In the nuclear age this is too dangerous.

If the people of the world knew what diplomats could achieve if they were given the authority to use the skills of law and diplomacy, if they knew the daily risk of use of these devices by accident, design, or madness and the dozens of near uses by mistake, if they knew there is a better way, we could follow the path President Reagan and President Gorbachev opened which led to the reduction of the world’s nuclear arsenals by over 80%.

Today fear is an abused currency. In recent times we have seen how much can be created when hope and trust are invoked. The current downward spiral arising from the abusive arrogance of power exemplified by nuclear threats cannot lead to a better place. Our common humanity alone can bring us common security. It has been done before and it can be done again.

The 2026 NPT Review Conference demonstrated a failure by the five nuclear weapons states to work together to make the world a safer place.

Let us take the advice of Martin Luther King Jr. whose words when he won the Noble Peace Prize remain resonant today. “I refuse to accept the cynical notion that nation after nation must spiral down a militaristic stairway into the hell of thermonuclear destruction. I believe that unarmed truth and unconditional love will have the final word in reality. This is why right temporarily defeated is stronger than evil triumphant.‬”

That is why in the face of apathy, ignorance, fear, war, dishonesty, and violence, those of us who know the life lived without caring, compassion, sincerity and the pursuit of truth is hollow cannot turn away from the imperative that is both moral and practical. The work to fulfill the legal duty to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons and obtain their legal, verifiable elimination must continue. Working for peace is not an inconvenient truth but a blessing available to all of us.

Jonathan Granoff is President of the Global Security Institute.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

(AI image for representative purpose)

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Jun 9 2026 (IPS)

As ongoing military conflicts in Europe and the Middle East continue with no signsof winding down, there is increasing focus on nuclear weaponsamid heightened risks of escalation.

The Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI),in its annual assessment of the state of armaments, disarmament and international security, singles out key findings in its SIPRI Yearbook 2026 that “states are increasingly relying on nuclear weapons as instruments of national power—reversing decades of efforts to reduce the numbers and role of nuclear weapons—even as the risks of miscalculation and escalation are rising”.

World’s nuclear arsenals expanded and upgraded

The world’s nine nuclear-armed states—the United States, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) and Israel—continued programmes to modernize and enhance their nuclear arsenals in 2025, and most deployed new nuclear-armed or nuclear-capable weapon systems during the year, said SIPRI.

The current military conflicts include a nuclear Russia vs non-nuclear Ukraine, a nuclear US vs non-nuclear Iran and a nuclear Israel vs non-nuclear Palestine and Lebanon.

Of the total global inventory of an estimated 12, 187 warheads in January 2026, about 9,745 were in military stockpiles for potential use.

An estimated 4,012 of those warheads were deployed with missiles and aircraft and the rest were in central storage. Between 2100 and 2200 of the deployed warheads were kept in a state of high operational alert on ballistic missiles, according to the report.

Nearly all of these warheads belonged to Russia or the USA, and to a lesser extent France and the UK, but China and India may now occasionally deploy a small number of warheads mounted on missiles during peacetime.

‘Influential voices, including some world leaders, are advocating nuclear weapons as a guarantee against attack by a hostile state. But making national defence and security strategies dependent—or more dependent—on nuclear weapons could significantly increase nuclear risks,’ said SIPRI Director Karim Haggag.

‘The dangers associated with nuclear weapons are growing due to advances in weapon technology, the breakdown of nuclear arms control and heightened geopolitical tensions, among a range of other factors. At the same time, world events—not least the outbreak of conflict between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan—are challenging nuclear deterrence logic.’

Dr M. V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told Inter Press Service the continued modernization of nuclear weapons and the increased emphasis on nuclear weapons in military doctrines is a dangerous trend, especially when this is happening when many of the most military powerful countries in the world are resorting to attacking other countries with bombs, missiles, and drones rather than diplomatically settling differences.

“Any of these ongoing wars can easily escalate into ones where some country resorts to using nuclear weapons, which would result in destruction an order of magnitude greater than what is already being wrought by the weapons being used currently,” he pointed out.

Such a contingency becomes even more imaginable with the integration of Artificial Intelligence and other software tools to accelerate the kill chain, and possibly removing people from the process of deciding who to attack and what weapons to use, h argued.

Countries without nuclear weapons currently are also witnessing recommendations from influential spokespeople to consider developing a nuclear arsenal. Such a race can quickly spiral out of control, making it urgent that the world collectively step away from expanding nuclear arsenals and considering their use, and more generally, cease the use of militaristic violence to settle differences, said Dr Ramana.

Since the end of the cold war, says SIPRI, the gradual dismantlement of retired warheads by Russia and the USA has normally outstripped the deployment of new warheads, resulting in an overall year-on-year decrease in the global inventory of nuclear weapons. This trend is likely to be reversed in the coming years, as the pace of dismantlement is slowing, while the deployment of new nuclear weapons is accelerating.

‘The evidence is growing that the nuclear weapon states are sidelining, and even walking away from, their disarmament commitments and are instead flexing their nuclear muscles,’ said Hans M. Kristensen, Associate Senior Fellow with SIPRI’s Weapons of Mass Destruction Programme and Director of the Nuclear Information Project at the Federation of American Scientists (FAS).

‘By reaching for nuclear solutions, states are creating new risks and fuelling arms-race dynamics,’ he said.

Dr. Natalie Goldring, the Acronym Institute’s representative at the United Nations, told IPS the nine countries with nuclear weapons are engaged in extremely destabilizing behaviors — developing new weapons, increasing the size of their nuclear arsenals, abandoning arms control frameworks and verification systems, and threatening to use nuclear weapons in response to conventional weapons attacks, among other dangerous moves. Each of these choices increases risk; taken together, the potential consequences are terrifying.

Even the existence of nuclear weapons poses enormous military, economic, and environmental threats, among others. Fortunately, there’s a promising way forward — the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which rejects the contention that nuclear deterrence and continued development of new nuclear weapons somehow make us safer.

Under the TPNW, States commit themselves to not develop, test, produce, acquire, possess, stockpile, use, or threaten to use nuclear weapons. The TPNW has 74 States Parties, with an additional 25 signatories that have not yet become States Parties. It’s arguably our best hope of breaking the cycle of continual upgrades and “modernization” of weapons, while decreasing nuclear threats.

“We don’t know whether the fact that nuclear weapons haven’t been used in wartime since the United States military dropped nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is because of luck, skill (including deterrence), or a combination of those factors. Proponents of deterrence don’t tend to talk about the role of luck. They also don’t tend to talk about the risk of nuclear use through accident or miscalculation. That’s a short-sighted, high-risk approach. Militaries frequently have accidents; they also frequently fail to correctly calculate their adversaries’ capabilities and motivations.”

“The inherent risks of these weapons are compounded by the individuals involved. For example, US President Donald Trump is a threat to international security. He is unpredictable, prone to fits of rage, disinclined to listen to or learn from experts, and poorly informed about specific and general US military policies. And because of US nuclear weapons policy, he has the authority to order the launch of nuclear weapons without anyone else needing to confirm that order. That’s an extraordinarily dangerous situation, especially given his volatility.”

Recent events also increase risk. For example, the New START Treaty limited the number of deployed nuclear weapons for both the United States and Russia and contained useful verification provisions. Unfortunately, the treaty expired in February 2026, removing both the numerical limits on US and Russian nuclear stockpiles and the verification procedures.

Another example is the recent conclusion of the 2026 Review Conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. This conference continued the pattern from the previous two review conferences, as States were not even able to agree on an outcome document. More importantly, the five nuclear weapons states defined by the treaty (the US, Russia, the United Kingdom, China, and France) continue to fail to meet their commitment to disarmament under Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“The US’s stated reliance on the idea of nuclear deterrence may have encouraged other countries to do the same. I remember being at a meeting many years ago, where a South Asian diplomat asked me why the US government was so arrogant that it thought it had a monopoly on nuclear deterrence. He said there was no reason that India and Pakistan couldn’t or shouldn’t have a similar set of strategies. TPNW provides a more sensible answer – all of these States should renounce nuclear weapons.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Recent geopolitical trends threaten more food crises, especially in developing countries. A new IPES-Food report urges a strategy of ‘resilient self-reliance’, proposing available opportunities to improve equity, sustainability and solidarity.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Geopolitics – referring to political sanctions, trade disputes, military conflicts, multilateral challenges, aid cuts, planetary heating, and corporate interests – is affecting food availability worldwide.

Corporate interests have increasingly reshaped food systems over the last half-century – promoting selective trade liberalisation, deregulation, privatisation, financialization and cost reductions, ostensibly to improve food security efficiently.

Prioritising cost and fiscal savings led to the neglect and closure of buffer stocks. Food systems became more vulnerable as price volatility worsened.

Just-in-time supply chains have also been more susceptible to geopolitical shocks, planetary heating, and market manipulation.

World Bank structural adjustment programmes made developing countries more reliant on food and input imports. Tariffs and sanctions have disrupted food supplies worldwide.

Felice Noelle Rodriguez

Wars in Ukraine, Iran and elsewhere have disrupted supplies, spiking prices, and have most hit poor food-importing countries. Powerful governments have also weaponised food supplies for political reasons, as against Cuba.

Major donor countries have cut aid, with lethal consequences for the most vulnerable, as in Sudan, Palestine, Afghanistan, and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

The legitimacy and capacity of multilateral institutions – such as the UN, World Trade Organization (WTO) and World Health Organization (WHO) – have been deliberately undermined by superpowers abusing international arrangements for their own advantage.

Food prices have been much higher since 2020, following the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukraine and Iran wars, and other major disruptions. For instance, the Hormuz fertiliser disruptions will hurt food supply for some time to come.

Import bills have risen sharply, worsening debt burdens in poor food-importing countries. Food inflation has hurt low-income communities most, especially when governments juggle imports with debt servicing.

Corporate concentration has also worsened fertiliser and food supply and price volatility, especially hurting smaller producers. Powerful interests have also abused food crises for profit.

Geopolitics has also worsened environmental crises, as planetary heating intensifies extreme weather events, hurting crop yields and food availability.

Managing markets
To enhance food security, governments must effectively influence markets with appropriate policy instruments.

The report proposes adapting policy tools once widely used before corporate-inspired neoliberal reforms, to improve contemporary market management, supply resilience and price stability.

Public stockholdings (PSHs) involve government procurement, storage, and timely release of stocks to enhance food security, including by stabilising prices. PSHs can thus help smallholdings while improving emergency preparations.

Using minimum support prices with its Targeted Public Distribution System, India subsidises grain for two-thirds of its people, while insulating national food prices from international volatility.

Meanwhile, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) has established a Regional Food Security Reserve to pool members’ stocks and collectively respond to crises.

Supply management
Other supply management mechanisms include production quotas, marketing boards, and import controls.

Market management has also supported other policy goals aimed at improving rural vitality, equity, food sovereignty, environmental sustainability, and democratic participation.

Thus, unlike in the US, Canada’s dairy, poultry, and egg production is subject to quotas and negotiated minimum prices to limit price volatility and stabilise farm incomes.

But policy implementation remains challenging. PSH programmes are often complex and costly, and risk leakage, corruption, and inefficiency.

Government commitments, such as trade agreements, limit policy options. Supply management measures may also raise consumer prices and favour wealthier farmers, as neoliberal critics have been quick to exaggerate.

But these policy tools can also support small-scale producers, reduce waste, strengthen national supply chains, and mitigate risks posed by highly centralised industrial agriculture.

Resilient Self-Reliance
The report promotes resilient self-reliance, requiring appropriate market management to stabilise food supplies and improve equity, sustainability, and food sovereignty.

Resilient self-reliance combines resilience (the ability to withstand and recover from shocks) with food self-reliance (the capacity to meet food needs with domestic production and cooperative trade).

The report recommends innovative trade partnerships, including international buffer stocks and cooperative regionalism, citing CARICOM’s regional food strategy.

Resilient self-reliance upholds food sovereignty norms, emphasising farmer rights, agroecology, territorial markets, and democratic governance, stressing equity, diversity, ecological balance, and flexibility.

Managing markets can also support agroecological transitions, culturally appropriate food diversity, territorial markets, and strategic reserves to cushion shocks.

Vulnerable countries, often due to earlier neoliberal reforms, typically try to reduce their susceptibility to international market volatility, but are usually less able to do so.

Market management mechanisms, agroecological practices, territorial markets, and cooperative trade arrangements can help ensure more stable and equitable food systems.

Stressing the urgent need for policy reform, the authors argue that recent geopolitics not only threatens crises but also offers new opportunities to reform food systems for greater equity, solidarity and sustainability.

For instance, the Hormuz crisis may spur developing economies to accelerate transitions to more renewable energy, thereby reducing their vulnerability to fossil fuel and other energy imports.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Claude Gascon, interim CEO of the GEF and Aziz Abduhakimov, Minister of Environment of the Republic of Uzbekistan, at the closing ceremony of the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Gascon was presented with a traditional Uzbek outfit. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

By Cecilia Russell
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 5 2026 (IPS)

“While pressures on public budgets are growing and geopolitical tensions rising, it can be tempting to see environmental finance as optional. It is not,” GEF Interim CEO and Chair Claude Gascon told the closing plenary of the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan, today.

For developing countries, least developed countries, small island developing states and fragile and vulnerable countries, overseas development aid is the cornerstone.

“Because what is at stake is not only a set of international targets. What is at stake is the future quality of life on this planet. What is at stake is whether children inherit rivers that still run clean, forests that still stand tall, coastlines that still protect communities, and economies that can thrive without destroying the natural systems on which all prosperity depends.”

Assembly chair Aziz Abdukhakimov, Advisor to the President of Uzbekistan on Environment and Chairman, the National Committee on Ecology and Climate Change, noted the event had been highly productive with over 50 side events, bilateral meetings, and informal exchanges.

“The GEF council reviewed and improved key decisions, including the GEF-9 programming directions and (the last) GEF-8 work program,” he said, while welcoming a strong focus on integrated programming, innovative financing, and inclusive participation, including the aim to direct at least 20 percent of GEF-9 resources to Indigenous peoples and local communities.

He said that Uzbekistan’s President Shavkat Mirziyoyev’s message that Uzbekistan would become a donor country reflected the country’s “commitment to environmental sustainability.

“This shows our readiness not only to benefit from cooperation but also to contribute to global environmental relations,” Abdukhakimov said.

Earlier in a high-level panel discussion, Dr Rosina Bierbaum, Chair of the Scientific and Technical Advisory Panel (STAP) of the GEF, reminded the Assembly that while half of the global GDP depends on nature, there is a “USD 700 billion annual biodiversity financing gap”.

However, she said, an analysis by management consulting firm McKinsey confirms that implementing the 30 by 30 biodiversity goals, aimed at effectively conserving at least 30% of the Earth’s land and oceans by 2030, will generate significant conservation and socioeconomic goals and lift people out of poverty.

While the discussion about funding was coming at a difficult time, Kenneth Lay, Senior Managing Director at RockCreek and former Treasurer of the World Bank, said the good news was that the private sector could help tackle the problems.

Detailing how the global savings pool has grown dramatically “driven by 15 years of exceptional markets”, he said there were trillions of dollars available in pension and sovereign wealth funds, insurance sector reserves, and others, and these funds could become available to invest in nature, but “asset owners were not in the room”.

Lay suggested that the GEF convene the players who run central banks, the International Monetary Fund, the World Bank and securities regulators among others and ensure that “investing in nature is as natural as investing in infrastructure.” Ensure that investing in nature is as natural as investing in infrastructure.

Valerie Hickey, Director, Environment, World Bank Group, said the GEF had a role to play in building enabling regulations and policy predictability to help the private sector manage risk – with a focus on what she called the ‘Goldilocks’ blend of concessional and commercial finance to cushion investment failures while ensuring the investment has commercial returns and is financially solid enough to unlock private capital that has “measurable environmental outcomes.”

There were warnings too.

Rachel Kyte, Special Representative for Climate, United Kingdom, warned that a study showed her country was “highly vulnerable to ecosystem collapse.

“What does that mean? It means that for a British family, their ability to fill their supermarket trolley with the things they need to keep their children healthy is entirely linked to the integrity of the Congo Basin. And that if anything were to further threaten it, there would be security and defence implications.”

Getting local communities and Indigenous people involved through people-centred, inclusive, and economically viable solutions was key, Joyelle Clarke, Minister of Sustainable Development and Environment, Climate Action and Constituency Empowerment, Saint Kitts and Nevis, said. She explained how the blue carbon market was underappreciated and often hard to grasp.

Clarke gave an example of a UNESCO world heritage site that conserves turtles – in an area where the fishing community’s diet included turtles. By offering alternative job opportunities in the tourist industry, they were able to garner the community’s support for the site.

Leaders and delegates from the Uzbek government and the GEF pose for a group photo at the conclusion of the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Gascon reminded the plenary that the environment was not a “side issue”.

“First, we must defend and strengthen continued public development assistance for countries… Continued public ODA is therefore not only a moral commitment. It is an investment in global stability, in human security, and in the shared future of all nations.”

Then, he said “countries need to align national policies with the environmental outcomes they seek. We cannot say we are committed to sustainability while still rewarding the destruction of ecosystems, the overuse of natural resources, or the pollution of air, land, and water.”

Third, the GEF should unlock the full power of private capital and ensure that the private sector becomes “not just a source of finance but a true partner in governance and delivery of global environmental outcomes”.

And finally, “cabinet-wide commitment and society-wide participation” were needed for the environment goals to be achieved.

“We need national leadership, but we also need local ownership. That means listening to and working with communities, Indigenous Peoples, women, youth, civil society, scientists, local authorities, farmers, workers, and entrepreneurs. It means recognising that durable solutions are not imposed – they are built together.”

Finally, Gascon said the final push to 2030 “must be more than a countdown. It must be a turning point.”

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly held its final plenary today, June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, learns how to pan for gold in a free-mercury mine in Baguio, the Philippines, in 2024. Credit: Minamata Convention on Mercury

By Kizito Makoye
SAMARKAND, Uzbekistan, Jun 5 2026 (IPS)

Ask any woman miner in the Katoro goldfield in Tanzania’s northern Geita region, and she will tell you that she touches toxic mercury with her bare hands when extracting gold from crushed ore.

Many also say they carry the mercury-gold amalgam home and burn it in kitchens, exposing themselves and their families to toxic fumes that waft into the air.

For many women in Tanzania’s artisanal mining communities, the use of mercury is deeply embedded in their survival.

Globally, mercury used in artisanal gold mining contaminates rivers, enters fish and travels through Indigenous food systems – affecting distant communities.

Monika Stankiewicz, the United Nations’ Executive Secretary of the Minamata Convention on Mercury, warned this week that mercury pollution linked to artisanal gold mining continues to wreak havoc globally, with some women so fearful of the toxic metal’s effects that they are delaying motherhood.

During visits to mining communities in different countries, Stankiewicz said she heard stories that exposed the hidden human cost behind the global gold rush – where poverty often leaves families choosing between earning a living and protecting their health.

“I’ve heard women saying they are afraid to get pregnant because they are afraid their children will be affected by mercury,” Stankiewicz tells IPS on the sidelines of the Eighth GEF Assembly. “So it was really heartbreaking.”

Her account paints a grim picture of women and children exposed to hazardous mercury in domestic settings as the human toll of the global gold rush continues to grow, from Geita to Brazil’s Amazon despite visible risks to human health and ecosystems.

For Stankiewicz, the challenge extends beyond environmental regulation to the harsh reality facing millions of low-income miners worldwide, whose families struggle to survive today while carrying health risks that may last for generations.

“It is always a different context,” Stankiewicz said, recalling her years of interactions with artisanal miners.

“In different countries where I met with miners, the situation was quite specific. So it’s difficult to have one story that represents the entire informal sector,” she said.

Mercury pollution linked to artisanal and small-scale gold mining remains one of the world’s largest sources of human-generated mercury emissions.

In Tanzania, where roughly 1.2 million artisanal miners depend on gold for income, mercury is still widely used because it is cheap, accessible and effective at recovering gold.

Mercury is a toxic substance that attacks the central nervous system. According to Stankiewicz, exposure to the liquid metal may cause neurological damage, including memory loss and tremors, respiratory illness from inhaling mercury vapour, reproductive health impacts and harm to children’s developing nervous systems.

Children are particularly vulnerable.

Monika Stankiewicz, Executive Secretary, Minamata Convention on Mercury at the Eighth GEF Assembly in Samarkand, Uzbekistan. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

“Even low levels can affect brain development, learning and memory, and motor skills,” she said.

The consequences can be lifelong.

“We know from past experiences, such as the Minamata disease in Japan, that high levels of mercury exposure, particularly during pregnancy, can lead to severe and permanent neurological damage in children.”

In many artisanal mining communities, women process ore, store mercury and supervise the burning of amalgam to prevent theft.

“If they are not processing directly, they are often most trusted to either store the mercury or watch over the amalgam as it gets burnt to ensure it is not stolen,” Stankiewicz explains.

“They also face compounded risks during pregnancy, as mercury can affect the developing foetus they carry.”

The unsafe disposal of mercury in Tanzania has created a toxic mix in the country’s river system, exposing people downstream to serious health risks due to water and fish contamination, she added.

Mercury enters rivers, fish and agricultural systems, exposing communities who may never set foot inside a mine.

“For families and communities relying on fishing or farming, the impact can mean reduced food safety and food security, loss of income from contaminated natural resources and long-term degradation of ecosystems they depend on,” Stankiewicz says.

She notes that Indigenous communities in the Arctic continue to experience mercury contamination, even though they do not engage in mercury-intensive artisanal mining, because mercury circulates globally through the atmosphere before accumulating in colder ecosystems.

In Brazil, the crisis carries another dimension.

“Despite their distance and very different contexts, both regions reflect a similar underlying reality: artisanal and small-scale gold mining exists at the intersection of livelihoods, informality, and, in some cases, illegality,” she says.

“In the Brazilian Amazon, we are seeing a growing presence of organised criminal networks linked to illegal gold mining, including money laundering, gold laundering, illegal mercury supply chains, and operations in protected and Indigenous areas.”

“In East Africa, including Tanzania, the situation is different in scale and structure, but the sector is still affected by widespread informality and illicit trade, such as smuggling and unregulated cross-border flows, which limit oversight and undermine efforts to control mercury use.”

For Stankiewicz, criminalising poverty does not solve the mercury problem.

She recalls meeting miners who had already stopped using mercury but remained trapped outside formal markets.

“They still struggled to formalise their activities and to have access to formal markets, to have a fair price for their gold and also to protect themselves from illegal activities.”

The lesson, she said, is that governments must avoid pushing miners deeper underground.

“It’s important to work directly with miners and not push them underground so that activity becomes fully illegal, because then it’s difficult to reach out with capacity building and awareness raising.”

Her message to a miner in Geita or the Brazilian Amazon is grounded in empathy rather than judgement.

“First of all, I would say that this is a very difficult choice for any family member or parent to either think of earning money or then also put at risk their own health.”

“So I do not wish anyone to be in a situation to make such a choice.”

Still, she urges immediate protective action.

“The most immediate and practical advice is really for miners to protect themselves from mercury exposure and to avoid certain practices that really may affect their health.”

“This is like burning amalgam in residential areas and also open burning.”

She believes the long-term answer lies elsewhere.

“Formalisation is the way to go.”

The Minamata Convention, which entered into force nearly a decade ago, has increasingly focused on helping countries move in that direction. Between 1 July 2022 and 30 June 2025 the GEF committed USD 174.0 million for programming to support the implementation of the Convention under its eighth replenishment.

Earlier this week, the 71st Council of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) also acknowledged USD 200 million for smaller projects, including support for countries’ national implementation plans under the Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants and work to address mercury in artisanal and small-scale gold mining under the Minamata Convention on Mercury.

Under Article 7 and National Action Plans, governments are encouraged to eliminate the most dangerous practices, strengthen public health responses, formalise mining operations and introduce mercury-free technologies.

Progress, Stankiewicz says, is visible.

More countries have adopted action plans, more governments have recognised ASGM as a significant sector, and communities are becoming increasingly aware of mercury’s risks.

“On the ground, this is translating into concrete measures: the introduction of mercury-free technologies in some mining areas, stronger regulatory frameworks, efforts to formalise parts of the sector, and increasing integration of health considerations into national responses.”

But she warns against celebrating too early.

“The next phase, and the real test, is ensuring that these efforts are aligned with realities on the ground, sustained, scaled, and translated into lasting improvements in the lives of mining and downstream communities.”

For communities in Tanzania and Brazil that depend on gold, the challenge remains unresolved.

Gold still brings income.

Mercury still brings risk.

And between the two lies a difficult question millions of families continue to confront every day: how to survive today without sacrificing tomorrow.

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gascon emphasised that discussions with donor countries are still ongoing.

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

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

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

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

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

Gascon clarified how blended finance is structured within GEF operations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eighth Assembly – a ‘Forward-Looking’ Forum

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

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

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

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

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

Country Funding

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

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

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

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

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

By IPS Correspondent
SAMARKAND, Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

The projects include:

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

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

Looking to the Future

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Male employees were working in a paper factory in Thimpu, Bhutan. Accession to WTO will enhance business opportunities for local SMEs. Credit: Unsplash/Bradford Zak

By Jing Huang, Mikiko Tanaka and Rajan Ratna
THIMPU, Bhutan, Jun 2 2026 (IPS)

Bhutan’s decision to restart its accession to the World Trade Organization (WTO) comes at an important junction. Since graduating from Least Developed Country (LDC) status in 2023, the country is entering a new phase of development, which requires stronger competitiveness, deeper global engagement and greater economic resilience.

Yet Bhutan’s experience is not only about joining a global institution. It also offers an important lesson on why South-South cooperation matters in an increasingly uncertain world.

Global trade today is becoming more fragmented and unpredictable. Geopolitical tensions, supply chain disruptions and shifting trade alliances are reshaping the engagement of countries with the global economy. For small developing economies, the challenge is particularly complex.

Accessing international markets is no longer only about expanding exports, it is also about navigating changing rules, building institutional readiness and strengthening resilience against external shocks.

Based on this, the decision to restart the WTO accession from Bhutan is particularly significant. After years of standstill, Bhutan has resumed discussions on the terms of accession under the WTO Working Party process.

For a small economy transitioning beyond LDC status, WTO accession represents an opportunity to strengthen long-term economic foundations, improve investor confidence and integrate more effectively into regional and global markets.

However, the WTO accession is never easy, particularly for small economies with limited institutional capacity. Negotiating accession requires the readiness of the domestic market and industry, but also government capacities to navigate highly technical issues and in-house analysis for self and competitors’ assessments, from market access commitments and regulatory reforms to notification obligations and legal frameworks.

Officials must understand not only the rules themselves but also the practical implications of commitments that will shape national economic policy for years to come.

For many developing countries, the most useful policy lessons often come from peers facing similar realities. Countries across the Global South frequently operate under comparable constraints: limited institutional resources, competing development priorities and the need to balance openness with domestic policy space.

In these contexts, learning from neighbouring and comparable economies can often be more practical and relatable than relying solely on textbook models or distant examples. Bhutan’s WTO preparations offer a good example of the approach can work in practice.

In response to a request from the Royal Government of Bhutan, the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) through its Subregional Office for South and South-West Asia, partnered with Indian think tanks to support Bhutanese officials as they prepare for WTO accession.

Rather than focusing solely on theoretical understanding, the initiative emphasized practical learning, negotiation experiences and peer exchanges with experts and former trade negotiators who had worked directly on WTO processes.

The approach responded directly to Bhutan’s needs. Officials serving on Bhutan’s WTO Negotiating Team and Technical Working Groups were able to deepen their understanding of complex accession issues, including market access negotiations, institutional reforms, scheduling commitments and post-accession obligations. More importantly, they engaged directly with practitioners who understood the realities of policymaking and negotiations in developing country settings.

Peer learning also brought an important practical pillar. Discussions moved beyond legal provisions and technical terminology to focus on real experiences what challenges emerge during accession, how governments navigate difficult trade-offs and what institutional arrangements work in practice.

Exchanges on economic diversification, including lessons related to Special Economic Zones (SEZs), also offered useful reflections for Bhutan as it considers pathways to sustainable economic growth.

At a time when multilateralism faces growing pressures and geopolitical divisions increasingly influence trade relations, regional cooperation and peer learning are becoming more important. Small and developing economies often face similar structural constraints and often attempt to navigate major transitions in isolation.

Trusted regional partnerships can help countries access practical expertise, reduce learning costs and build confidence in undertaking complex reforms.

Bhutan’s WTO journey reminds us that successful South-South cooperation is not simply about technical assistance or transferring knowledge. It works best when countries define their own priorities, partnerships respond to genuine demand and peers contribute practical experiences with humility and mutual respect.

As Bhutan moves forward in its WTO accession process, its experience offers an important lesson for the wider region. In a fragmented and uncertain global economy, developing countries are often strongest when they learn from one another.

South-South cooperation may not remove every challenge, but it can help countries navigate difficult transitions with greater confidence, stronger institutions and more practical solutions.

Jing Huang is Economic Affairs Officer, ESCAP Subregional Office for South and South-West Asia; Mikiko Tanaka is Head of ESCAP Subregional Office for South and South-West Asia & Rajan Ratna is Coordinator, DAKSHIN-Global South Centre of Excellence.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

A System Under Strain

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

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

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

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

The ‘Minefield’ of Reporting

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

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

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

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

From Silos to Systems

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

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

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

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

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

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

Financing the Transition

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

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

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

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

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

Land, Drought, and Resilience

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Pivotal Moment

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

Speakers were clear: this moment must not be missed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the same project attracted criticism.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A More Inclusive GEF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New Partnerships Announced

Several new partnerships were announced during the opening ceremony.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Developing Countries Seek Fairer Access

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

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

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

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

Small island states voiced similar concerns.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

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

By Friday Phiri
LISBON, May 26 2026 (IPS)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role of Seed Breeding Innovations for Health

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

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

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

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

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

Sustained Awareness is Key for Sustainability  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Breeding Innovations for Africa’s Unique Challenges   

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Claude Gascon, Interim CEO and Director of Strategy and Operations at the Global Environment Facility. Credit: The GEF

By Stella Paul
WASHINGTON D.C. & HYDERABAD, India, May 19 2026 (IPS)

As governments prepare for the Eighth Assembly of the Global Environment Facility (GEF) – scheduled to be held from May 30 to June 6 in Samarkand, Uzbekistan – the stakes are unusually high.

Climate change, biodiversity collapse, pollution, debt distress and geopolitical fragmentation are converging at a moment when environmental finance is under growing scrutiny. For many countries in the Global South, the challenge is no longer only about ambition but also about whether global systems can deliver fast enough and fairly enough.

For Claude Gascon – Interim CEO and Director of Strategy and Operations at the GEF – the question facing the organisation is how to turn urgency into action while operating in an increasingly volatile world.

“A meaningful outcome is turning urgency into action,” Gascon says in an exclusive interview with IPS, describing what success at the upcoming Assembly would look like. That includes public confirmation of country pledges to the GEF and final approval of a strong GEF9 package that will guide investments for the next four years. He also points to endorsement of several priorities that the institution sees as central to its future direction: integrated programming, blended finance, whole-of-government approaches, and stronger support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous Peoples and local communities (IPLCs).

“All this signals that multilateralism is delivering and positions us to accelerate impact in the final sprint toward the 2030 global environmental goals,” he says.

Gascon stepped into the role of Interim CEO during a period of overlapping crises and mounting pressure on international institutions. While many governments continue to demand bigger environmental outcomes, donor fatigue, economic instability and competing geopolitical priorities are tightening the availability of public finance.

“We need to do more with less, and to accomplish that, we chose disciplined ambition,” he says.

The full interview follows:

IPS: The Eighth GEF Assembly comes at a time of overlapping crises – climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution. What, in your view, would define a meaningful outcome from this Assembly?

Claude Gascon: A meaningful outcome is turning urgency into action. This includes public confirmation of country pledges to the GEF and final approval of a strong GEF-9 package that will guide our investments for the next four years. The Assembly is also an opportunity for clear endorsement of the ambitious priorities we’ve agreed on: a focus on integration and integrated programs, mainstreaming blended finance to mobilise private capital, whole-of-government and whole-of-society approaches, and strengthened support for Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States (SIDS), and Indigenous People and local communities (IPCLs). All this signals that multilateralism is delivering and positions us to accelerate impact in the final sprint toward the 2030 global environmental goals.

IPS: As the Interim CEO, you are navigating a volatile global context. What difficult trade-offs have you had to make between ambition and feasibility?

Gascon: We need to do more with less, and to accomplish that, we chose disciplined ambition. For example, we are channelling resources through integrated programs in nature, food, urban, energy, and health systems and setting a target of programming 25 percent of our resources to mobilise private capital and stretch scarce public funds. We are also simplifying access and speeding decisions, so countries see real progress sooner. And finally, we are working to expand our partnerships with new stakeholders such as private philanthropies to collaborate on joining our public investments with the private investments of foundations so that together we can scale up the outcomes that are critical to achieving the 2030 goals.

IPS: Countries facing debt and instability say targets feel out of reach. Should expectations be recalibrated or should financing mechanisms evolve?

Claude Gascon: We need to acknowledge these difficulties, but our response must be by evolving financing and delivery instead of lowering the goals. The GEF-9 opens more space for innovation and expands tracking of socio-economic co-benefits and transformational outcomes. There will also be a full review of the resource allocation model during the GEF-9 investment cycle to inform comprehensive changes in the GEF-10 cycle (from 2030 to 2034). The aim is faster, more flexible access that mobilises private and domestic finance alongside official development assistance (ODA). We must also work to support countries in their efforts to align national policies and eliminate perverse subsidies that could help in achieving global environmental goals.

IPS: With climate finance increasingly tied to geopolitical priorities, is there a risk of weakening multilateral funds like the GEF?

Claude Gascon: The opposite signal is coming through this replenishment. Even amid competing priorities, contributors have pledged an initial US$3.9 billion, with final approval due at the end of May from the GEF Council and public country announcements at the Assembly. The GEF’s family of funds and role across six international environmental conventions uniquely positions us to align diverse finance streams with agreed-upon global goals. That provides coherence and stability countries can count on.

IPS: Several Global South governments argue the GEF cycles are still too slow. What concrete changes can countries expect in speed and flexibility?

Gascon: I can give you three examples of practical shifts. First, the GEF is expanding the successful model of the Global Biodiversity Framework Fund’s one-step project approval process where appropriate. Second, we are increasing multi-trust-fund programming so countries can access multiple windows through a single operation. And finally, we have a cap on allocation of resources per GEF Implementing Agency that increases competition and a target to increase disbursements through Multilateral Development Banks. All these measures are designed to move from pledge to project to results faster.

IPS: The GEF is a connector across CBD, UNFCCC, and UNCCD. How can it strengthen this role without overstretching?

Gascon: By doing what only the GEF can: translate multiple international environmental conventions’ mandates into integrated programs while fostering policy coherence. We operate a family of funds under a shared architecture, coordinating smarter, sharing what works, and aligning with 2030 milestones. This means that one GEF dollar invested can deliver multiple benefits across several of the Conventions.

IPS: Private finance is key to closing gaps, but investors avoid fragile contexts. How realistic is this approach – and what lessons has the GEF learned so far about both its potential and its risks?

Claude Gascon: It’s realistic when structured well. From GEF-6 to GEF-8, US$369.5 million in GEF blended finance mobilised US$6.4 billion in co-financing. That is 17 dollars for each GEF dollar, with more than US$3.5 billion coming from private sources. The GEF also has deep experience with fragile contexts: over the last 35 years, 45 percent of our investments have included at least one conflict-affected country and 88 percent of country-level projects were in fragile situations. The main lesson we learned is to pair risk-sharing instruments and strong local partners around projects that fit local realities.

IPS: How is the GEF improving tracking and communication of real-world impact, especially at the community level?

Claude Gascon: The GEF-9’s results framework strengthens environmental outcome tracking and explicitly expands measurement of socio-economic co-benefits and contributions to transformational change. A Council-approved Knowledge Management & Learning strategy aligns data, learning, and communications, and we will continue spotlighting community-level results through platforms like the Small Grants Program and the Inclusive Conservation Initiative, with expanded inclusion under the whole-of-society approach.

IPS: Critics say global environmental finance reflects donor priorities more than recipient needs. How is the GEF addressing equity, voice, and decision-making for the Global South?

Claude Gascon: Equity is built into GEF-9. We have a goal of allocating 35% of total programming to benefit LDCs and SIDS; and an aspirational target of 20% of GEF-9 financing directed to support IPLCs. These targets are supported by updated guidance and a policy to strengthen IPLC engagement. It is also important to note that all funding decisions are made by recipient countries as to the use of GEF resources. This means that recipient country priorities are well supported in the GEF model.

IPS: How will the GEF remain relevant in an increasingly crowded and complex landscape?

The GEF will stay relevant by being more catalytic, coherent, and faster to impact. We will deepen systems-focused integrated programs; mainstream blended finance, maintain a high but disciplined innovation risk appetite, and streamline access and delivery so countries can deliver once and meet several global goals at the same time.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

A cruise ship docks in Roseau, Dominica. The World Meteorological Organization says parts of the Caribbean are experiencing sea level rise above the global average as climate impacts intensify across the region. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
CASTRIES, Saint Lucia , May 19 2026 (IPS)

Faster-than-average sea level rise, intensifying hurricanes, extreme heat and worsening swings between drought and flooding are increasing pressure on Latin America and the Caribbean, according to a new report released Monday, May 18 by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO).

The State of the Climate in Latin America and the Caribbean 2025 report warns that rising land and ocean temperatures, increasingly erratic rainfall patterns and rapidly intensifying tropical cyclones are hurting food systems, water security, public health and coastal communities across the region.

“The signs of a changing climate are unmistakable across Latin America and the Caribbean,” WMO Secretary-General Celeste Saulo said in a statement accompanying the report, warning that climate impacts are intensifying across both coastal and inland communities.

The report found that parts of the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean are experiencing sea level rise above the global average, while marine heatwaves and ocean acidification are compounding risks for fisheries, coral reefs and coastal ecosystems.

Extreme weather events affected communities across the region throughout 2025. The report highlighted Hurricane Melissa, which became the first Category 5 hurricane on record to make landfall in Jamaica, causing 45 deaths and economic losses estimated at US$8.8 billion,  more than 41 percent of the country’s gross domestic product.

Despite the unprecedented storm, the WMO noted that advance preparedness measures and risk modelling helped reduce loss of life.

Heat-Related Illness and Mortality

The report also warned of growing public health risks linked to extreme heat. Recurrent heatwaves pushed temperatures beyond 40 degrees Celsius across large parts of Central and South America, with experts warning that heat-related mortality in the region is likely underreported.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, rainfall patterns are also becoming increasingly erratic, with longer dry spells and more intense rainfall events contributing to both severe drought and devastating flooding.

While some parts of the region experienced deadly floods and landslides in 2025, severe drought conditions and water shortages affected sections of Central America, the Caribbean and South America, impacting agriculture, reservoirs and food production.

“As extreme heat events intensify, reducing avoidable mortality will require moving from recognition to institutionalized action,” the report stated.

It urged governments to strengthen climate-informed health surveillance systems, improve tracking of heat-related illnesses and deaths, and better integrate meteorological warnings into public health planning.

It also called for greater investment in heat-resilient health infrastructure and stronger coordination between climate and health agencies as extreme heat events become more frequent and severe.

The WMO said climate impacts are increasingly affecting agro-food systems across the region, threatening rural livelihoods, food access and economic stability.

The report comes as Caribbean Small Island Developing States continue to face disproportionate climate risks despite contributing minimally to global greenhouse gas emissions.

Scientists and regional leaders have repeatedly warned that rising ocean temperatures are contributing to stronger storms, coral bleaching and ecosystem disruption across the Caribbean Sea.

Early Warning Systems to Save Lives

The report also highlighted the growing importance of early warning systems and climate services as extreme weather events become more frequent and severe across the region.

The findings come as the United Nations continues to expand its “Early Warnings for All” initiative, which aims to ensure every person on Earth is protected by early warning systems by 2027. It is a goal seen as particularly critical for climate-vulnerable Caribbean Small Island Developing States.

The WMO said advances in forecasting, disaster preparedness and risk modelling are helping countries better anticipate and respond to climate-related hazards, particularly hurricanes, floods and heatwaves.

Jamaica’s response to Hurricane Melissa was highlighted as an example of how advance planning and risk modelling can help reduce loss of life even during unprecedented events.

Despite progress, the WMO warned that gaps remain in climate monitoring and early warning coverage across parts of Latin America and the Caribbean, particularly for vulnerable communities with limited adaptive capacity.

“Climate information is not only about data. It is about people,” Saulo said. “It is about protecting communities from floods, droughts, hurricanes, heatwaves and other hazards.”

For Caribbean nations already grappling with rising seas, stronger storms and mounting economic vulnerability, the report adds to growing calls for greater investment in climate adaptation, resilient infrastructure and early warning systems – tools the WMO says will be critical to helping vulnerable communities adapt to a warming world.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Excerpt:

Transnational agribusinesses increasingly shape food policies worldwide. Claiming to best address recent food security concerns, they seek to profit more from innovations in food production, processing, and distribution.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

The early post-WWII and post-colonial eras saw new emphases on food security, especially following severe food shortages before, during, and after the war.

Many starved as millions experienced acute malnutrition. The wartime Bengal famine in India claimed over three million lives as Churchill prioritised British imperial interests and military priorities.

After WWII, colonial powers weaponised food supplies for counterinsurgency and population control purposes, especially to overcome popular anti-imperialist resistance.

Many who died were not military casualties but victims of deliberate counter-insurgency food deprivation. Unsurprisingly, food security efforts became a popular policy priority after WWII.

Western-controlled research organisations, including the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), became highly influential, shaping and even developing post-colonial food security policies.

Felice Noelle Rodriguez

The Green Revolution initially focused on increasing yields of wheat, maize, and rice. These efforts increased cereal production unevenly during the 1960s and 1970s.

Malthusian logic held that rising life expectancies meant population growth outstripped the increase in food supply, constrained by limited agricultural land.

As government funding from wealthy nations declined, powerful corporate interests and philanthropies became even more influential. They often promoted their own interests at the expense of farmers, consumers, and the environment.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) was established in the 1970s, channelling a small share of windfall petroleum incomes into food and agricultural development.

Soon after, the US transformed its Public Law (PL) 480 program into the World Food Programme (WFP). Thus, some FAO functions were ceded to donor-controlled UN funds and programmes also set up in Rome.

Embarrassingly, an FAO report found WFP food supplies were withheld from Somalia to avoid being taken by the ‘Islamist’ As-Shabaab militia. Chatham House also estimated two to three hundred thousand deaths as a consequence.

Neoliberalism
The counter-revolution against national development efforts in the 1980s undermined government fiscal capacities, import-substituting industrialisation, and food security efforts.

Neoliberal structural adjustment policies involving economic liberalisation were imposed on heavily indebted developing countries, mainly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa.

The Global North promoted trade liberalisation, undermining earlier protection of and support for food and industrial production.

Powerful food conglomerates sponsored and promoted import-friendly food security indicators, undermining FAO and other civil society research and advocacy efforts.

Countries hardly producing any food were highly ranked, as civil society organisations tried to counter with their own indicators, mainly focused on food sovereignty.

Trump 2.0
A new phase has begun with Donald Trump’s re-election as US president.

Trump 2.0’s weaponisation of economic policies and agreements, including food supplies, has ominous implications for countries trying to assert some independence.

Economic and military threats have been used for diverse ends, including economic, political, and other ‘strategic’ goals. Tariffs and sanctions are now part of a diverse arsenal of such weapons deployed for various purposes.

Governments have even been threatened with tariffs and sanctions for personal reasons. Trump has demanded Brazilian ex-President Jair Bolsonaro’s freedom following his failed coup after losing the last presidential election.

Deploying such economic weapons has worsened the deepening worldwide economic stagflation, as various Trump economic and military policy threats exacerbate contractionary and inflationary pressures.

The US-controlled WFP was long used to provide food aid selectively. But there is little sympathy left in Washington for other nations’ food security concerns.

To cut federal government spending, Trump has ended official development and humanitarian assistance, including food aid, while the US remains the world’s leading food exporter.

Nevertheless, Trump may take unexpected new steps to boost farmers’ earnings to recover electoral support before the November mid-term election.

Weaponisation of food aid took an ominous turn during the Israeli siege of Gaza, by calibrating food access to enable selective ethnic cleansing.

The Gaza Humanitarian Foundation attracted hungry residents to its food centres, causing hungry families desperately seeking food to be shot while seeking food.

Poverty is primarily defined by inadequate access to food, while the FAO considers income the main determinant of food insecurity.

Although World Bank poverty measures have generally continued to decline, FAO indicators suggest a reversal of earlier progress in food security over the last decade.

These contradictory trends not only reflect problems in estimating and understanding poverty and food security but also suggest that resulting policies are poorly informed, if not worse.

Professor Felice Noelle Rodriguez is Director of the Centre for Local History and Culture, Universidad de Zamboanga, Philippines.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

LDC Future Forum Banner. Credit: OHRLLS

By Rabab Fatima
UNITED NATIONS, May 8 2026 (IPS)

The future of the world’s least developed countries (LDCs) will be shaped by a critical choice they make today- strategic investment in their youth. Rich in human potential, the young people in LDCs embody ingenuity, resilience and ambition. With the right opportunities, they can transform challenges into opportunities and put their countries strongly on track to sustainable development.

In the 44 LDCs, more than 60 per cent of the population is under 25. That is more than 315 million young people – innovators, entrepreneurs and problem-solvers – in a world being reshaped by technology, climate pressures and shifting economic realities. Their energy, creativity and ambition represent an extraordinary opportunity not only for national development, but for global prosperity and stability.

The question is simple: will we act with the urgency this moment demands? In May 2026, governments, development partners, private sector leaders, researchers and young changemakers will convene in Helsinki for the Fourth LDC Future Forum, under the theme “Transforming LDCs by Empowering the Youth Population through Education, Innovation, and Inclusive Growth.”

Rabab Fatima, USG and High Representative, OHRLLS. Credit: OHRLLS

Opportunity is expanding—but unevenly

The global economy is evolving at speed. Artificial intelligence, digital platforms, green technologies and geopolitical shifts are reshaping how we live and work. By 2030, an estimated 170 million new jobs will be created worldwide, even as 40 per cent of core workplace skills are transformed.

Youth in LDCs are ready to be part of this future. Already, they demonstrate remarkable entrepreneurial initiative: nearly 70 per cent are engaged in self employment, compared to about 50 per cent in other developing countries.

Yet opportunity remains deeply uneven. Tertiary enrolment in LDCs stands at just 11 per cent. Fewer than a quarter of graduates specialize in science, technology, engineering and mathematics.

Millions of young people—especially girls and rural youth—remain excluded from quality education, digital connectivity and formal employment. Without urgent and targeted investment, demographic strength risks becoming a demographic strain.

The DPOA: Investing in youth as a development imperative

The Doha Programme of Action (DPoA) is unequivocal: investing in people – especially youth – is central to sustainable development and smooth graduation from the LDC category.

It places strong emphasis on education, skills and science, technology and innovation (STI) as engines of structural transformation. Critically, it advances concrete deliverables, including the establishment of an Online University for LDCs, designed to expand access to quality, affordable higher education – particularly in STEM fields. It also promotes digital learning, innovation ecosystems, and stronger linkages between education systems and labour market needs.

The Fourth LDC Future Forum will focus squarely on these priorities. It will advance practical solutions to close skills gaps, expand digital learning, strengthen innovation hubs and promote inclusive growth models that leave no young person behind.

Inclusion must be intentional

True transformation cannot happen if opportunity is accessible only to a few.

Gender gaps in education, skills acquisition and labour force participation continue to hold back progress. The digital divide—between countries, communities and genders—threatens to widen existing inequalities unless deliberately addressed. Inclusive growth requires inclusive design: policies and investments that actively reach girls, marginalized youth and those in rural and underserved areas.

By placing equity at the centre of youth empowerment, LDCs can ensure that growth is not only faster, but fairer—and therefore more sustainable.

A shared responsibility

No country can undertake this transformation alone. Governments must lead by prioritizing youth in national development strategies and aligning education with future economic needs. Development partners must scale up predictable, high quality financing for education, skills and digital infrastructure. Academia must help generate evidence based solutions. And the private sector must play a central role—by investing, mentoring, innovating and creating decent jobs.

The LDC Future Forum exists to forge these partnerships. Through rigorous research, policy dialogue and multi stakeholder collaboration, it aims to deliver actionable recommendations that will inform both national action and the 2027 Midterm Review of the Doha Programme of Action.

The choice before us

History will judge this generation not by the challenges we faced, but by the choices we made. We can allow structural barriers and underinvestment to hold back millions of young people—or we can unlock the dynamism that resides within them.

Empowering youth is not a long term aspiration. It is the fastest, most reliable path to sustainable growth, resilience and global stability.

The message from Helsinki must be clear: invest in young people now – and they will transform their countries, and our shared future.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Malawian Farmers harvest sweet potatoes in fields where no chemicals have been used. Credit: Albert Khumalo

By Benson Kunchezera and Tanka Dhakal
LILONGWE & VIENTIANE, May 7 2026 (IPS)

For decades, pesticides have been a quiet pillar of Malawi’s agriculture, guarding crops against pests, improving yields, and sustaining millions of livelihoods. But beneath this success story lay a troubling reality: weak regulation, unsafe handling practices, and growing threats to human health and the environment.

Between 2015 and 2023, USD 2.55 million by the Global Environment Facility (GEF) set out to confront these challenges head-on. Today, it is leaving behind a legacy that is transforming how Malawi manages pesticides from importation to disposal and reshaping the way farmers think about crop protection.

At the centre of this shift is a stronger institutional framework. The project supported a comprehensive review of national pesticide regulations, bringing them closer to international standards. It also invested in training regulatory staff in pesticide registration, monitoring, enforcement, and lifecycle management, areas that had long remained underdeveloped.

“We invested heavily in strengthening systems, not just solving immediate problems,” said Precious Chizonda, Registrar of the Pesticides Control Board of Malawi and former National Coordinator for the GEF project. “This has positioned Malawi to better manage pesticides across their entire lifecycle, from importation to disposal.”

A major milestone was the development of a strategic plan for the Pesticides Control Board (PCB), aimed at improving efficiency and aligning operations with global best practices. Collaboration played a crucial role. The Malawi Bureau of Standards provided laboratory services for pesticide quality testing, while the Ministry of Agriculture ensured policy coordination. Together, these institutions helped elevate the PCB’s effectiveness and national visibility.

Some examples of pesticide-free farming include bananas grown using manure and tomatoes grown using neem water to deter pests and a woman farmer is shown mixing ash with her pigeon peas for storage to protect them from weevils. Credit: Albert Khumalo

Obsolete Pesticides

The project also delivered concrete environmental results. Approximately 208 tonnes of obsolete pesticides — including highly hazardous persistent organic pollutants — were safely destroyed through high-temperature incineration. Another 40 tonnes of contaminated waste were secured in an engineered landfill. These efforts eliminated long-standing sources of soil and water pollution, protecting ecosystems and communities.

Equally significant was the introduction of a pilot system for managing empty pesticide containers. Initially constrained by regulatory challenges, the initiative has since gained traction and continues beyond the project’s lifespan. Supported by industry stakeholders such as CropLife, it now collects used containers from farms across the country, demonstrating a viable model for environmentally sound waste management.

A field of irish potatoes grown without using chemicals. Credit: Albert Khumalo

Farm Level Changes

But perhaps the most profound change is happening at the farm level.

In Lichenza, under Chiladzulu’s Thumbwe Extension Planning Area, 39-year-old farmer Emily Zuwedi recalls how deeply rooted pesticide use once was. “We used to believe in pesticides when growing our crops, but that is now a thing of the past,” she said.

Zuwedi joined a farmer training group in 2017, where she learned about integrated pest management (IPM) and alternative methods that reduce reliance on chemicals. Today, she grows onions and beans using these techniques, cutting costs while protecting her health and the environment.

“I am spending less money now, and my crops are still doing well,” she said.

Her experience reflects a broader shift among smallholder farmers. Albert Khumalo, an Extension Development Officer in Chiladzulu, said the transition was not immediate. “At first it was difficult for farmers to accept, but after the trials they get along,” he explained.

Since 2024, Khumalo and his team have trained at least 100 farmers in pesticide-free farming methods. The results are encouraging – farmers are reducing production costs, improving soil health, and becoming more environmentally conscious.

“This program is helping farmers conserve the environment while also saving money,” Khumalo said. “And those who learn are now able to share knowledge with others.”

The project has also strengthened Malawi’s compliance with international chemical conventions by building expertise in risk assessment and regulatory procedures, an area where the country previously faced challenges.

While gaps remain, particularly in scaling up initiatives to reach more smallholder farmers, the progress is undeniable. Malawi is demonstrating that agricultural productivity and environmental protection do not have to be at odds.

Across the country’s fields, a quiet transformation is underway – one in which safer practices, stronger systems, and informed farmers are cultivating not just crops but also a more sustainable future.

In Lao PDR, the UNDP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry lead a $4.2 million GEF-funded FARM project. Credit: Lao farmer network

Laos Sustainable Farming

However, GEF funding is being used in several parts of the world, including Asia.

In Lao PDR, GEF funding is helping farmers adopt and apply practices that promote sustainable agriculture.

Laos farmers are being trained and given extension support to “reduce dependence on hazardous pesticides while integrating environmentally friendly pest management approaches”, Saithong Phengboupha, project manager at the Department of Agriculture under the Ministry of Agriculture and Environment, said.

“This aligns their practices with good agricultural standards, translating upstream policy gains into tangible on-farm change.”

According to the Ministry, GEF funding has been helpful to create the foundation by strengthening the legislative and regulatory environment governing pesticide and agricultural input management.

“Key milestones include the promulgation of the Law on Crop Production and the development of decrees on fertiliser regulation and good agricultural practices (GAP), currently in the final stages. The instruments establish the legal basis for sustained enforcement and compliance beyond the project lifecycle,” Phengboupha said, explaining how FARM funding is being used to improve the agricultural future of the country.

The $4.2 million initiative through the FARM project is led by the UNDP and the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry.

The FARM project is establishing a pilot on agrochemical container and plastic waste management in Viengphoukha District, Luang Namtha Province.

Smallholder farmers have responded to the pesticide management training and promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides. Credit: Marco J Haenssgen/Unsplash

Integrated Pest Management

According to the ministry, the pilot is designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of a structured approach for the collection, interim storage, and environmentally sound management of empty pesticide containers.

“It also aims to strengthen institutional coordination among relevant government agencies, local authorities, and private sector stakeholders, while enhancing farmer awareness and compliance with recommended practices, including triple rinsing, segregation, and safe return mechanisms,” he said.

The project has supported awareness-raising and capacity building among local authorities, extension workers, and farmers on the risks associated with obsolete and banned pesticides, as well as on safe handling, repackaging, and temporary storage practices. In selected locations, pilot measures have been introduced to improve containment, labelling, and secure storage to minimise environmental and health risks.

Phengboupha says smallholder farmers in Lao PDR have generally responded positively to Integrated Pest Management (IPM) training and the promotion of alternatives to chemical pesticides supported by the FARM project. He added “training interventions have contributed to improved understanding of pest ecology, safer pesticide use practices, and the benefits of adopting non-chemical and low-toxicity control methods, including biological control, cultural practices, and mechanical measures.”

However, adoption rates vary depending on access to extension services, market pressures, availability of alternative inputs, and perceived short-term effectiveness of chemical pesticides.

“Constraints remain, including limited access to certified biopesticides, weak input supply chains for IPM alternatives, and continued reliance on agrochemical vendors for technical advice in some areas,” he added.

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

In the low tide, an i-Taukei fisherwoman gathers cockles along the Nasese sea wall in Fiji, a tradition weathered by time and tide. The assessment Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region looks at women’s contributions across fisheries and aquaculture systems, from harvesting to trade. Credit: Josh Kuilamu/SPC

By Sera Sefeti
SUVA, Fiji, May 4 2026 (IPS)

For generations, Pacific people have understood the ocean not as a resource but as identity, sustenance, and survival. Today, that relationship is being tested in ways science is only just beginning to fully capture.

For the first time in the region’s history, every Pacific Island country now has a clear, data-driven picture of what climate change will mean for its waters and its own Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ).

This shift marks more than just a scientific milestone. It is a turning point in how the Pacific can understand, manage, and defend its ocean in a rapidly changing climate.

From Regional Averages to National realities

The updated assessment, “Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region”, builds on a 14-year-old vulnerability study. But unlike its predecessor, this version moves beyond broad regional trends.

It goes deeper into country-specific realities.

In a region where ocean territories dwarf landmass, this matters. The Pacific controls around 27 million square kilometres of ocean, yet only about 2 percent of that is land. Fisheries are not just an industry – they are the backbone of economies, cultures, and food systems.

“This is quite amazing,” says SPC Climate Change Project Development Specialist Marie Lecomte, referring to the ability to assess climate impacts at the EEZ level. “The ocean is so big, and land masses are so tiny… it has always been very difficult to downscale ocean models to something meaningful for countries.”

Now, that gap is beginning to close.

Rising ocean temperatures and changing chemistry are reshaping marine ecosystems, impacting people’s livelihoods and national economies. Credit: Douglas Picacha/IPS

Why This Science Matters Now

For Pacific leaders, the climate crisis is not abstract. It is negotiated in global forums, defended in policy rooms, and lived daily in coastal communities.

Yet one persistent challenge has been the lack of evidence.

This report begins to change that.

It provides:

• Updated scientific data on ocean conditions
• Country-level projections of fisheries decline
• A clearer understanding of how climate change cascades from ocean systems into economies and livelihoods

In doing so, it transforms science into something actionable:

• A diagnostic tool showing what lies ahead
• A planning guide for adaptation
• A negotiation tool for global advocacy

For a region often described as the moral voice of climate negotiations, this evidence adds weight to that voice.

The Pacific controls around 27 million square kilometres of ocean, yet only about 2 percent of that is land. Now each country in the region will have a data-driven picture of the effects of climate change in its waters. Credit: Francisco Blaha/SPC

What the Science Reveals

The findings are sobering.

Rising ocean temperatures and changing chemistry are already reshaping marine ecosystems. The report maps, with unprecedented clarity, a chain reaction: warming waters alter fish biology, leading to fish stocks’ decline, which will ultimately result in the impact on people’s livelihoods and national economies.

At the centre of this crisis are coastal ecosystems, i.e. coral reefs, mangroves, and seagrass beds, the ecological foundations of Pacific fisheries.

These systems are under intense pressure from both climate change and human activity.

“For mangroves, they are also constrained by infrastructure development,” Lecomte explains. “If you build a new hotel, then you get rid of the mangrove.”

For scientists, the assessment Climate Change Implications for Fisheries and Aquaculture in the Pacific Island Region offers the most comprehensive dataset for policymakers and communities. Credit: John Nihahuasi/SPC

Across the Pacific, the risks are not evenly distributed.

Low-lying island nations, already facing sea-level rise and extreme weather, are doubly exposed. Their dependence on fisheries for food and income leaves little buffer against decline.

The consequences are stark:

• Reduced food security
• Declining incomes
• Increased vulnerability of coastal communities

Yet even in this “doom and gloom” narrative, the report resists fatalism. Instead, it offers a framework for adaptation and resilience.

However, in the Pacific, the situation is not starting from zero.

For centuries, communities have managed fisheries through customary practices like tabu areas, seasonal closures, and community governance.

The report reinforces these approaches while introducing new strategies:

• Climate-smart aquaculture
• Diversifying target species
• Improving value chains (earning more from less catch)
• Protecting and restoring coastal/blue ecosystems

It also highlights a critical but often overlooked dimension, which is women’s contributions across fisheries and aquaculture systems, from harvesting to trade work that remain under-recognised despite their central role.

Science, Power, and the Politics of Survival

Perhaps the most powerful implication of the report lies beyond science — in politics.

Despite being one of the most climate-impacted sectors, fisheries are largely absent from global climate negotiations.

This is where the findings become more than a report. It becomes leverage.

With pre-COP discussions and COP31 on the horizon, Pacific countries now have something they have long needed.

“If Pacific delegations can come to pre-COP saying we have the latest science… and we all agree on how we want to act with the regional climate change strategy for coastal fisheries being pre-endorsed,” Lecomte says, “it’s a unique chance to showcase fisheries as part of the ocean–climate nexus.”

Beyond the Data: A Call to Act

This report does not just document change but also demands a response.

It bridges worlds:

• Between science and storytelling
• Between policy and lived experience
• Between global negotiations and village shorelines

For scientists, it offers the most comprehensive dataset yet when it comes to the Pacific and its EEZ; for policymakers, it is a roadmap; for communities, it is a validation of what they already know.

That the ocean is changing and so must we.

But in that change lies something powerful. For the first time, the Pacific is not just speaking from experience. It is speaking with scientific evidence.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Displaced mothers and children at a malnutrition treatment center in Chuil, Jonglei State, South Sudan. Credit: WFP/Gabriela Vivacqua

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, May 1 2026 (IPS)

In 2026, the humanitarian situation in South Sudan has taken a considerable turn for the worse, with widespread food shortages, ongoing disruptions to food production systems, and rising rates of malnutrition affecting over half of the population. Compounded by the vast scale of needs and an overwhelming lack of access to basic services, humanitarian experts warn that nationwide levels of hunger are projected to worsen to catastrophic levels if urgent intervention is not secured.

On April 28, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), and the World Food Programme (WFP) published a joint statement underscoring the escalation of the hunger crisis in South Sudan, noting that approximately 56 percent of the population, or roughly 7.8 million people, are projected to face acute food insecurity by July. They stress that the main drivers of food insecurity are climate shocks, flooding, mass displacement, and protracted armed conflict, all of which hinder effective agricultural yields and reduce food availability for hundreds of thousands of families.

“Hunger in South Sudan is intensifying, not stabilizing,” said Ross Smith, WFP Director of Emergencies and Preparedness. “Between April and July of this year, more than half of the population is projected to face crisis levels of hunger or worse, including people already in catastrophic conditions, where starvation and a collapse of livelihoods are a daily reality. This is among the highest proportions of any country’s population facing crisis levels of hunger today.”

The latest figures from the Integrated Food Security Classification Phase (IPC) show that over 280,000 additional civilians have been pushed into acute food insecurity since late 2025, including 73,000 civilians who are facing catastrophic (IPC Phase 5) levels of hunger. This marks a 160 percent increase from last year’s figures. An additional 2.5 million people face emergency (IPC Phase 4) levels of hunger, and 5.3 million have been reported to rely on unsustainable coping mechanisms to survive.

Children have been hit particularly hard, with UNICEF reporting that approximately 2.2 million children between the ages of six months and five years suffer from acute malnutrition, marking an increase of over 100,000 cases compared to last year. Over 700,000 children are projected to face the highest levels of hunger by July. Roughly 1.2 million pregnant and breastfeeding women are acutely malnourished, which has significantly dangerous, long-term implications for both mothers and children.

“Every day of delayed humanitarian access and supply delivery is a day a child’s life and future hangs in the balance,” said Lucia Elmi, UNICEF Director of Emergencies. “We are calling on all parties to grant timely, safe access to conflict-affected, including areas of displacement, and scale up nutrition interventions. We must act now if we are to save children’s lives.”

Widespread displacement continues to hinder South Sudan’s road to recovery, with rampant insecurity, overcrowding, and a shortage of critical supplies in displacement shelters complicating humanitarian relief efforts. The UN agencies note that nearly 300,000 people have been displaced this year in the Jonglei state alone, with many communities entirely cut off from humanitarian assistance. Numerous families report being unable to access food services due to rising prices, disrupted markets, and economic decline, which has significantly reduced household purchasing power.

Additionally, displaced communities face elevated risks of contracting infectious diseases due to persistent overcrowding and unsanitary conditions. The agencies have recorded a sharp rise in cholera, malaria, and measles infections, particularly among “vulnerable and already acutely malnourished children”. Furthermore, treatment for malnutrition has been severely compromised over the past several months, with a substantial portion of the nation’s healthcare and nutritional support facilities having been damaged or closed entirely due to conflict. Life-saving medical interventions are largely unavailable due to continued shortages of medical supplies.

In April, IPC conducted a detailed Risk of Famine Analysis, assessing hunger conditions across seven counties to determine which regions were at a high risk of developing famine. The analysis identified four counties that are projected to contract famine in the coming months, a significant increase from just one county identified last year. The Upper Nile and Jonglei regions are particularly vulnerable, as the renewed escalation of armed hostilities has driven further displacement and reduced humanitarian reach to the most at-risk communities.

Risks are especially pronounced in Akobo, where IPC projects the return of over 100,000 South Sudanese civilians currently displaced in Gambela and Ethiopia. This large-scale return could further exacerbate hunger conditions, as humanitarian and healthcare personnel face severe shortages of supplies, funding, and staffing in assisting already strained communities.

IPC also warns that hunger conditions could escalate to catastrophic levels (IPC Phase 5) in the coming months across multiple areas, including Doma and Yomding in Ulang County; Pulturuk, Waat, and Thol Lankien in Nyirol County; and Kuerenge Ke and Mading in southern Nasir County. All of these regions remain largely inaccessible due to ongoing conflict, which has limited humanitarian reach.

In response, the UN has called for an end to the isolation of these communities in relief efforts, stressing the urgent need for closer monitoring and a strengthened humanitarian response.

“Now, more than ever, we cannot afford to lose the hard-won gains made in recent years, especially as South Sudan works to strengthen its agrifood systems and build on encouraging signs of local agricultural production,” said Rein Paulsen, FAO Director, Office of Emergencies and Resilience. “These gains remain highly vulnerable to conflict, insecurity, and climate shocks—the very forces driving today’s food crisis. We must act urgently and collectively to protect livelihoods, sustain food production, and prevent millions more people from falling deeper into hunger.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Coastal villages throughout the Solomon Islands rely on selling fish for household incomes. Selling fish in Auki, Malaita Province, Solomon Islands. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Australia, Apr 29 2026 (IPS)

It is an invisible contaminant that has been found in fisheries, an essential part of the food chain for many Pacific Islanders. Mercury, emitted from fossil fuel power generation and other industrial processes around the world, has now penetrated marine ecosystems in the Pacific Islands with detrimental consequences for people’s health and wellbeing.

But island states, supported by scientific expertise at the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Program (SPREP), the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) and funding by the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the world’s largest multilateral fund  for the environment, are implementing the action needed. The Mercury Free Pacific campaign is forging progress to protect islanders and their natural habitats from poisoning.

“Our communities face mercury risks from two main sources: what we eat, fish, and what we use in our homes and workplaces,” Emelipelesa Sam Panapa, Chemical Management Officer at the Department of Environment in the Polynesian atoll island nation of Tuvalu, told IPS. “Fish is the most widespread and challenging risk. It is not just food; it is central to our culture, livelihood and food security.”

The Mercury Free Pacific Campaign has brought together Pacific Island nations and the expertise of the SPREP and UNEP and been made possible with funding by the GEF. Credit: GEF

Mercury is a natural element in the Earth that has been released into the atmosphere for millennia through volcanic events and rock erosion. But human-generated, mostly industrial, processes have accelerated the build-up of mercury emissions. Metal processing facilities, cement works, the production of vinyl monomer and coal-fired power stations are the biggest contributors to the high levels of mercury in the atmosphere today.

From 2010 to 2015 alone, global anthropogenic mercury emissions rose by 20 percent, reports the UNEP. Coal-burning processes account for about 21 percent of all emissions. And this is projected to increase if a further 1,600 planned coal-driven power stations, on top of the existing 3,700 worldwide, are built. Already mercury in the atmosphere is about 450 percent above natural levels, reports UNEP.

After travelling long distances, mercury emissions then deposit in oceans. And toxicity begins when natural bacteria in aquatic environments mix with mercury, transforming it into Methylmercury, which is a neurotoxin. In the Pacific region, Methylmercury has contaminated beaches, coral reefs and fisheries, including swordfish, shark, tuna and mackerel, that are commonly consumed daily. Seafood is an important source of protein for up to 90 percent of Pacific Islanders and contributes to cash-based livelihoods for about 50 percent, reports the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).

Today mercury is named one of the top ten chemicals of concern to public health by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the danger is especially acute in women and children. It can, in higher doses, inflict damage on cardiovascular organs, kidneys and the nervous systems of pregnant women and subsequently affect organ development of the foetus.

A fisherman on the coast of Funafuti, Tuvalu, throwing a weighted net out into the seawater, a traditional form of fishing. Credit: Rodney Dekker / Climate Visuals

The results of a medical study conducted by the Biodiversity Research Institute (BRI) confirmed health concerns.  Testing for traces of mercury in 757 women, aged 18-44 years, in the developing island states of the Caribbean, Indian and Pacific Oceans, including the Cook Islands, Tuvalu, Kiribati, Tonga and Marshall Islands, revealed that 58 percent possessed a level in their bodies that exceeded the safe threshold of 1ppm Hg. Researchers concluded the most likely cause was the high consumption of contaminated fish. In comparison, women who consumed lower amounts of fish and seafood recorded the lowest levels of mercury.

However, islanders also encounter toxicity in their households. Mercury is used in the production of common imported consumer products, such as fluorescent light tubes, electrical switches, dental amalgam fillings and skin lightening cosmetics. But it is when these products reach the end of their lives and are discarded that mercury is at risk of lingering indefinitely in the environment.

“The core of the problem is that mercury-added products are not being separated from municipal solid waste, and there are no local facilities for the environmentally sound disposal of mercury waste,” Soseala Tinilau, SPREP’s Hazardous Waste Management Advisor, told IPS. Also, “medical waste incineration sites are identified as potential sources of mercury emissions to the air.” And in some locations, raw sewerage flows have contributed mercury waste due to affected products being washed down drains into waterways and the sea.

A challenge is that waste management systems in many Pacific Island countries are constrained by lack of capacity, technology, resources and infrastructure. “There are no local facilities for the environmentally sound disposal of mercury waste. Therefore, a system for packing, exporting and disposing of this waste in an approved facility abroad is a critical need,” Tinilau specified.

Fisheries, susceptible to mercury contamination, are a major source of food and protein for Pacific Islanders. Fish market, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

Several years ago, numerous Pacific Island states, including Kiribati, Palau, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu, joined the Minamata Convention. The first global agreement to reform the ways in which mercury is used, phase it out in industries and develop better waste management practices, among other measures, came into effect in 2017.

Now governments in the region are drawing further on the power of multilateral collaboration in the Mercury Free Pacific initiative. The expansive mandate of the GEF-funded project includes conducting national surveys of mercury contamination, educating local communities about the risks, reviewing exposure to mercury-added consumer products, reforming waste management practices and assisting governments to develop relevant legislation.

The GEF is funding US$12.6 billion in environmental projects currently underway globally, which are expected to generate a further US$80.5 billion in co-financing. And it has a long view of its commitment to the Mercury Free Pacific project through its GEF Islands program, with goals outlined until at least 2030.

Anil Bruce Sookdeo, the GEF’s coordinator for Chemicals and Waste, elaborated that in the Pacific the GEF has provided US$1.5 million for gathering mapping data, its analysis and developing action and remedial plans in eleven Pacific Island nations, including the Federated States of Micronesia, Samoa, Kiribati, Tuvalu and Vanuatu.

A further US$2 million is allocated to supporting national responses, such as devising effective legislation, community awareness programs and improving waste management processes. The campaign “represents a long-term regional objective, rather than a time-based project and requires sustained commitment and coordinated action by Pacific countries, regional institutions and partners,” he emphasised.

GEF funding has empowered Tuvalu, a country comprising nine coral islands and 11,800 people in the South Pacific, to make strides in its whole-of-society response to the issue.  The government has been able to strengthen its capacity and expertise, organise media awareness campaigns and oversee consultation with industries, communities and civil society organisations.

“For the first time, we have a national estimate of where mercury is coming from…we are beginning to understand the risks to our people and we have a roadmap for future action,” Panapa said in outlining the benefits of the Mercury Free Pacific initiative. At the same time, “these efforts represent the beginning of a longer journey to build community understanding and change behaviours related to mercury-added products, waste disposal and dietary choices.”

But a mitigation goal at the top of the list is to prevent mercury from reaching the islands. “Making marine life safe from mercury contamination is not about eliminating mercury already present in the ocean, but about preventing further contamination and managing the risk of exposure,” Tinilau said.

This means, among other measures, restricting the importation of mercury-added consumer products and galvanising global action to halt mercury emissions. Global consensus on phasing out coal-fired power stations and reforming industrial processes would be a start.

Pacific Island countries are demonstrating the political will and action with “regional coherence, national ownership and sustained momentum toward reducing mercury risks to human health, the environment and food systems in the Pacific,” emphasised Sookdeo from the GEF. Now, big emitters need to heed the urgency of reducing emissions at their source.

Notes: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Seychelles’ pioneering blue bond offers a compelling lesson in practical ocean finance. Credit: Michaela Rimakova/Unsplash

By James Alix Michel
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Apr 29 2026 (IPS)

As the world prepares for the Global Environment Facility (GEF) meeting in Samarkand next month, Seychelles’ pioneering blue bond offers a compelling lesson in practical ocean finance.

For small island states, the ocean is not merely a natural resource; it is the foundation of national life, economic opportunity, and long-term resilience against climate threats.

As President of Seychelles, I introduced the blue economy as a national vision as early as 2008. I did so because I believed then—as I do now—that for an island nation spanning 1.4 million square kilometers of ocean, sustainable development must begin with responsible stewardship of our marine resources. Our future depended on learning how to protect biodiversity, manage fisheries sustainably, and build economic models that serve both present needs and future generations. This vision positioned Seychelles as an early advocate for integrating ocean health with national prosperity.

That vision was not developed in isolation. It was strengthened through deliberate steps and high-level conversations that bridged policy ambition with financial innovation. A key milestone came with the debt-for-nature swap, finalized with the Paris Club creditors and The Nature Conservancy in 2014. This landmark agreement restructured approximately US$21.6 million in debt, freeing resources for marine conservation and climate adaptation. It directly led to the creation of SeyCCAT, the Seychelles Conservation and Climate Adaptation Trust, which has since become a vital mechanism for channeling funds into ocean protection, sustainable fisheries, and resilience projects.

As President, I also discussed the blue bond concept directly with the then Prince of Wales, Prince Charles, during the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November 2013.

Meeting with the Prince of Wales in Sri Lanka in 2013 at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM). Credit: James Alix Michel

His International Sustainability Unit was already promoting innovative ocean finance mechanisms, and our conversation highlighted the urgent need for small island states to access capital markets tailored to blue economy priorities.

This exchange, combined with early engagement from the World Bank and Commonwealth partners, helped refine the idea into a viable sovereign instrument. It underscored a growing global recognition that traditional financing was inadequate for the unique challenges of climate-vulnerable, ocean-dependent nations.

The blue bond represented the culmination of this journey. Structured with technical support from the World Bank, a US$5 million guarantee from the multilateral lender, and a US$5 million concessional grant from the GEF, it raised US$15 million from private investors including Calvert Impact Capital, Nuveen, and Prudential Financial.

On 29 October 2018, Seychelles launched the world’s first sovereign blue bond at the Our Ocean Conference in Bali — an event I had the privilege of attending. This was not just a financial milestone for Seychelles; it was a global proof of concept for ocean-positive investment.

Launch of the Seychelles Blue Bond in Bali at the Ocean Conference in 2018. Credit: James Alix Michel

The bond’s structure was as innovative as its purpose. Proceeds were allocated to expand marine protected areas to 30% of Seychelles’ exclusive economic zone, improve fisheries governance, and develop sustainable blue economy sectors like eco-tourism and seafood value chains. Managed through SeyCCAT and the Development Bank of Seychelles, the funds supported grants and loans for projects that delivered measurable environmental and economic returns. Investors benefited from blended finance that de-risked the instrument, while Seychelles gained long-term capital for priorities that traditional aid could not address.

For small island developing states (SIDS), this model holds profound significance. Nations like Seychelles grapple with high public debt (often exceeding 60% of GDP), acute climate exposure, a heavy reliance on marine resources for 20-30% of GDP, and limited fiscal space. Conventional loans and grants are frequently too rigid, too short-term, or misaligned with ocean realities.

The blue bond demonstrated that sovereign debt instruments can be repurposed for sustainability, attracting private capital while advancing public goods like biodiversity protection and community livelihoods.

Its broader impact extends beyond the US$15 million raised. The Seychelles blue bond lent credibility to the blue economy as a bankable asset class, inspiring subsequent issuances by Gabon (2022), Ecuador (2024), and others. It proved that nature-based solutions and financial innovation are complementary, not competitive. By linking debt restructuring, conservation trusts, and market-based finance, Seychelles created a replicable blueprint that has influenced global discussions at forums like the UN Ocean Conference and G20 sustainable finance tracks.

Yet this success should not be romanticized. Innovative finance alone cannot resolve systemic inequities in the international financial architecture. Blue bonds require robust institutions, transparent governance, technical capacity, and a pipeline of investable projects—foundations that not all SIDS possess. Seychelles benefited from strong political commitment, capable partners like the World Bank and GEF, and a pre-existing conservation framework. Without these, such instruments risk becoming symbolic rather than substantive.

This is precisely why the GEF assembly in Samarkand is so timely. Oceans face escalating crises: overfishing depletes 35% of stocks, plastic pollution chokes marine life, warming waters trigger coral bleaching, and habitat loss threatens 40% of global biodiversity. Yet ocean finance remains woefully inadequate—less than 1% of climate finance targets marine ecosystems, despite the ocean’s role in absorbing 25% of CO₂ emissions and producing 50% of planetary oxygen.

Samarkand offers a platform to scale solutions like Seychelles’ model.

The GEF, as a catalytic funder, should prioritize blue finance architecture for SIDS and coastal states. This means expanding blended finance facilities, providing first-loss guarantees, offering concessional capital, and building capacity for project pipelines. It also requires policy reforms to integrate blue bonds into debt sustainability frameworks, ensuring they complement—rather than compete with—multilateral debt relief initiatives.

Seychelles took a calculated risk in 2008 by centering the blue economy in national strategy. We persisted through debt swaps, presidential diplomacy, and patient institution-building. The blue bond was the reward: a tool that converted vulnerability into opportunity.

As delegates converge on Samarkand, let Seychelles’ story serve as both inspiration and imperative. The blue economy will not thrive on declarations or pilot projects. It demands instruments that harness private capital for public purposes, turning ocean ambition into enduring action. Seychelles opened the door.

The GEF and global community must now widen it—for islands, for coasts, and for the shared blue planet we all depend on.

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

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

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By HMGS Palihakkara
COLOMBO, Sri Lanka, Apr 28 2026 (IPS)

As delegates from 191 countries, including the five permanent members of the UN Security Council, gathered Monday at UN headquarters for a month of diplomacy at the Review Conference of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the stakes could hardly be higher.

They meet in the shadow of a war of choice, waged by the United States and Israel against Iran—ostensibly to prevent nuclear proliferation. It is a war steeped in tragedy and laced with irony. The human toll and global economic costs speak for themselves.

The irony is starker.

The United States, a principal depositary of the NPT, unilaterally caused the collapse of a UN-authorised agreement it had itself initiated to verify Iran’s non-nuclear status—the JCPOA. Having done that, the US, alongside Israel—a state that rejects the NPT—now bombs a hitherto NPT-compliant Iran to achieve the same end: a non-nuclear Iran.

This oxymoronic irony lies at the heart of America’s war of choice. Waged in the name of non-proliferation, it may accelerate the very outcome it seeks to avoid. By demonstrating that even a state short of nuclear weapons can be subjected to unilateral unauthorised force, Washington risks sending a stark message: survival may depend not on restraint and diplomacy, but on possession of the bomb.

This paradox exposes a longstanding fragility in the global nuclear matrix. Built around the NPT and the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards regime, it rests on a bargain: non-nuclear states forgo weapons in exchange for security assurances, access to peaceful nuclear technology and good-faith progress towards disarmament.

This system, discriminatory but functional, endures only so long as it is seen as credible. When a treaty-compliant non-nuclear state becomes the target of military action over suspected ambitions, that credibility erodes.

At the centre of this erosion is the doctrine of nuclear deterrence. Before the conflict, Iran’s posture was widely understood as “hedging”—developing technical capacity without crossing the weapons threshold.

This allowed Tehran to retain leverage while avoiding the full costs of weaponisation. But hedging depends on a shared understanding: that ambiguity will be tolerated—or at least not punished with illegal use of force.

War shatters that assumption. The lesson is stark: nuclear latency does not deter attack; nuclear possession might. The comparison with North Korea is instructive. Its overt arsenal has largely insulated it from large-scale intervention despite decades of hostility with Washington.

For policymakers in Tehran—and elsewhere—the implication is difficult to ignore. If ambiguity invites vulnerability, clarity in the form of a deterrent may appear rational. Nuclear weapons risk being recast from political liabilities into strategic necessities.

The damage extends beyond Iran. The non-proliferation regime has long depended on the belief that compliance will not be punished. Yet recent history has already weakened that assumption. Ukraine relinquished the world’s third-largest nuclear arsenal in the 1990s in exchange for security assurances, only to face Russian invasion decades later.

Libya abandoned its programme and soon after saw regime collapse following the US initiated external intervention. These precedents have chipped away at trust.

Against this backdrop, war with Iran reinforces a troubling pattern: states without nuclear weapons appear vulnerable, while those with them appear secure. This is the opposite of what the non-proliferation regime is meant to uphold.

Officials at the IAEA have warned such dynamics could trigger a “domino effect”, with multiple countries reconsidering their options. Across the Middle East and beyond, governments are quietly reassessing their assumptions.

Military aggression also reshapes domestic politics in ways that complicate non-proliferation. External pressure strengthens hardliners while marginalising advocates of engagement. This is not unintended but predictable. Hardliners are less inclined toward compromise and more likely to view nuclear weapons as essential to survival.

The space for diplomacy narrows as nuclearisation gains appeal. War, in other words, transforms not just capabilities but preferences.

There is also a practical limit to military solutions. Airstrikes can damage or even ‘obliterate’ facilities, but they cannot erase knowledge. Scientific expertise cannot be bombed out of existence. Indeed, intervention may accelerate the very processes it seeks to halt by pushing them underground. A programme once visible to inspectors may become more secretive and harder to monitor.

The regional implications are equally concerning. The Middle East is already marked by rivalry and fragile security arrangements. An Iranian move towards nuclear weapons—especially one accelerated by conflict—would likely prompt countervailing responses.

Saudi Arabia and Turkey have both signalled they would not remain passive. The result could be a cascading arms race, turning an already volatile region into a multipolar nuclear environment.

This is a classic security dilemma: one state’s attempt to enhance its security leaves others feeling less secure, prompting reciprocal measures that leave all worse off. By seeking to eliminate a potential threat through unauthorised force, the United States may multiply such threats. Instead of one threshold state, the region could face several.

These dynamics point to a deeper flaw: the belief that military force can resolve nuclear proliferation. Nuclear ambition is not merely technical; it is a political response to insecurity. Bombing addresses symptoms, not causes.

Without addressing the security concerns that drive states towards nuclear capabilities, coercion alone cannot produce lasting results. All successful non-proliferation goals-ranging from NPT to JCPOA- were reached through calculated diplomatic negotiations, not by military means.

Past experience underscores this. Diplomatic agreements, however imperfect, have constrained nuclear programmes. The collapse of the JCPOA removed mechanisms that had limited Iran’s activities. In the absence of a credible diplomatic alternative, military action amounts to little more than a delay—buying time at the cost of increasing long-term incentives to pursue nuclear weapons.

The war also risks reinforcing the perception that international law is subordinate to power politics. If rules can be bypassed by powerful states, weaker ones are unlikely to rely on them. Instead, they may turn to capabilities that cannot easily be neutralised. Nuclear weapons become not just tools of deterrence, but symbols of sovereignty and survival.

Perhaps the most enduring impact will be psychological. States learn from precedent. From Iraq to Libya to Ukraine—and now Iran—a pattern appears: vulnerability invites intervention, while nuclear capability deters it. This conclusion may be uncomfortable, but it reflects a cold logic of international politics. Once such a perception takes hold, it is difficult to reverse.

For this reason, the war may prove a watershed moment not only for Iran but for the global non-proliferation regime. It alters perceptions of risk and security in ways that favour proliferation over restraint. Even states with no immediate intention of pursuing nuclear weapons may begin hedging against a future in which international guarantees appear unreliable.

The tragedy is that a policy intended to prevent proliferation may instead accelerate it. By undermining trust, empowering hardliners and reinforcing deterrence logic, the United States risks achieving the opposite of its stated aim. Even if military action sets back Iran’s programme in the short term, the long-term consequences may be far more damaging.

A more secretive, more determined and more widely emulated pursuit of nuclear weapons would not represent a victory for non-proliferation. It would mark its gradual unravelling—an “own goal” in geopolitical terms.

If the aim of non-proliferation is to reduce the role of nuclear weapons, this conflict points in the opposite direction. It suggests that security cannot be reliably guaranteed by treaties or norms alone, and that in an uncertain world the ultimate insurance policy remains the bomb.

That message will resonate far beyond Iran. Its consequences may shape nuclear choices for decades.

The question the Iran war poses to the world is not polemical but stark: is it a new normal that a depositary state of the NPT and a covert nuclear power not party to the treaty can preclude diplomacy and bomb their way to non-proliferation?

If the current NPT Review Conference in New York, like its predecessor conferences, fails to reach consensus on the way forward for the Treaty’s three pillars—non-proliferation, peaceful nuclear cooperation based on sovereign equality, and disarmament—it will amount to an answer in the affirmative, to that question. This may then signal the onset of the treaty’s terminal decay.

HMGS Palihakkara is a former Sri Lankan Ambassador to United Nations; one time Chair /Member of UNSG Advisory Board on Disarmament; a member of the UN Intergovernmental Panel updating the ’Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons’; Advisor to the President of the 1995 NPT Review & Extension Conference.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A worker operates a geothermal pipeline at the Laudat plant in Dominica, part of a clean energy project supported by the Global Environment Facility. The project illustrates the kind of system-wide transition GEF-9 aims to scale across small island developing states. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
SAINT LUCIA, Apr 27 2026 (IPS)

The gap between global environmental ambition and real-world progress is widening, with less than five years left to meet key climate and biodiversity targets.

Against that backdrop, attention is increasingly turning to how international environmental finance can deliver faster, deeper change on the ground.

Earlier this month, nations pledged $3.9 billion to the Global Environment Facility (GEF) for its latest funding cycle, known as GEF-9, running from July 2026 to June 2030.

The new cycle is being positioned as part of the response to lagging global environmental action. The GEF will aim for an important upscaling of conservation efforts across terrestrial and marine environments and, importantly, will also aim to influence and transform how economies produce, consume and develop.

What GEF-9 Is Trying to Change

The Global Environment Facility is the world’s largest multilateral environmental fund, supporting developing countries to meet commitments under multilateral environmental agreements on climate change, biodiversity, land degradation, chemicals and ocean governance.

That comprises six global environmental agreements, including the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Convention on Biological Diversity.

But officials say GEF-9 reflects a shift in thinking, adding that incremental environmental action is no longer enough to keep pace with accelerating ecological decline.

“The global community has set very ambitious goals for 2030 and, regrettably, we are nowhere close to achieving them,” said Fred Boltz, Head of Programming at the GEF. “As a consequence, the shared environmental challenge we now face is to manage a changing Earth system to sustain a healthy planet for healthy people.”

In this context of change and uncertainty, existing approaches have reached their limits.

“Upscaling conventional solutions is not sufficient to address our planetary-scale, existential challenge,” Boltz said.

From Projects to Systems Transformation

At the core of GEF-9 is a deliberate shift toward what the organisation describes as “systems transformation”, consistent with the GEF Integrated Programs (IPs) which are an important complement to funding traditional environmental projects that are necessary but not sufficient to address planetary challenges.  Systems transformation through the GEF IPs aims to change underlying incentives, institutions and pathways that currently drive climate change, ecosystem and biodiversity loss, land degradation, and pollution.

Rather than treating environmental damage as a series of isolated problems, the GEF IPs are built around the idea that economies themselves must be reshaped to operate within ecological limits. That includes the major systems that determine environmental outcomes at scale: food systems and agriculture, urban development, production supply chains, and land, water and ocean use.

The approach reflects what GEF describes in its strategic framework as a response to “accelerating global environmental crises” and the need for a more integrated response that aligns multilateral environmental agreements and development efforts.

“In addition to conserving the most important areas, restoring degraded ecosystems and preserving the adaptive capacity of our Earth, we must urgently focus on transforming human production and consumption practices,” said Boltz, pointing to the scale of change required to meet global environmental targets.

Under GEF-9, this shift is being operationalised through four linked pathways.

The first is expanding and diversifying environmental finance, including through blended finance models that combine public funding with private investment to close persistent financing gaps.

The second is embedding nature more directly into national development planning, ensuring environmental priorities are not treated as stand-alone goals but integrated into economic decision-making, fiscal policy and sector planning.

The third focuses on what the GEF calls “valuing nature in the economy”, including internalising the value of nature in economic designs and decisions, mobilising private capital, and aligning investment flows with environmental agreements through tools such as natural capital accounting and nature-positive value chains.

The fourth is broader “whole-of-society” engagement, which places Indigenous peoples, local communities, civil society, youth and women more centrally in the design and implementation of environmental programmes. The GEF considers that, as stewards of the Earth, all of them must take part in its conservation while also benefiting from the wealth of nature.

Taken together, these approaches reflect what the GEF describes as a shift toward nature-positive development. This is where economic growth and environmental protection are no longer treated as competing priorities but as interdependent goals.

Rather than funding isolated conservation projects, GEF-9 is therefore designed to operate across entire landscapes and seascapes, recognising that ecosystems, economies and communities are deeply interconnected and must be managed as such.

A Shift in How Environmental Finance Works

A key change under GEF-9 is how environmental action will be financed.

The fund is expanding its use of blended finance by combining public funding with private investment to unlock significantly larger flows of capital.

While earlier cycles used this approach in limited ways, GEF-9 is expected to scale it up as part of a broader strategy to close persistent environmental financing gaps.

Boltz said the focus is now on upscaling and transformative change rather than incremental gains.

“We are really focusing on transforming human production and consumption practices and operating at a scale in the conservation of ecosystems that enables planetary adaptation to a changing climate and to unrelenting human demand for ecosystem goods and services,” he said.

New financial instruments, including outcome-based bonds and nature-linked investment mechanisms, are also expected to play a greater role in attracting long-term private capital.

What It Looks Like on the Ground

In practice, the shift is already visible in energy transitions in small island states.

In Dominica, geothermal energy development supported through GEF-linked financing is expected to replace around 65% of fossil fuel-based electricity generation.

The impact goes beyond emissions reductions.

For island economies dependent on imported fuel, such transitions can reduce energy costs, ease fiscal pressure and improve resilience to global price shocks.

“This systems transformation benefits the environment in Dominica and benefits the global community by reducing greenhouse gas emissions while also ensuring lasting human benefits for the people of this island nation, in turn increasing the likelihood of success and sustainability for those investments,” Boltz said.

GEF-9 approach. Graphic: IPS

Integration Replaces Silos

Another defining feature of GEF-9 is integration across sectors and across the GEF “family of funds” – a shift away from treating the conservation of biodiversity, land and ecosystems, marine and freshwater systems, chemicals and waste management, and climate change mitigation and adaptation as separate sectors with distinct investments and isolated efforts.

Instead, projects are increasingly being designed to address these challenges together, reflecting the reality that environmental systems do not operate in isolation.

The approach is driven by both efficiency and impact. Combining interventions is expected to deliver multiple benefits at once, while avoiding fragmented efforts that can undermine long-term results.

Under this model, a single intervention can generate overlapping gains across different environmental priorities. Mangrove restoration, for example, can strengthen coastal protection against storms, support biodiversity habitats and store carbon. Sustainable agriculture initiatives can improve food security while also reducing pressure on soils, forests and freshwater systems.

The approach is also linked to broader GEF-9 priorities around scaling impact across landscapes and seascapes, rather than limiting action to protected areas or project boundaries. That includes managing ecosystems as connected systems, where upstream land use, coastal resilience and marine health are interdependent.

Boltz said this shift reflects how environmental pressures are actually experienced by countries on the ground.

“Countries face a spectrum of environmental challenges that do not neatly fall into different categories and the GEF must operate and support the achievement of lasting environmental outcomes in this reality,” he said.

Focus On Vulnerable Countries and Communities

The new cycle also places stronger emphasis on countries and communities most exposed to environmental risks, reflecting greater equity in how global environmental finance is distributed.

Small island developing states and least developed countries are expected to receive a larger share of resources under GEF-9, alongside increased support for Indigenous peoples and local communities who are often on the frontlines of conservation but historically underfunded.

Boltz said this shift is now embedded in the fund’s programming priorities, including a formal commitment to expand Indigenous-led environmental action.

“We have committed to an aspirational target of 20% of GEF financing to support Indigenous peoples’ efforts in environmental stewardship across the GEF family of funds. We have also significantly expanded a dedicated financing instrument to support Indigenous peoples’ stewardship. That has increased fourfold. It was 25 million in GEF-8. It’ll be 100 million in GEF-9.”

He added that the increase reflects growing recognition that environmental outcomes are stronger when local and Indigenous communities are directly resourced and involved in decision-making, particularly in areas such as forest management, land, water and ocean stewardship and biodiversity protection.

What Success Will Look Like

By 2030, success under GEF-9 will not be measured only by financial commitments or project delivery.

Instead, it will be judged by whether structural changes begin to take hold, whether energy systems become cleaner, ecosystems more resilient and economies less damaging to nature.

Boltz said the benchmark is long-term transformation.

“Success looks like maintaining the core elements of what is necessary for a vibrant and resilient planet,” he said, pointing to shifts in the conservation of large marine, terrestrial and freshwater systems and transformations in food systems, supply chains, and urban development.

Why It Matters Now

With global environmental targets under increasing pressure, GEF-9 represents a test of whether international finance can move at the speed and scale required to influence real-world systems.

The initial $3.9 billion commitment pledged by GEF donors in April secures the financial foundation for the next cycle, but it also raises expectations about delivery.

For countries already experiencing the impacts of climate change, particularly small island states, the question is no longer about ambition.

It is about whether systems can be reshaped quickly enough before environmental thresholds are crossed.

Note: The Eighth Global Environment Facility Assembly will be held from May 30 to June 6, 2026, in Samarkand, Uzbekistan.
This feature is published with the support of the GEF. IPS is solely responsible for the editorial content, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of the GEF.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau

Excerpt:

Injured civilians, having escaped the raging inferno, gathered on a pavement west of Miyuki-bashi in Hiroshima, Japan, at about 11 a.m. on 6 August 1945. Credit: UN Photo/Yoshito Matsushige

By Alon Ben-Meir
NEW YORK, Apr 21 2026 (IPS)

It is hard to exaggerate the dire implications of Trump’s April 7 post on Truth Social, stating that a civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again,” if no deal is reached with Iran. Such a damning statement implies that he would use ‘weapons of mass destruction,’ i.e., nuclear, to execute his threat.

Obviously, he cannot destroy such a huge country and annihilate a population of 95 million with conventional weapons. Even though Trump was unlikely to carry out his threat, what he said was not taken lightly by either Iran or much of the international community.

International Outrage Over Trump’s Threat

Trump’s outrageous statement has drawn an extraordinary wave of condemnation, from Tehran to the Vatican to international rights bodies.

Amnesty International’s Secretary General denounced Trump’s screed as an “apocalyptic threat,” warning that his vow to end “a whole civilization” exposes “a staggering level of cruelty and disregard for human life” and should trigger urgent global action to prevent atrocity crimes.

Pope Leo XIV called the language “truly unacceptable,” and UK Prime Minister Starmer condemned Trump’s threat, stating that “they are not words I would use — ever use — because I come at this with our British values and principles.”

Together, these reactions, among many others, underscore that Trump’s rhetoric is not being treated as mere bombast, but a genocidal threat that shreds basic norms of international law.

Iranian Officials’ Reaction to Trump’s Statements

The Iranian Embassy in Pakistan mocked the idea that Trump could erase a culture that survived Alexander and the Mongols, insisting that civilizations “are not born over a night and will not die over a night.”

Trump’s vows to “bring [Iranians] back to the Stone Ages” and to let “a whole civilization…die” have, indeed, landed in Tehran not as an outburst. Iranian leaders are treating this language as an open admission of an intent to commit war crimes—and they are already treating it as a narrative of existential struggle with Washington.

In the hands of the Revolutionary Guard, the “Stone Age” threat becomes a propaganda gift: it is proof, they claim, that the United States does not merely oppose the regime, but dreams of erasing an entire people.

The IRGC’s response has been defiant rather than cowed, promising “stronger, wider, and more destructive” retaliation and signaling that any American escalation will be met in kind.

To be sure, many Iranian leaders see Trump’s posts as desperate brinkmanship—a schoolyard bully bluffing nuclear annihilation he cannot deliver. That interpretation may calm nerves around the country, but it might also tempt Tehran to call his bluff, raising the risk of miscalculation.

Under any circumstance, Trump has provided Iran’s rulers the opportunity to claim that any concession wrung from Washington under such apocalyptic pressure is not capitulation. Still, Iran’s millennium-old history attests that these proud people with the richest civilization will not succumb to any threat.

The Iranian Public’s Reaction

Trump’s promise to “hit Iran extremely hard” also operates as psychological warfare against an already exhausted society. They place the threat of physical destruction on top of years of sanctions, economic meltdown, and repression.

For many Iranians, especially parents and the elderly, hearing a US president casually warn that “a whole civilization will die tonight” converts abstract geopolitics into an intimate dread they can imagine and quantify: hospitals without power, children without food and water, people starving to death, and cities lying in ruins.

This deepens their anxiety, concerns, and a sense that they are being collectively punished for decisions made by a mad authoritarian whose genocidal tone hardens a defensive nationalism. Even the Iranians who despise the regime still view the threat as an assault on a 3,000-year-old culture. They would rally around the flag, as they see their own lives as expendable in a struggle where the alternative, as Trump himself spells out, is civilizational extinction.

On the Iranian street and in the diaspora, one hears echoes of Trump’s rhetoric triggering a volatile mix of fear, fury, and contempt that the regime can readily weaponize. For some Iranians, talk of a “civilization” dying reopens the psychic wounds of crippling sanctions and war, making American threats feel dreadfully real, not figurative.

For others, it’s an insufferable insult to an ancient culture that predates the United States by millennia, reinforcing national pride and engendering support even among critics of the clerics.

Trump’s Fitness to Command American Power

These Iranian reactions rebound into US politics because a president whose threats are interpreted abroad as genocidal, unhinged, or clearly insane is not projecting resolve but publicizing volatility and strategic incoherence.

This inevitably undermines deterrence and hands Iran both a recruitment tool and a pretext for escalation if they must.

On the home front, the perception of a man on the loose feeds directly into already fierce debates over Trump’s mental fitness to command American power—arming critics who argue that his apocalyptic language is not just morally repugnant but operationally unthinkable.

This led even some Republicans and national security conservatives to ask whether a commander in chief who casually talks of destroying a “civilization” and whose finger is on the nuclear button can be trusted with the judgment, discipline, and national security on which the US ultimately depends.

When a president of the United States threatens that a whole civilization will die, the world must listen—not because the threat is necessarily credible, but because it exposes the peril of letting unrestrained rhetoric shape global realities.

Trump’s words are not the tantrum of a man out of power; they echo a worldview that wields extinction as diplomacy and gambles civilization itself for theatrical dominance and projection of raw power.

Trump’s declaration that millions might perish is not merely the ravings of an unbalanced mind—it is a chilling testament to how easily words can imperil peace when uttered by one who commands the world’s most formidable military.

His invocation of civilizational death transcends political recklessness; it reveals a moral collapse that renders him ominously unfit to wield influence over American power and global order.

There seems to be no level of disgrace that Trump will not embrace. One day, he threatens to wipe out a whole civilization and exterminate 95 million Iranians; the next, he portrays himself in an AI-generated image as Jesus Christ-like savior healing the sick—a blasphemy that only Trump can commit, debasing the exalted and sublime values of Christianity only to feed his sick soul.

What was once dismissed as bluster must now be recognized for what it is—a warning that when dangerous mendacity meets bottomless ego, humanity itself becomes collateral. The world cannot allow a madman’s narrative to become the language of statecraft.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

North Korea’s ballistic missile. Credit: Wikipedia

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Apr 21 2026 (IPS)

The ongoing military conflicts in the Middle East—involving the US, Israel, Palestine, Iran and Lebanon—have indirectly bolstered North Korea’s plans to expand its nuclear arsenal.

North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is quoted as saying the American attacks on Iran justified his decision to strengthen his military power and would eventually make his country safe in a world shaped by President Trump’s foreign policy.

The headline in a New York Times article last week read: “North Korea Tests New Weapons, Drawing Lessons from War in the Middle East”.

Among the weapons tested were missiles carrying cluster munition and graphite bomb payloads, much like weapons that have appeared in the Middle East, the Times said.

The testing signals that North Korea is trying to learn from the Middle East war.

Responding to President Trump’s interest in meeting with him, the North Korean leader has said he would agree to a meeting, only if the US formally recognizes his country as a nuclear power—and argued that leaders of Iraq and Libya would have survived US attacks if they possessed a nuclear deterrent.

“I don’t see any reason not to get along well with the United States if it withdraws its hostile policy towards us and respects our current (nuclear) status”, he said in a speech last February.

Trump met with the North Korean leader three times during his first term in office (2017–2021), including summits in Singapore (June 2018) and Hanoi (February 2019), followed by a brief meeting at the DMZ (June 2019), where Trump became the first sitting U.S. president to enter North Korea.

Meanwhile, the Washington-based Stimson Center points out that despite stringent international economic sanctions imposed primarily through the UN Security Council, North Korea’s progress in nuclear and missile development as well as in its nuclear doctrine has been remarkable, particularly since negotiations with the Trump administration stalled in 2018-19.

North Korea’s position that denuclearization is non-negotiable was again emphasized at their most recent Party Congress held in February 2026.

Dr M.V. Ramana, Professor and Simons Chair in Disarmament, Global and Human Security, Director pro tem, School of Public Policy and Global Affairs at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, told Inter Press Service the attacks by the United States and Israel on Iran are unprovoked and further add to the incentive for countries to acquire nuclear weapons.

“There is no way to be sure that such acquisition would shield such countries under all circumstances, especially when military powers like the United States act with such belligerence”.

But rather than go down that direction, he pointed out, “our efforts should be focused on ensuring that countries do not resort to military violence and attacking other countries, and differences are settled through peaceful and diplomatic means.

While the current leaderships in many countries might not be inclined to act in such ways, it is up to civil society and social movements to help steer governments in a more peaceful direction, declared Dr Ramana.

North Korea has made “very serious” progress in its ability to produce more nuclear weapons, the head of the UN’s nuclear watchdog has said, in another sign that the regime is seeking to use its nuclear arsenal to ensure its survival, according to the London Guardian.

North Korea is thought to have assembled about 50 nuclear warheads, although some experts are skeptical of its claims that it is able to miniaturize them so they can be attached to long-range ballistic missiles.

Speaking during a visit to Seoul, Rafael Grossi, the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), confirmed reports of a rapid rise in activity at North Korea’s main nuclear complex, Yongbyon.

Grossi said work had intensified at Yongbyon’s 5MW reactor, reprocessing unit, light water reactor and other facilities, and the country was believed to possess several dozen nuclear warheads.

In an interview with IPS, Alice Slater, who serves on the Boards of World Beyond War and the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space and is also a UN NGO Representative for the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation, told IPS “once again, North Korea is being singled out as a rogue state for complaining that its plans to strengthen its military capacity is justified given the US destruction of Iraq and Libya which never made any effort to go nuclear as North Korea did.”

It was widely unreported, she said, that North Korea was the only nuclear country to support a vote in 2016 at the UN First Committee that authorized negotiations to go forward on a treaty to ban nuclear weapons which resulted in the 2017 adoption of the Treaty for the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Every single nuclear state as well as the states sheltering under the US nuclear umbrella, she pointed out, boycotted the meeting (except the Netherlands which was ordered to attend the UN meeting by a vote of its Parliament).

Which ones were the real rogue states? she asked.

While the news, dominated by what has been described by Ray McGovern founder of Veterans Intelligence Professions for Sanity as part of the MICIMATT (the Military Industrial Congressional Intelligence Media Academic Think Tank complex), is now trumpeting the new nuclear dangers and the frightening prospects of potential proliferation of nuclear weapons to additional nations, no attention is being paid to the opportunities to put a halt to the burgeoning nuclear arms race and the US race to weaponize space, characterized most recently by US plans for a “Golden Dome” estimated to cost 1.5 billion over the next years.

“There is a clear connection,” said Slater, “between maintaining space for peace and the willingness of Russia and China to negotiate for nuclear disarmament, going back to the time when Gorbachev proposed to Reagan that the US and Russia eliminate their nuclear arsenals provided the US gave up its plans to dominate and control space in its Vision 2020 document.”

While Reagan liked the idea of nuclear abolition, he refused to give up his Star Wars plans. Russia and China tabled a draft treaty in the consensus-bound UN Committee in Geneva in 2014 and 2018 which the US blocked, refusing to allow any discussion.

This past May 2025, on the 80th Anniversary of WWII, they issued a stunning proposal calling for global cooperation, supporting the “central coordinating role of the UN” and asking for a number of steps that could increase “strategic stability”

In particular, they criticized the US Golden Dome program, urging the need for the early launch of negotiations to conclude a legally binding multilateral instrument based on their draft treaty on the prevention of weapons and the use of force in outer space. They even pledged to promote an international commitment “not to be the first to deploy weapons in outer space”.

“Were the peace and arms control movements in the world to take up this extraordinary call and opportunity to reverse the disastrous course we appear to be plummeting towards—and demand that our governments enter negotiations on a treaty to guarantee that we will maintain a weapons and war free environment in space, there is little doubt that a new path will also be opened to finally ban the bomb”.

Time to give peace a chance, declared Slater.

Meanwhile, States Parties to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) will be meeting at the United Nations for the 2026 NPT Review Conference April 27-May 22.

The Review Conference comes at a time of increased nuclear threats arising from armed conflicts involving nuclear armed States, in particular the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the US/Israel invasion of Iran.

“This will make the deliberations and negotiations in New York very difficult, but also extremely important”, according to Parliamentarians for Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament (PNND).

The PNND says it will be actively involved in the Review Conference – in conjunction with activities in parliaments around the world – to support the NPT by advancing nuclear risk-reduction, nuclear arms control, common security and the global elimination of nuclear weapons.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A sea turtle is released from the hatchery in Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh to begin its hazardous journey to the sea. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

By Rafiqul Islam
COX'S BAZAR, Bangladesh, Apr 20 2026 (IPS)

Every winter thousands of sea turtles come ashore at Cox’s Bazar, in the Bay of Bengal, Bangladesh, to lay eggs.

Their path to their breeding grounds is hazardous – fishing nets, propellers, light pollution, coastal developments, stray dogs and other dangers conspire against their success.

The area is rich in biodiversity, with five out of seven ancient reptiles present in Bangladesh’s waters, with three – the Olive Ridley (Lepidochelys olivacea), the Green Turtle (Chelonia mydas), and the Hawksbill (Eretmochelys imbricata) – coming ashore for nesting.

Stefan Liller, UNDP Bangladesh representative, gently releases the young turtles from the hatchery. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

Amid such unfavourable odds for the aquatic creatures, a group of young people volunteer to protect the turtles on the beach at Cox’s Bazar during the breeding season from November to March, contributing to their successful conservation.

“In the past, we did not know how sea turtles help conserve marine ecosystems. Now we know sea turtles play an important role in conserving biodiversity,” Rezaul Karim, a resident of Shafir Beel village in Cox’s Bazar, told Inter Press Service (IPS).

Karim is one of the youths trained for sea turtle conservation under a project run by the Arannayk Foundation, a non-profit conservation organisation in Bangladesh. The foundation established a sea turtle conservation group involving 25 local youths (11 women, 14 men) under its Ecosystem Awareness and Restoration Through Harmony (EARTH) project. EARTH is supported by the Forest Department, the Department of Environment (DoE), and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) with funding from the Global Environment Facility (GEF).

A youth group performs a play designed to sensitise the community to conservation issues. Credit: Arannayk Foundation

The group is working to raise awareness about sea turtle conservation among fishermen, youth, and the local community. They are also aiming to encourage a shift in local attitudes by engaging community members.

Group leader Delwar Hossain, a resident of Sonarpara village under Ukhyia upazila, said sea turtles play a crucial role in maintaining marine ecosystems, as different species of sea turtles help sweep or clean the ocean by managing various food sources and habitats.

He said there is a superstition among the marine fishermen that if turtles are caught in their fishing gear, it will bring bad luck and that is why they kill turtles caught in their nets.

“We held meetings with the fishermen several times and made them aware of sea turtle conservation,” Delwar said.

Turtle conservation group leader Delwar Hossain with others on Cox’s Bazar Beach, Bangladesh. Credit: Rafiqul Islam/IPS

Gabriella Richardson Temm, Lead of the Small Grants Program at the GEF, says civil society, Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and youth and women groups around the world “play critical roles in shaping global development agendas. They deliver transformational solutions to global environmental problems, bring rights holders and marginalised voices into national policy dialogues, and elevate local priorities in international environmental negotiations and financing.”

The small grants program has served as a cornerstone of civil society engagement within the GEF partnership since its inception in 1992.

“Over three decades, the program has demonstrated remarkable reach and impact, administering over US$1.5 billion through nearly 30,000 grants to Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, and youth across 136 countries. This extensive network has successfully secured US$990 million in co-financing, demonstrating the program’s effectiveness in mobilising additional resources for environmental action at the grassroots level,” says Temm.

Grassroots community protection has been acknowledged as contributing to the success of moving one of the sea turtles – the green turtle – to the International Union for Cons

ervation of Nature’s (IUCN) ‘Least Concern’ list. Other factors include international trade bans, reduced poaching, and improved fishing gear.

However, the species predominantly nesting in the Cox’s Bazar beaches, the Olive Ridley is classified as ‘Vulnerable’ on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, while the Hawksbill Turtle remains ‘Critically Endangered’ due to population declines.

Many sea turtles don’t survive the hazardous journey to the nesting grounds at Cox’s Bazar Beach, Bangladesh. Credit: Bangladesh Forest Department

Establishment of Turtle Hatchery

In Cox’s Bazar, with the help of the foundation, the youth group surveyed a 10 km stretch from Reju Khal to Balia Khali beach to identify sea turtle nesting sites. It also gathered insights from local communities on sea turtle breeding seasons, nesting frequency, preferred locations, and community perceptions regarding conservation.

Following the assessment, a sea turtle hatchery was established in Boro Inani, Cox’s Bazar. The hatchery is now playing a crucial conservation role, as these statistics show.

Between January and April 2024, 5,878 Olive Ridley eggs were collected from various nests at Swankhali, Ruppati, Imamer Deil, and Madarbunia sea beaches, resulting in 3,586 hatchlings hatching, with an average hatching success of 61 percent.

Also, from February to April 2025, a total of 3,199 eggs were collected, and by May 2025, 716 hatchlings had been released.

Stefan Liller, UNDP Bangladesh representative in the turtle hatchery. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

Delwar said that stray dogs often eat the turtle eggs so the hatchery makes a significant contribution.

“We collect eggs that turtles release on the shore and bring those to the hatchery for hatching. Besides, we ask the community people to give turtle eggs to the hatchery. We, the group members, collect the turtle eggs from them too.”

Nurul Afsar, another TCG member, said many ethnic communities living in Cox’s Bazar consume turtles and their eggs – so the group plays a role in encouraging them not to consume but instead protect them.

ABM Sarowar Alam, program manager (species and habitats) at the IUCN in Bangladesh, said Cox’s Bazar Beach was once the ideal breeding ground for sea turtles, but it has dwindled due to habitat loss, poaching, and human disturbance.

He believes that several areas of the beach should be declared as “protected areas for sea turtles” to ensure safe breeding and that fishing should be restricted in the canals connecting to the sea so that turtles can move freely for nesting.

The group also addresses other hazards, such as the issue of stray dogs that kill the turtles and consume the eggs.

Firoz Al Amin, range officer of Inani Forest Range in Ukhiya, said the Forest Department has been working to control the stray dogs on the beach, aiming to protect the turtles.

A sea turtle moves toward the sea. Local conservationists are making a difference to the future of these ancient aquatic animals. Credit: UNDP Bangladesh

EARTH Project, More Than Turtle Conservation

Dr Mohammed Muzammel Hoque, national coordinator of the GEF Small Grants Program at UNDP Bangladesh, said the EARTH project’s role went beyond turtle conservation in the region.

It has elephant-response teams to mitigate conflicts between elephants and humans. The Five Crab Conservation Groups (CCG), comprising 25 youth members, and five sea Turtle Conservation Groups (TCG), also consisting of 25 youth members, remain active. The project was also working towards restoring habitats, with over 7,780 seedlings planted with support from the EARTH Project, with around 80% surviving.

However, Hoque said that the success is dependent on funding – and it’s hoped that once a Forest Trail becomes operational, it can generate revenue from tourists.

Abu Hena Mostafa Kamal, program coordinator of the Arannayk Foundation, said the project, by integrating livelihoods with conservation, “helped grow a sense of ownership among community members and youth, ensuring that environmental protection is not just a project outcome but a sustained, collective commitment.”

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PPIN is designed to dismantle these barriers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins of the GEF Funding Model

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The GEF Trust Fund

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

The Trust Fund finances activities across several environmental areas.

These include

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Global Biodiversity Framework Fund

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

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

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

Actions that are supported include the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund

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

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

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

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

The fund supports countries by helping them:

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

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

Least Developed Countries Fund

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

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

Typical projects include the following:

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

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

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

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

Special Climate Change Fund

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

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

It supports projects that:

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

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

Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency Trust Fund

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

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

This fund helps by supporting:

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

Strong reporting systems are important because they:

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

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

How the “family of funds” works together

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

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

These funds are coordinated so they can:

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

For example:

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

This ‘family’ structure improves:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Future of GEF Financing

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

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

Its funding model mobilises additional resources from

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rewiring Economies Around Nature

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

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

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

Focus on the Most Vulnerable

The allocation of funds carries a clear political signal.

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

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

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

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

Calls to Deliver Results

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

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

Still, expectations are high and time is short.

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

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

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

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

It is a narrowing window of opportunity.

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

By Katsuhiro Asagiri
TOKYO, Japan, Apr 7 2026 (IPS)

As tensions surrounding Iran deepen and uncertainty spreads across global energy markets, Japan is once again confronting a structural weakness: its heavy dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

For decades, Japan has relied on crude imports from a region repeatedly shaken by war, confrontation and instability. With the stability of the Strait of Hormuz and surrounding waters once again under threat, Tokyo is accelerating efforts to diversify both supply sources and transport routes. In that process, Kazakhstan has emerged as an increasingly important partner.

Yet the strengthening relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan is not limited to oil, uranium or logistics. It also has a deeper historical and ethical dimension. Both countries carry the memory of nuclear suffering and have sought to transform that memory into a foundation for dialogue, cooperation and advocacy for peace.

Central Asia plus Japan Dialogue” (CA+JAD) Credit: Primi Minister’s Office of Japan

That framework has since taken on even greater urgency.

One important element is the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route, the so-called Middle Corridor. Connecting Central Asia and Europe without passing through Russia, this route has drawn attention as a new transport channel for energy and strategic goods. In an era shaped by war, sanctions, shipping disruptions and intensifying rivalry among major powers, such corridors have become increasingly important for Japan.

Kazakhstan stands at the center of this calculation.

Middle Corridor. Credit: TITR

Japanese energy interests are already present in the Caspian region. INPEX, a Japanese company, holds stakes in major oil projects including Kazakhstan’s Kashagan field and Azerbaijan’s ACG field. Crude from these fields could serve as an alternative supply source to Middle Eastern oil for Japan. In addition, routes through the Caspian and Mediterranean can avoid the Strait of Hormuz, although that means longer transport times and higher shipping costs.

Karipbek Kuyukov(2nd from left) and Dmitriy Vesselov(2nd from right). Credit: Katsuhiro Asagiri

Even so, energy alone cannot fully explain the distinctiveness of Japan-Kazakhstan ties.

What gives this relationship unusual depth is their shared historical experience of nuclear suffering. Kazakhstan endured the grave consequences of 456 nuclear tests conducted at the Semipalatinsk test site during the Soviet era. Japan remains the only country ever attacked with atomic bombs in wartime, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki continue to stand as enduring symbols of the catastrophic human cost of nuclear weapons.

The two histories are different. But the ethical language that emerged from them has much in common.

The remains of the Prefectural Industry Promotion Building, after the dropping of the atomic bomb, in Hiroshima, Japan. This site was later preserved as a monument. Credit: UN Photo/DB

What matters here is the “dialogue” dimension of Kazakhstan’s diplomacy.

A Group photo of participants of the regional conference on the humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons and nuclear-free-zone in Central Asia held on August 29, 2023. Credit: Jibek Joly TV Channel

Through the Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions, held in Astana since 2003, Kazakhstan has sought to position itself not merely as a supplier of resources or a transit country, but as a hub for dialogue across political, religious and civilizational divides. This initiative has become part of the country’s diplomatic identity, grounded in denuclearization, mediation and coexistence.

For Japan, this adds another layer to Kazakhstan’s significance. Kazakhstan is not only a country with oil, uranium and transport routes. It is also a state that has sought to transform its own history of suffering into diplomacy centered on peace, trust and human security.

7th Congress of Leaders of World and Traditional Religions Group Photo by Secretariate of the 7th Congress

This approach resonates with the realities of today’s world, where multiple crises overlap.

Credit: akorda.kz

In this context, the relationship between Japan and Kazakhstan carries a broader lesson.

Cooperation between states does not have to be shaped only by economic and strategic interests. It can also incorporate shared memory, moral purpose and a commitment to dialogue. In practical terms, that means cooperation on energy and transport. Politically, it means contributing to a more stable and diversified regional order. Humanitarianly, it means sustaining the argument that security must not be separated from its human consequences.

Of course, this relationship is not free from limits or contradictions. Alternative routes are costly. State behavior is still heavily shaped by strategic calculation. Dialogue alone cannot neutralize the pressures of war.

Even so, in an international environment marked by fragmentation, coercion and renewed nuclear anxiety, the growing closeness between Japan and Kazakhstan means more than a tactical adjustment. It is also an attempt to connect realism with responsibility.

That is why this relationship deserves attention.

At a time when many countries are retreating into narrower and more inward-looking definitions of national interest, Japan and Kazakhstan are seeking to build a partnership that links resource security and diplomacy, memory and strategy, and national resilience with the search for peace.

Credit: UN photo

This article is brought to you by INPS Japan in collaboration with Soka Gakkai International in consultative status with UN ECOSOC.

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt: