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:

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:

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

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
  

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:

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:

Dr Anasaini Cama of the Fred Hollows Foundation conducts tropical disease training in the Solomon Islands. Credit: Shea Flynn/RTI International

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Australia, Feb 25 2026 (IPS)

Two Pacific Island nations have been applauded for their successes in the global health campaign to eliminate the infectious eye disease, Trachoma.

Better disease data, effective treatment campaigns and improved access to water and hygiene contributed to the major progress now being celebrated as 27 nations worldwide are declared Trachoma-free by the World Health Organization (WHO). But, above all, experts say that the key to the permanent riddance of diseases is a genuine buy-in to the eradication programmes by entire communities.

“Trachoma elimination efforts are most effective when communities understand the disease, trust the interventions and are actively involved in prevention activities,” Dr Anasaini Cama, Pacific Trachoma Technical Lead at The Fred Hollows Foundation, a global non-government organisation working to eradicate preventable blindness, told IPS.

Finally eliminating Trachoma in countries such as Papua New Guinea is a major achievement when more than 80 percent of people live in rural and remote communities, where the risk of infection is especially high.

“This milestone reflects the power of public health at its best…It is a reminder that equity, visibility and prevention must be at the heart of our health system,” Elias Kapavore, Minister for Health in PNG, the most populous Pacific Island nation of more than 10 million people, told the media last year.

The infectious eye disease is one of 21 Neglected Tropical Diseases that, under Sustainable Development Goal 3.3, are being targeted for global eradication by 2030. And reports reveal that strides are being made. Between 2002 and 2025, a period of little more than two decades, the global population at risk of Trachoma fell from 1.5 billion to 97.1 million people, WHO reported in January.

Children in rural communities in southwest Pacific Island countries, including Papua New Guinea, were highly vulnerable to eye infections, such as Trachoma. Now the country has been applauded for its campaign to eliminate the disease. Credit: Catherine Wilson/IPS

“Trachoma, once a leading cause of blindness in Fiji, was widespread in the 1950s, with prevalence exceeding 20 percent among children in some areas. Today, following sustained national action, the prevalence of active Trachoma has fallen to below 1 percent,” Fiji’s Health Minister, Dr Ratu Antonio Lalabalavu, told local media.

Trachoma is the leading cause of blindness around the world and is found primarily in tropical climate zones and rural communities affected by poverty and lack of basic services. It is caused by a micro-organism, Chlamydia trachomatis, known to be carried by flies, with children and those living in overcrowded conditions the most vulnerable. In advanced cases of the disease, there is chronic scarring of the underside of the eyelid, which can then turn inward, resulting in the eyelashes inflicting permanent damage to the eye’s cornea.

Trachoma was first identified in PNG and Fiji when health surveys were conducted in the 1950s. Studies also revealed that it was endemic in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu. More recently, in 2015, extensive studies were carried out in the provinces of Central, Madang, Morobe, East New Britain, Southern Highlands and Western in PNG as part of the Global Trachoma Mapping Project. The prevalence of trachomatous inflammation-follicular (TF) in children aged 1-9 years was found to be between 6 percent and 12.2 percent, exceeding the WHO threshold of 5 percent.

The disease can be debilitating and make it increasingly difficult for a child to attend and participate in school classes and, thus, hinder their development and increase their exposure to poverty and malnutrition.

Changing the conditions and habits through which the disease thrives is, therefore, crucial. And this is a vital part of WHO’s recommended approach, called the SAFE strategy. That is, surgery for patients with an advanced stage of the disease, including blindness, prescribing antibiotics to diminish infection, encouraging facial cleanliness, and environmental improvements.

Today, the development charity Mercy Works is working to boost better health in very remote villages in Kiunga in Western Province, close to the far western border of PNG, by ensuring supplies of clean water. Here, “safe water remains a daily challenge,” Andrew Lowry, Head of Mercy Works’ Programs, told IPS. “Frequent flooding contaminates water sources and damages infrastructure. Many communities have no road access, so materials and tradespeople travel by plane or boat, and often on foot. Schools and health centres often operate without a reliable water supply, making basic hygiene practices difficult to sustain.”

Mercy Works installs rainwater collection and storage systems in schools, health centres, and villages in both the Western Province and the Simbu Province in the Highlands region.

Nearly 4,000 kilometres southeast of PNG in Fiji, Cama has witnessed the impacts of eye diseases and interventions that have been effective. In the north of the country, she visited villages that were kept clean and neat and it was difficult to see if there was overcrowding in the households. “Generally, extended families living together is considered normal. What we did notice, and similarly in nearby villages, was the water issues, where water was not always available and water trucks would cart water to the village,” Cama told IPS.

In the community, “children were active and did not appear unwell in any way,” she recounted. “It was only when health care workers flipped the child’s eyelids that the inner surface of the eyelid would have follicles that were typical for Trachoma.” Once a child was diagnosed, Tetracycline eye ointment was prescribed to be applied twice a day for six weeks, together with recommended regular face washing.

This year, WHO announced that, for the first time since world records began, the number of people requiring healthcare intervention for Trachoma has fallen below 100 million. Yet the future cannot be one of complacency. Rising climate extremes across the Pacific Islands could reverse this achievement.

“Climate change can impact Trachoma programmes and cause re-emergence of Trachoma, meaning long-term vigilance is required,” Cama emphasised. “Flooding and warmer temperatures can damage sanitation systems that lead to a reduction in environmental hygiene, causing an increase in the presence of flies in the community, which can increase the spread of Trachoma. Through drought and low rainfall, accessibility to water is decreased, making regular face washing and hygiene more challenging.”

Boosting the number of trained health professionals is also critical in countries where national health services battle against limited resources, medical supplies and manpower. “One of the biggest challenges in the Pacific is the shortage of trained eye care specialists,” Cama said.

This is the case in both Fiji and PNG, where “only 8 of 22 provinces actually have an eye doctor”. To overcome this deficit, the Fred Hollows Foundation established the Pacific Eye Institute, the region’s first ophthalmic training institute, in Suva, Fiji. “Our goal is to have at least one eye doctor and a team of eye nurses in every province [in PNG],” she said.

The dividends of extinguishing diseases, such as Trachoma, are profound for people and communities. And aspirations of national development can be realised when health services contend with a diminished burden of illness, more children can finish their education and more people of working age can contribute to their communities and the economy.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

IPS UN Bureau, IPS UN Bureau Report,

New report finds that current international financial flows remain billions of dollars short of what is required to protect and conserve at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030. Photo: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Dec 10 2025 (IPS)

A new study and interactive dashboard released today in Nairobi at the seventh session of the United Nations Environment Assembly (UNEA) finds that current international financial flows remain billions of dollars short of what is required to achieve the global biodiversity target of protecting and conserving at least 30 percent of the world’s land and ocean by 2030 (30×30).

A global commitment known as ’30×30′  was formalized under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF). In brief, the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework is an ambitious pathway to reach the global vision of a world living in harmony with nature by 2050 through four goals to be reached by 2050, and 23 targets to be reached by 2030.

Target 3 is often referred to as 30×30. This new report is the first comprehensive overview of the international finance flows since world leaders adopted the GBF in December 2022 with damning results. Michael Owen, study author, Indufor North America LLC, said that to date, “there has been limited public analysis of international funding flows for protected and conserved areas.”

Michael Owen (left), study author, Indufor North America LLC, said that to date, there has been limited public analysis of international funding flows for protected and conserved areas. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

He stressed that transparency is uneven among donors and that the data needed to understand 30×30 funding are fragmented across various sources, often lacking the resolution required to track real progress.

“Our goal for the 30×30 Funding Dashboard is to centralize these data, enable users to view funding at the project level, and provide a clear view of top-line trends in the accompanying report. We hope this analysis encourages more donors to strengthen transparency and accountability as we move toward the deadline for target 3,” he said.

The new assessment by Indufor, funded by Campaign for Nature, The Pew Charitable Trusts, and Rainforest Foundation Norway, finds that, though international funding designed to help developing countries fund nature protection has risen by 150 percent over the past decade, reaching just over USD 1 billion in 2024, it also concludes developed nations are USD 4 billion short of meeting funding targets intended to make 30×30 possible.

Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, said the analysis shows more funding is needed.

“Despite some recent progress, funding is projected to fall billions short of what is needed to meet the 30×30 target. There is a clear need to ramp up marine conservation finance, especially to Small Island Developing States, which receive only a small fraction of the funding dedicated to other regions,” he said.

He emphasized that meeting the 30×30 target is essential to prevent extinctions, achieve climate goals, and ensure the services that nature provides endure, including storm protection and clean air and water. Meanwhile, funding needs are such that, for nations to protect at least 30 percent of the planet’s land and ocean by 2030, expanding and managing protected areas alone likely requires USD 103 billion to 178 billion per year globally, far above the USD 24 billion currently spent.

Anders Haug Larsen, advocacy director at Rainforest Foundation Norway, called for increased international support, saying, “We are currently far off track, both in mobilizing resources and protecting nature.”

“We now have a short window of opportunity, where governments, donors, and actors on the ground, including Indigenous Peoples and local communities, need to work together to enhance finance and actions for rights-based nature protection.”   

During the launch, delegates at UNEA, the world’s highest-level decision-making body on the environment with universal membership of all 193 UN Members States, heard that since 2014, international funding for protected and conserved areas in developing countries has risen by 150 percent, growing from around USD 396 million to over USD 1.1 billion in 2024.

Furthermore, funding totals have grown particularly quickly since the signing of the GBF as the average annual totals increased 61 percent from 2022 through 2024 compared to the previous three-year period.

However, despite recent growth, funding for international protected and conserved areas remains significantly below the financial requirements outlined in GBF target 19. Target 19 is about increasing financial resources for biodiversity and seeks to mobilize USD 200 billion per year from all sources, including USD 30 billion through international finance.

The world’s unprotected, most biodiverse areas are located in countries with constrained public budgets and competing development needs, making these funds essential, as international finance will be pivotal to delivering 30×30 fairly and effectively.

The funds will pay for activities such as establishing new protected areas, providing capacity to rangers who protect existing protected and conserved areas, and supporting Indigenous groups and local communities who live on or near protected areas.

In this regard, existing global costing studies suggest that protected areas will require an estimated 20 percent of total biodiversity financing by 2030. Roughly USD 4 billion per year is needed by 2025 and USD 6 billion per year is needed by 2030, for Target 3 alone, in line with Target 19a.

Against this backdrop, the report finds that to realize the 2030 GBF vision from today’s base, “international protected and conserved areas funding would need to grow at about 33 percent per year—more than three times the 11 percent annual growth observed from 2020 to 2024.”

Between 2022 and 2024, average annual funding increased by 70 percent compared to the previous four-year period, while the philanthropic sector raised funding by 89 percent; however, if the current trajectory continues, international funding specifically for protected and conserved areas will fall short of the implied 2030 need by approximately USD 4 billion.

Only five bilateral donors and multilateral mechanisms, including Germany, The World Bank, the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the European Union, and the United States, have provided 54 percent of all tracked protected and conserved areas disbursements for 30×30 since 2022. The downside is that this small donor pool makes funding vulnerable to political shifts and changing priorities among key actors.

Lower-income countries receive funding, but international flows severely underfund small island developing states and other oceanic regions. Overall, international protected and conserved areas’ funding has grown fastest in Africa, which by 2024 will receive nearly half, or 48 percent, of all tracked flows.

Meanwhile, small island developing states overall receive just USD 48 million or just 4.5 percent per year, in international 30×30 funding, despite being explicitly prioritized in the GBF under target 19a. Overall, the majority of international funding, 82 percent, is going towards strengthening existing protected areas and relatively little is going to the expansion of protected areas.

Marine ecosystems received just 14 percent of international funding despite representing 71 percent of the planet. In all, much of the funding goes to conventional protected areas—versus those, for example, under the stewardship of Indigenous Peoples or other local communities.

Overall, the report aims to demonstrate the urgency for deeper commitments from all stakeholders—governments, philanthropies, multilateral institutions, and the private sector—to dramatically scale up investments before 2030 to protect people, their biodiversity, and economies.

The new dashboard helps translate financial commitments into the strategic actions needed to reach the regions and activities where they’re most needed to achieve progress toward the 30×30 target.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

By Deodat Maharaj
GEBZE, Türkiye, Nov 14 2025 (IPS)

Artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly changing our world. It has helped a few companies in developed countries set record-breaking profits. Last month, Nvidia, a leading US AI company, hit a market value of USD 5 trillion.

Nvidia, together with the other six technology companies known as the Magnificent Seven, reached a market capitalisation of USD22 trillion. This value easily eclipses the combined GDP of the world’s 44 Least Developed Countries (LDCs), Small Island Developing States and Landlocked Developing Countries.

These businesses continue to make massive investments in this transformational technology. Not only are investments being made in AI for the future, but benefits are also already being reaped as it accelerates global commerce and rapidly transforms markets.

According to the World Economic Forum, AI is streamlining supply chains, optimising production, and enabling data-driven trade decisions, giving companies a big competitive edge in global markets.

Thus far, the beneficiaries have been those living in the developed world, and a few developing countries with high technological capacities, like India.

By and large, developing countries have lagged far behind this technological revolution. The world’s 44 LDCs and the Small Island Developing States are those that have been almost completely left out.

According to UNCTAD, LDCs risk being excluded from the economic benefits or the AI revolution. Many LDCs and Small Island Developing States struggle with limited access to digital tools, relying on traditional methods for trade documentation, market analysis, and logistics. This is happening as others race ahead.

This widening gap threatens to marginalize these countries in international trade and underscores the urgency of ensuring they can participate fully in the AI-driven global economy.

AI holds transformative potential for developing countries across sectors critical to economic growth and trade. The World Bank has noted that in agriculture, AI-driven tools can improve crop yields, forecast market demand, and enhance supply chain efficiency. It can also strengthen food security and export earnings. In trade and logistics, AI can optimize operations, reduce transaction costs, and help local producers access new markets.

Beyond commercial applications, AI can bolster disaster preparedness, enabling governments and businesses to allocate resources efficiently and minimize losses. The use of AI can be a game changer in responding to massive natural disasters such as the one caused by Hurricane Melissa in Jamaica a few days ago.

Despite these opportunities, the poorest and most vulnerable countries face significant hurdles in accessing and benefiting from AI. The International Telecommunications Union has noted that many countries lack reliable electricity, broadband connectivity, and computing resources, impeding the deployment of AI technologies. This is compounded by human capacity constraints and limited fiscal space to make the requisite investments.

Given this, what is the best way forward for the world’s poorest and most vulnerable countries? Firstly, policy and governance frameworks for leveraging AI for development transformation are urgently, and we can learn from others.

For example, Rwanda, a leader in the field of using technology to drive transformation has developed a National Artificial Intelligence Policy. Another example is Trinidad and Tobago, which recently established a Ministry of Public Administration and Artificial Intelligence.

Secondly, capacity building, especially for policy leaders, is key. This must be augmented by making the requisite investments in universities and centers of excellence. Given the importance of low-cost and high-impact solutions, building partnerships with institutions in the global south is absolutely vital.

Finally, financing remains key. However, given the downward trends in overseas development assistance, accessing finance, especially grant and concessional resources from other sources will be important. Consequently, international financial institutions, especially the regional development banks, have a critical role to play.

Since the countries themselves are shareholders, every effort should be made to establish special purpose windows of grants and concessional financing to help accelerate adoption of relevant, low-cost, relevant and high-impact AI technological solutions.

In an adverse financing environment, achieving the above will be difficult. This is where Tech Diplomacy comes in and must be a central element of a country’s approach to foreign policy. This will be the subject of another piece.

In summary, AI is shaping and changing the world now. For the poorest and most vulnerable countries, all is not lost. With strategic investments, forward-looking and inclusive policies, and international cooperation via Tech Diplomacy, AI can become a powerful tool for their sustainable growth and development.

Deodat Maharaj, a national of Trinidad and Tobago, is presently the Managing Director of the United Nations Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries. He can be contacted at: deodat.maharaj@un.org

IPS UN Bureau

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Oxfam and CARE Climate Justice Centre argue that wealthy nations are profiteering through climate finance loans. Credit: CARE Climate Justice Center

By Oxfam and CARE Climate Justice Center
THE HAGUE, Netherlands , Oct 8 2025 (IPS)

New research by Oxfam and the CARE Climate Justice Centre finds developing countries are now paying more back to wealthy nations for climate finance loans than they receive—for every USD 5 they receive, they are paying USD 7 back, and 65 percent of funding is delivered in the form of loans.

This form of crisis profiteering by rich countries is worsening debt burdens and hindering climate action. Compounding this failure, deep cuts to foreign aid threaten to slash climate finance further, betraying the world’s poorest communities, who are facing the brunt of escalating climate disasters.

Some key findings of the report:

• • Rich countries claim to have mobilized USD 116 billion in climate finance in 2022, but the true value is only around USD 28–35 billion, less than a third of the pledged amount.
  • Nearly two-thirds of climate finance was made as loans, often at standard rates of interest without concessions. As a result, climate finance is adding more each year to developing countries’ debt, which now stands at USD 3.3 trillion. Countries like France, Japan, and Italy are among the worst culprits.
  • Least Developed Countries got only 19.5 percent and Small Island Developing States 2.9 percent of total public climate finance over 2021-2022 and half of that was in the form of loans they have to repay.
  • Developed nations are profiting from these loans, with repayments outstripping disbursements. In 2022, developing countries received USD 62 billion in climate loans. We estimate these loans to lead to repayments of up to USD 88 billion, resulting in a 42 percent ‘profit’ for creditors.
  • Only 3 percent of finance is specifically aimed at enhancing gender equality, despite the climate crisis disproportionately impacting women and girls.

“Rich countries are treating the climate crisis as a business opportunity, not a moral obligation,” said Oxfam’s Climate Policy Lead, Nafkote Dabi. “They are lending money to the very people they have historically harmed, trapping vulnerable nations in a cycle of debt. This is a form of crisis profiteering.”

This failure is occurring as rich countries are conducting the most vicious foreign aid cuts since the 1960s. Data by the OECD shows a 9 percent drop in 2024, with 2025 projections signaling a further 9–17% cut.

As the impacts of fossil fuel-fueled climate disasters intensify—displacing millions of people in the Horn of Africa, battering 13 million more in the Philippines, and flooding 600,000 people in Brazil in 2024 alone—communities in low-income countries are left with fewer resources to adapt to the rapidly changing climate.

“Rich countries are failing on climate finance and they have nothing like a plan to live up to their commitments to increase support. In fact, many wealthy countries are gutting aid, leaving the poorest to pay the price, sometimes with their lives,” said John Norbo, Senior Climate Advisor at CARE Denmark. “COP30 must deliver justice, not another round of empty promises.”

Adaptation funding is also critically underfunded, receiving only 33 percent of climate finance, as investors favor mitigation projects with more immediate financial returns.

Ahead of COP30, Oxfam and CARE are calling on rich countries to:

Live up to climate finance commitments: Provide the full USD 600 billion for 2020–2025 and clearly outline how they plan to scale up to the agreed USD 300 billion annually, and lead on the USD 1.3 trillion Baku to Belém roadmap.

• • Stop crisis profiteering: Drastically increase the share of grants and highly concessional finance to prevent further indebting the world’s most climate-vulnerable communities.
  • Multiply adaptation finance: Commit to at least triple adaptation finance by 2030, using the COP26 goal to double adaptation financing by 2025 as a baseline.
  • Provide finance for loss and damage: The global Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage must be adequately capitalized. Victims of climate change must not continue to be ignored.
  • Mobilize new sources of finance: Raise funds by taxing the super-rich, which in OECD countries alone can raise 1.2 trillion a year, and the excess profit of fossil fuel companies globally, which could raise 400 billion per year annually.

You can read the full report here.

The CARE Climate Justice Center (CJC) leads and coordinates the integration of climate justice and resilience across CARE International’s development and humanitarian work. The CJC is an initiative powered by CARE Denmark, CARE France, CARE Germany, CARE Netherlands, and CARE International UK.

Results of a global survey by Oxfam International and Greenpeace show 8 out of 10 people support paying for public services and climate action through taxing the super-rich.

The research was conducted by first-party data company Dynata in May-June 2025, in Brazil, Canada, France, Germany, Kenya, Italy, India, Mexico, the Philippines, South Africa, Spain, the UK and the US.

The survey had approximately 1 200 respondents per country, with a margin of error of +-2.83%. Together, these countries represent close to half the world’s population.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

It is time to shine a spotlight on small island nations in different parts of the world, argues James Alix Michel, former President Republic of Seychelles.

By James Alix Michel
VICTORIA, Sep 24 2025 (IPS)

Like so many problems besetting the world, the existential threats facing small island states are all too obvious. Island nations are surrounded by the sea, and they depend on it for their livelihood and for their security. The sheer power of the sea can never be tamed but islanders have learnt to work with it and in doing so, there has always been a productive balance. But this balance, however, has been cast aside – the relationship has broken down. Our mighty ocean is in poor shape.

The Ocean has been wilfully exploited by the world, in the name of ‘progress’. And it is now hitting back. We are all too familiar with related issues of rising sea levels, overfishing, the polluting effects of shipping, seabed mining, acidification and the destruction of marine ecosystems. And the list goes on. The question now is what can be done about it. Or is it too late?

The world’s superpowers are more preoccupied in their own competition for primacy, middle-ranking powers scrambling to catch up with those above them and small island states, who are not blameless, with all too many examples of harmful development.

James Alix Michel

Sadly, we are running out of options. Various international institutions responsible for driving solutions have become overly bureaucratic and subject to partisan interests, which in turn slows down progress in conservation and sustainability efforts. The United Nations—once everyone’s hope in averting international crisis—is in many ways failing to deliver. There is no magic wand to be waved in that forum. But some people do care, and young people especially. If a top-down approach has not worked, can we even now do more to activate change from the bottom up? This is probably our best hope of reversing the downward trend. So how would we do it?

Firstly, at the individual and community level, focus on promoting sustainable practices that reduces pollution, reduces carbon footprints, restores habitats and increases ocean literacy. These grassroots actions will drive change from the ground-up, opening doors to influence policy.

Secondly, grow local action. There are already some wonderful initiatives around the world. And they really do make a difference – protecting marine breeding grounds, restoring coral reefs, replanting mangrove and coastal coconut plantations, creating green coastal defences. But these are not enough. Multiply the number of projects not by measly single figures but by a hundred!

Thirdly, make our political systems more responsive. Leaders are too often elected with manifestos that are quickly forgotten. Lest we forget that leaders must prioritize the ocean because it is fundamental to human health, planetary stability, and economic prosperity. Ignoring ocean health would worsen, if not trigger, severe climate impacts leading to economic instability, making its protection a matter of human survival and sustainable development.

Next, use the media effectively to shine a spotlight on small island nations in different parts of the world. Show the state of the ocean now but also show what is being done locally to stop the rot. Point out that tourists can themselves act as a force for change by supporting local economies, raising awareness for marine health, reducing their own impact and directly participating in conservation actions. When done right, marine tourism can become one of the most powerful tools for ocean conservation and restoration.

Lastly, a high-profile competition in which all small island states present their own bottom-up plans. This would be not only a matter of status and prestige but also material benefit in attracting further investment. It would soon become evident which are doing the most to save the ocean and which are not. Those in the latter category would then be encouraged to adopt some of the winning ways.

Notably, Sustainable Development Goal 14, which focuses on life below water, remains the least funded among all SDGs due to Ocean health being seen as a less immediate or tangible priority compared to other issues, despite its critical role in supporting life on Earth. Yet, high profile events such as The Monaco Ocean Protection Challenge and other high profile initiatives are continuously encouraging creative expression from the youth and attracting political and industry leaders to support innovative and powerful solutions to save the Ocean.

The fact is that it would be all too easy to throw in the towel. Things have deteriorated so much, but it is never too late to fight back. The stakes in this case are too high to dismiss. Saving the ocean should not be a mere slogan. We need to be able to see its manifestation in the sea. Act now!

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Uniformed marines hand over UN and Turkmenistan flags to UN special representative on LLCDs Rabab Fatima and Turkmenistan's Foreign Minister Rashid Meredov during a flag lowering ceremony in Awaza. Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

By Kizito Makoye
AWAZA, Turkmenistan , Sep 16 2025 (IPS)

The theater of diplomacy can be more revealing than the speeches. Under a scorching Caspian sun in Awaza, two marines lowered their flags with the precision of a ballet. The green silk of Turkmenistan, folded into a neat bundle before the UN’s blue-and-gold standard, fluttered briefly and vanished into waiting hands.

Delegates squinted in the glare. A security guard, drained after days of marathon negotiations, whispered, “We made it.” The applause that followed carried an implicit bet that geography would no longer condemn 32 landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) to economic stagnation.

“This is not the end,” Rabab Fatima, the UN’s top envoy for LLDCs, told the assembled diplomats. “It is the beginning of a new chapter for the LLDCs. LLDCs may be landlocked, but they are not opportunity-locked.”

Her words capped four days of bargaining that produced the Awaza Political Declaration and a ten-year Programme of Action—promising structural economic transformation, regional integration, resilient infrastructure, climate adaptation, and the mobilization of financing partnerships. But whether these ambitions become asphalt, fiber-optic cable, and trade corridors depends on what happens next—starting with the LLDC Ministerial meeting on September 26, on the sidelines of the 80th UN General Assembly.

“For the first time, we have a programme of action for the LLDCs, which includes a dedicated priority area on climate action and disaster resilience,” Fatima said. “As we all know, digital technology is reshaping how the world learns, trades, governs and innovates. The Awaza Programme of Action puts digital transformation at its core through investment in science, technology and affordable infrastructure for e-learning, e-governance and e-commerce.”

The geography tax

Being landlocked remains one of development’s oldest handicaps. More than 600 million people live in LLDCs. Their exports must cross at least one international border—and often several—before reaching a port. Transport costs can be twice as high as those of coastal economies, eroding profit margins and discouraging investment.

Dean Mulozi, a delegate from Zambia, put it bluntly: “It’s not just that we’re far from the sea. It’s that the world’s arteries don’t reach us easily. We are always waiting—for fuel, fiber-optic cable, containers, investment.”

The Declaration seeks to unblock those arteries: freer transit, harmonized customs, integrated transport corridors, and digital transformation—policies designed to cut border delays, lower costs, and attract investors. For countries such as Rwanda and Burundi, this is not rhetoric. Rwandan coffee growers lose profits as trucks crawl over narrow mountain roads toward Tanzania’s Dar es Salaam port. Burundian tea producers navigate customs regimes that can turn a week’s delay into financial ruin.

Ambition Versus Reality

The Awaza Programme includes a proposed Infrastructure Investment Finance Facility, with a headline USD 10 billion commitment from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. In theory, this could carve reliable corridors linking East Africa’s heartlands to the African Continental Free Trade Area. In practice, similar pledges have evaporated in the past when political will or money ran dry.

Five priorities dominate the blueprint: doubling manufacturing output and services exports; deepening trade integration; building transport links; embedding climate resilience; and mobilizing partnerships with development banks and private investors. Fatima called it “a blueprint for action, not just words,” but the distance between the two is long.

Rwanda and Burundi: Land-Linked Potential

Consider Rwanda, which has embraced digital innovation and ranks among Africa’s top reformers in business climate. Yet moving a container from Kigali to Dar es Salaam costs more than shipping it from Dar es Salaam to Shanghai. Blockchain pilots between Rwanda and Uganda have already reduced border clearance times by 80 percent, but scaling such reforms requires regional cooperation—the very essence of Awaza’s call for “land-linked” thinking.

Burundi faces even starker challenges. Political instability has disrupted transit agreements with neighbors. Poor road maintenance and limited rail options mean Burundian manufacturers pay a hidden geography tax on every exported item. A coordinated East African transport corridor—funded under Awaza’s financing facility—could halve transit times and cut spoilage for perishable goods.

Testing the Promise Divine

The first test comes on September 26, when ministers meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. They are expected to name national coordinators, align budgets, and press for LLDC concerns at COP30 and UNCTAD XVI. As Turkmenistan’s foreign minister, Rashid Meredov, warned, the network of coordinators will make or break implementation.

The Climate Conundrum

LLDCs are among the most exposed to climate shocks: droughts paralyze Sahelian farmers, cyclones sever southern Africa’s trade routes, and glacial melt threatens Central Asia’s water supplies. Rwanda and Burundi, reliant on rain-fed crops, can see a single flood wipe out a season’s earnings. Awaza’s plan for an LLDC Climate Negotiating Group aims to amplify their voice at global talks. Shared hydropower grids and renewable energy corridors, if built, could stabilize supply chains and keep factories running.

Digital Detours

Physical infrastructure is not the only hurdle. Maria Fernanda, a Bolivian tech entrepreneur, captured the digital struggle: “Sometimes it feels like the internet is slower here because it has to climb mountains like we do.” Fiber-optic networks and regional data hubs—central to the Awaza agenda—could level the digital playing field. Rwanda’s ambition to be East Africa’s data hub and Burundi’s expansion of mobile banking are previews of what “land-linked” economies could look like.

The Politics of Pipelines

Awaza was also about geopolitics. Turkmenistan used its role as host to burnish its neutrality and to tout hydrogen energy schemes, circular economy frameworks, and Caspian environmental projects. Landlocked development, it signaled, is not merely a technical problem but a diplomatic one. Transit states and inland economies must cooperate, not compete, over corridors and pipelines.

As one UN development official observed, “Land-linked flips the narrative: inland countries become bridges, not barriers. With AfCFTA, LLDCs can turn geography into a competitive edge—moving goods, services, and data faster and more affordably across Africa and beyond.”

Bringing Civil Society and Youth to the Table

One innovation at LLDC3 was the deliberate inclusion of youth and grassroots activists “not outside the halls, but right here in the meeting rooms.” This multistakeholder approach could ensure that local voices—such as Rwandan farmers’ cooperatives or Burundian women traders—shape the policies affecting them. But inclusion must be sustained beyond Awaza’s photo ops.

From Awaza to Action

The Ministerial meeting will likely spotlight three urgent tasks:

Operationalizing the Finance Facility—Without timely disbursements, promised corridors and digital highways will remain on paper.

Integrating LLDC Priorities into Global Agendas—Ensuring COP30 and UNCTAD XVI address LLDC vulnerabilities.

Ensuring Accountability and Transparency—Regular progress reports, perhaps modeled on climate COP stocktakes, could keep momentum alive.

Fatima’s closing words resonate: “Let us make the promise of ‘land-linked’ not only a phrase but a new way of life.”

A Fragile Opportunity

For Mazhar Amanbek, the Kazakh trucker whose apples rot at customs, and for Burkinabe grain shipper Mohamad Oumar, Awaza’s words must become tarmac and telecoms. For Rwandan cooperatives betting on premium coffee exports, or Burundian entrepreneurs seeking markets beyond their borders, the declaration could mean the difference between subsistence and prosperity.

The UN will be pressed to broker the deals and financing that can make LLDCs competitive. These inland nations are not short of resources or ambition—minerals, fertile soils, and human talent abound. The challenge is converting potential into prosperity.

As the blue UN flag was folded under the Caspian sky, the marines’ boots clicked on the promenade, and the heat bent the air into shimmering waves. Awaza’s delegates boarded planes carrying a slender sheaf of paper with an outsized ambition: to turn geography’s oldest curse into an engine of shared growth.

The world’s attention will now shift to New York, where LLDC ministers must prove Awaza was not a mirage. If they seize the moment, the next decade could see East African trucks rolling on new highways, fiber cables humming under deserts, and landlocked nations from Bolivia to Burundi trading on equal terms. If not, the folded flags of Awaza will join the archive of fine promises that melted under a scorching sun.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Participants at the AfDB pavilion at the Second Africa Climate Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. Credit: Farai Shawn Matiashe/IPS

By Farai Shawn Matiashe
ADDIS ABABA, Sep 16 2025 (IPS)

As increasingly frequent droughts and devastating floods are affecting agricultural productivity, leaving millions of people food insecure in Africa amid a lack of climate finance, the African Development Bank (AfDB) has committed USD 11 billion to support various climate-resilient and infrastructure projects in rural areas.

Climate change-induced humanitarian emergencies are materializing in every corner of the world. Often, more frequently than predicted. Over the past few years, many countries have been experiencing extreme weather events almost every month. Poor countries like those in Africa emerged as the worst affected, bearing the brunt of climate change.

Africa warmed faster than the rest of the world, according to a report released last year by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). The Horn of Africa, as well as Southern and Northwest Africa, suffered from exceptional multi-year droughts recently, while other African countries reported significant casualties due to extreme precipitation leading to floods in 2023.

Targeting Climate Action Projects

James Kinyangi, coordinator of the Climate and Development Special Fund and the Climate Action Window at AfDB, said they are providing funding for various climate adaptation and mitigation projects across Africa.

“AfDB has several ways in which they are tackling climate challenges and integrating finance for climate action in its portfolio. Last year, we had total approvals for projects in African countries for about USD 11 billion,” he told IPS in an interview at the AfDB Pavilion during the Second Africa Climate Summit (ACS2) held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 8 to 10 September. The summit took place in anticipation of the United Nations Climate Conference (COP30), in Belém, Brazil, scheduled for November 2025.

“Out of that, close to half was mainstream climate finance. Of the nearly USD 5 billion that went to climate finance, nearly 65 percent was adaptation finance. The remaining was mitigation.”

Kinyangi said they have a mainstream of climate finance for climate action in their main portfolio, making sure that all of the lending of the bank responds to climate action.

“We also screen our projects. Now, nearly 100 percent of all new approvals of the bank are mainstream with climate action. They are climate-informed designs of projects,” he said.

Kinyangi, an AfDB early warning expert, says they also have various special funds and trust funds that respond to climate change.

“One that is visible is through our major constitutional lending window, the African Development Fund. We have created the Climate Action Window, which has mobilized a total of USD 500 million as climate finance,” he said. “That has now been programmed for 37 low-income African countries that benefit from the resources of the African Development Fund. We have about 41 projects that are adaptation and we have another 18 projects that are mitigation.”

The cost of climate adaptation in sub-Saharan Africa would be between USD 30 and 50 billion annually over the next decade, according to the WMO. This is a huge blow to a continent where 118 million extremely poor people have a daily income of less than USD 1.90 per day. If adequate climate funding is not secured in time, farmers in the rural areas will be poorer by 2030 as national budgets continue to be diverted.

AfDB’s investments in Africa cut across energy, agriculture, water resources and sanitation, forestry, climate information systems, and green projects seeking finance to help transform mitigation pathways. Kinyangi said several of these projects are designed to support rural communities, including early warning systems, climate-smart agriculture and clean cooking solutions.

In the Sahel region, AfDB is supporting a project called Farmer Managed Natural Regeneration (FMNR), a low-cost, sustainable approach where farmers protect and manage the natural growth of trees and shrubs on their agricultural lands, rather than planting new ones. The practice restores degraded soil and increases agricultural yields, improving food security.

As part of their climate-smart agricultural projects, AfDB is supporting 20 million farmers across Africa. Kinyangi said AfDB is supporting technologies like drought insurance for the management of risks associated with losses of livestock and crops due to drought. He said the result is a whole host of technologies they are financing in rural communities across Africa, supporting farmers with water harvesting and renewable energy.

In Zimbabwe, for instance, AfDB is working with the International Fund for Agricultural Development, a United Nations agency working to eliminate poverty and hunger in rural areas and the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) to support school feeding programs for children.

“This includes improving cooking equipment in schools and improving the delivery of vaccines and other medications through rural dispensaries by use of cold chains powered by solar, ” said Kinyangi. Across Africa, AfDB is revamping irrigation projects, changing from diesel-powered to solar-powered systems to reduce emissions.

Bridging the Financing Gap for Countries in Debt Distress

Several African countries that are exposed to extreme weather events like droughts and floods divert their national budgets to respond to these disasters. These are funds meant for the health and education sectors, which are diverted to support affected communities and rebuild destroyed infrastructure. To fill the financing gap, they turn to multinational lenders like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, which leaves them in debt.

Efforts have been made in the past to restructure debt through the G20 Common Framework, which was created during the COVID-19 crisis in 2020 as a debt relief effort. But African leaders say it is slow and creditor-driven. Five years after it was established, only Ghana and Zambia have managed to restructure their debt under the G20 Common Framework.

Between 2010 and 2020, Africa’s external debt increased more than fivefold and accounted for almost 65% of Gross Domestic Product in 2023. Even though Africa’s average debt-to-GDP ratio is expected to decrease to 60% in 2025, the continent faces an escalating debt crisis, according to the African Union. Statistics from the IMF and World Bank’s Debt Sustainability Framework show that African countries in distress, or at high risk of debt distress, have risen from 9 in 2012 to 25 in 2024.

Kinyangi said the AfDB Climate Action Window was established to help countries in debt distress.

“For example, countries like Mozambique, Malawi and Zimbabwe are exposed to tropical cyclones in the Indian Ocean. So, they divert national resources to combat the negative impacts of tropical cyclones. That leaves them in a budget hole. Sometimes they have to borrow to leave that budget hole.”

Kinyangi said AfDB’s aspirations are to ensure that it channels more climate finance to vulnerable countries to cushion those countries against having to divert important national budgets to combat the impacts of climate change. He said climate finance is supposed to go directly to building resilience against the negative impacts of extreme weather events while preserving the national budget that is meant to create education systems and promote health and infrastructure.

The AfDB was among the African banks that have committed to mobilizing USD 100 billion to fund green industrial projects at the ACS2. While a copy of the final declaration from the three-day Addis Ababa Summit is yet to be released, African leaders set a new goal to raise USD 50 billion annually for climate solutions. In 2023, about USD 26 billion was mobilized at the ACS1 in Nairobi, Kenya, but it is not clear how much funding has been disbursed. The continent needs USD 1.3 trillion per year to finance its climate adaptation plans, according to the AU.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Least Developed Countries account for less than 1 percent of world trade. Credit: Ali Mkumbwa/Unsplash

By Deodat Maharaj
GEBZE, Türkiye, Aug 22 2025 (IPS)

Artificial intelligence and the use of frontier technologies are already transforming trade and boosting prosperity, particularly for developed and some developing countries. This ranges from the digital exchange of documents, the digitalisation of trade processes and leveraging online platforms to fast-track cross-border trade.

The rapid adoption of new technologies will further consolidate the dominance of world trade by developed economies, which currently account for roughly 74 percent of global trade, according to the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The world’s 44 Least Developed Countries (LDCs), with a population of an estimated 1.4 billion people, are seeing a different trajectory altogether. According to the World Trade Organisation, they account for less than 1 percent of the world’s merchandise trade. LDCs continue to reel from the relentless onslaught of bad news, including increased protectionist barriers.

Deodat Maharaj, Managing Director of the United Nations Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries.

UNCTAD has estimated that tariffs on LDCs will have a devastating consequence, possibly leading to an estimated 54 percent reduction in the exports from the world’s poorest countries.

In this dire situation, exacerbated by declining overseas development assistance, what does an LDC do to survive in this difficult trade environment?

To start with, they must continue to advocate globally for fairer terms of trade. At the same time, they need to be more aggressive in addressing matters for which they have control. Otherwise, the status quo will leave their people in a perpetually disadvantageous situation. Imagine paying three times more than your competitors just to ship a single crate of goods across a border. For millions of entrepreneurs in the world’s LDCs, it is the everyday cost of doing business. Technology offers a way out in reducing these high costs.

Indeed, when the international community gathered in Sevilla for the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development (FfD4) in July 2025, one truth stood out: Technology is no longer a luxury—it is a prerequisite for effective participation in global trade. The outcome document was clear that for the world’s 44 LDCs, bridging infrastructure gaps, building domestic technological capacity, and leveraging science, technology, and innovation are vital to unlocking trade opportunities.

So, given the challenges and opportunities, what forms the core elements of an action agenda for LDCs to leverage trade to generate jobs and opportunities for their people?

Firstly, there is a need to pivot to digital solutions, which can dramatically reduce trade costs and open new markets. According to the World Bank, paperless customs and single-window systems have been proven to cut clearance times by up to 50 percent, reducing bureaucracy that stifles commerce. In Benin, automating port procedures reduced processing time from 18 days to just three days (World Bank). E-commerce platforms, when paired with secure payment systems and targeted training, have shown remarkable potential.

Secondly, invest in digital infrastructure. The data suggest that LDCs still have a lot of catching up to do. The solution is for development partners and the international financial institutions to steer more resources in this area with a fixed percentage of resources, say, 15 percent of a country’s portfolio dedicated to boosting digital infrastructure.

Thirdly, focus on value addition and reduce transition away from the export of raw commodities. This in turn requires the human resource capacity to spur innovation and creativity. Boosting investment in research and development can pay rich dividends.

According to the World Economic Forum, LDCs invest less than 1 percent of GDP in research and development compared to developed countries. The Republic of Korea invests 4%.

Finally, for LDCs to enter the technological age, their businesses must lead the way. It is difficult to do so in some countries like Burundi, where internet penetration is a mere 5 percent of the population. The average internet penetration is around 38 percent. So, in addition to digital infrastructure, support must be provided to micro-, small and medium-scale enterprises to benefit from the opportunities provided by technology to boost trade, thereby creating jobs and opportunities. This includes the establishment of incubators to support this business sector, boosting their technological capacities to trade and profile their businesses on digital platforms, and helping them to deliver services created by the digital economy. Rwanda has been a pioneer in this regard.

Of course, technology alone will not address all the challenges faced by LDCs. However, by delivering cost-efficient solutions, it can help level the playing field and drive transformation. It is time for the international community and development partners to back their words with action in helping LDCs advance this agenda. Since LDCs represent an emerging market of 1.4 billion people, when they rise, everyone else will rise with them.

Deodat Maharaj, a national of Trinidad and Tobago is the Managing Director of the United Nations Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries and can be reached at: deodat.maharaj@un.org

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Fiji is a Pacific Island nation renowned for its tourism industry, but it has also endured four armed coups and 38 years of political instability. Credit: Julie Lyn

By Catherine Wilson
SYDNEY, Aug 14 2025 (IPS)

Fiji, a nation located west of Tonga in the central Pacific, is renowned for its natural beauty and beach resorts. But for 38 years it has endured a political rollercoaster of instability with four armed coups that overturned democratically elected governments and eroded human rights.

Now, following a peaceful transition of power at the last 2022 election, Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka and his coalition government want to deal with the past with a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) to pave the way for a more peaceful and resilient future.

The commission will “facilitate open and free engagement in truth-telling regarding the political upheavals during the coup periods and promote closure and healing for the survivors,” Rabuka, who led the first coup, told parliament before supporting legislation that was passed in December last year. Now he has pledged to oversee the country’s reconciliation and return to democratic norms.

The TRC is tasked with investigating what happened during the coups d’état of 1987, 2000 and 2006, related human rights abuses and the grievances that have driven the relentless struggle for power between Fiji’s indigenous and Indo-Fijian communities. Its focus is on truth-telling and preventing a repetition of conflict; it will not prosecute perpetrators of abuses or provide reparations to victims.

“This commission aims to serve the people of Fiji to come to terms with your own history… the purpose is not to put blame and to deepen the trauma and the difficulties, but to help the people of Fiji to move on for a better future for everyone,” Dr. Marcus Brand, the TRC chairman, who has extensive experience with transitional justice initiatives and held senior roles in the United Nations and European Union, said in January.

He is joined by four Fijian commissioners, namely former High Court Judge Sekove Naqiolevu, former TV journalist Rachna Nath, former Fiji Airways Captain Rajendra Dass, and leadership expert Ana Laqeretabua.

The Fiji Parliament, Suva, Fiji. Credit: Josuamudreilagi

Florence Swamy, Executive Director of the Pacific Centre for Peacebuilding, a non-governmental organization based in the capital, Suva, told IPS that the TRC is important to building trust in the country, where many people still experience fear and anxiety about the violence they witnessed.

“As a first step, it is creating a safe space for people to talk about what happened to them,” she emphasized.

Fiji’s political turmoil has roots in the past. British colonization in the nineteenth century was accompanied by policies that were intended to strengthen indigenous land rights and prevent dispossession, rights that were reinforced in Fiji’s first constitution at Independence in 1970.

But, at the same time, Fijian society was irrevocably changed by the organized immigration of Indians to work on sugar plantations and boost development of the colony. By the mid-twentieth century, the Indo-Fijian population was larger than the indigenous community and their demands for equal rights increased.

“Fijian Indians were brought to the country, in many cases, under the false pretense of better work and wage opportunities, to develop the economy of Fiji…while indigenous Fijians were hardly consulted about such a momentous decision,” Dr. Shailendra Singh, Head of Journalism at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, told IPS.

Soon the country’s politics were mired in a fierce contest for power. And in 1987, Rabuka, then an officer in the Fiji military, led the overthrow of the first elected Indo-Fijian government under Prime Minister Timoci Bavadra.

Rabuka then became Prime Minister from 1992 to 1999 before another Indo-Fijian government, led by Mahendra Chaudhry, was voted in. This triggered a second coup instigated by nationalist George Speight in 2000 in which the government was held hostage in the nation’s parliament for weeks. Then, in 2006, Frank Bainimarama, head of the armed forces, orchestrated the third coup, which he claimed was necessary to eliminate corruption and divisive policies in the government of the day presided over by Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase. For the next eight years he oversaw an authoritarian military government until democratic elections were held again in 2014.

Fiji’s capital city Suva. Credit: Maksym Kozlenko

The coups inflicted a significant human cost. Lawlessness, inter-community violence, military and police brutality, and arrests and torture of people critical of the regime occurred increasingly after 2006.

Three years later, Amnesty International called for “an immediate halt to all human rights violations by members of the security forces and government officials, including the arbitrary arrests, intimidation and threats, and assaults and detentions of journalists, government critics and others.” It also called for the repeal of the Public Emergency Regulations imposed by the government in 2009 that led to impunity for state officials involved in abuses.

Today, the demographic balance has shifted again in the wake of an outward exodus of Indo-Fijians, who now comprise about 33 percent of Fiji’s population of about 900,000, while Melanesians constitute about 56 percent. But societal divisions remain entrenched and the past has not been forgotten.

The commission is now preparing to hold hearings over the next 18 months. And Rabuka has promised to be one of the first to testify of his involvement in the political upheavals.

I will swear to say everything, the truth… I want to continue to live with a clear conscience. I want people to know that at least they understand my reasons for doing it,” he told the media in January. But the TRC also promises to place victims and survivors at the center of its mission, claiming that “their lived experiences are vital to fostering accountability, encouraging healing and building a more united and compassionate society.”

However, there are voices of caution, too, warning of the risks of reviving memories of conflict and pain and the need to prevent this from inflaming divisions.

While experts in the country speak of the need to go beyond the TRC and tackle structural issues of inequality and disenfranchisement, which have driven community grievances, “to make everyone feel a sense of belonging and loyalty to the country of their birth,” Singh said.

In particular, “indigenous fears concerning political dominance in Fiji” and “Indo-Fijians’ feeling of being marginalized by the state and not treated as equal citizens” need to be addressed, he continued.

The Fijian armed forces, which played a decisive role in executing the coups, often justifying their actions in protecting Fiji’s internal order, are also critical to the success of the country’s return to democratic governance.

In 2023 an internal reconciliation process began, aimed at ending military intervention in the country’s politics and elections. In April, during an official meeting with the TRC, the military leadership pledged ‘to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated, and that its role as a guardian of Fiji’s constitutional order remains anchored in service to all citizens, regardless of ethnicity, background or political belief.’

After the commission has concluded its estimated two years of work, it will make recommendations in its final report for public measures and policy reforms to support the country’s social cohesion. Here Swamy emphasizes that it is crucial the recommendations do not remain on paper but are acted on.

“In terms of the recommendations, who will be responsible for them? Will they ensure that the recommendations are implemented? And what mechanisms will be put in place to make sure that institutions are held accountable?” she declared.

Looking into the future, Swamy said that she would like to see her country become one “where everyone feels safe, where there is equal opportunity… a country where everyone can realize their potential.”

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Carlos Andres Oliveira Caballero, a youth representative from Bolivia, speaking during the closing plenary of the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries. He said that with support, the youth declaration would usher in a new era for young people in LLDCs. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
AWAZA, Turkmenistan, Aug 8 2025 (IPS)

As the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDC3) concludes today (Friday, August 8) in Awaza, Turkmenistan, with the adoption of the Awaza Political Declaration and the formal endorsement of the Awaza Programme of Action (2024–2034), there is optimism that LLDCs are finally at the dawn of a new era.

“Awaza will long be remembered as a defining moment in the LLDC journey – not only for the resounding success of the LLDC3, but for ushering in a new era of bold partnerships and decisive actions,” said Rabab Fatima, the Secretary-General of LLDC3.

“But the legacy of this Conference will be measured not by words, but by the real progress we make in the lives of 600 million people in the 32 LLDCs. My earnest hope is that each of us leaves Awaza with a practical plan to turn our aspirations into reality.”

Heads of delegates from the LLDCs confirmed that the Awaza political declaration is a powerful expression of unity and collective dedication to the implementation of the 2030 agenda and the promotion of multilateralism or cooperation among many nations, including strengthening transboundary cooperation between LLDCs and transit states.

Guided by the complex, pressing challenges in LLDCs, half of them also categorised as least developed countries, the Third UN Conference on Landlocked Countries, or LLDC3 provided a platform to find solutions towards structural transformation, infrastructure and connectivity, trade facilitation, regional integration, and resilience building.

Over 5,700 participants attended the conference from 103 countries, including 30 of the 32 LLDCs. There were 16 heads of state or government, three vice presidents, 108 ministers, over 100 members of parliament, 29 international governmental organisations, UN specialised agencies, and more than 450 non-governmental organisations.

The UN conference on landlocked developing countries on the shore of the Caspian sea, in Awaza, Turkmenistan, has come to an end. The gathering brought together nearly 6,000 participants. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

At the closing plenary, speakers from the LLDCs concluded that the shrinking fiscal space, high inflation, geopolitical instability and trade disruptions are factors that threaten progress towards sustainable development and long-term economic growth.

Emphasis was therefore placed on the need for inclusive structural transformation and digitalisation, ensuring benefits reach all segments of society, especially women and youth. Economic diversification, productivity growth, and the modernisation of agriculture by linking it with industrial and service sectors were also identified as crucial strategies to reduce vulnerabilities.

Science, technology and innovation were recognised as key drivers of change, so challenges remain in building capacity, assessing finance and developing infrastructure. Noting that half of the LLDCs are also least developed, the United Nations Technology Bank for the Least Developed Countries was highlighted as vital for advancing technological capabilities.

Deodat Maharaj, managing director of the UN Technology Bank for Least Developed Countries, told IPS that the institution is “dedicated to strengthening science, technology, and innovation (STI) capacity in LLDCs.”

“We work alongside governments, the private sector and leading research institutions to foster sustainable development where it is needed most.”

The UN Technology Bank is the only UN organisation exclusively focused on transforming the world’s “poorest countries through science, technology and innovation. By assessing a country’s unique technology needs, we connect them with tailored solutions and back this up by facilitating skills building and boosting the capacity of key institutions in these countries.”

Throughout the conference, speakers explored many other pressing topics, such as the importance of promoting entrepreneurship and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises for job creation and innovation, alongside expanding digital infrastructure and skills development to reach the digital divide.

Additionally, critical mineral resources were highlighted as strategic assets to enhance economic diversification and integration in the global oil chains. Regional cooperation among the landlocked developing countries was seen as essential for knowledge sharing, resource pooling and strengthening oil chains, supported by ongoing regional and international initiatives.

Participants agreed that strong partnerships between landlocked developing countries, development partners and the private sector are critical to accelerating structural transformation and achieving inclusive and sustainable growth. They also heard about the role and place of youths in accelerating sustainable development in the LLDCs.

“Over the past few days, we, the young people of LLDCs, have gathered here in Awaza, not just to listen, but to lead,” said Carlos Andres Oliveira Caballero, a youth representative from Bolivia.

“Not just to be represented, but to represent ourselves.”

Caballero said this was the first time a UN conference on LLDCs has featured a dedicated Youth Forum, “and we are proud to say: we showed up, we spoke up, and we delivered.”

“We came from across all 32 LLDCs, bringing our stories, our experiences, and our solutions. From climate action and digital innovation to decent work and inclusive governance – we made our voices heard. And today, we leave behind more than memories.”

Caballero highlighted that the youth leave behind “a powerful Youth Declaration; a shared vision shaped by thousands of young people from across our countries. Our Declaration calls for action in five areas, including the equitable access to quality education and digital skills, investment in youth-led enterprises and decent jobs.”

It also includes youth participation in climate resilience and green transitions; full inclusion in decision-making at all levels; and support for young people as drivers, not just recipients, of development.

“We know these are not small asks. But neither are the challenges we face. As young people in LLDCs, we live these realities every day, and we stand ready to help change them. We don’t just want to be part of the future. We want to shape it—starting now,” he said.

In all, Fatima stressed that the conference has been as ambitious as envisaged, peppered with highlights such as the celebration of the first International Day of Recognition for the LLDCs and the announcement of a new climate negotiating group under the UNFCCC.

It also included the launch of the LLDC Global Business Network and new commitments, including a USD 10 billion infrastructure investment from the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Fatima was nonetheless quick to stress that, despite the new momentum, success depends on all stakeholders.

“Governments must integrate commitments into national policies. The Parliamentarians must provide budgetary allocations and resources to translate Awaza commitments into actions. The private sector must invest in sustainable value chains, and civil society and youth must be integrated into the national development process to drive inclusive progress,” she said.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A high-level event focused on agriculture at the ongoing Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

By Joyce Chimbi
AWAZA, Turkmenistan, Aug 6 2025 (IPS)

Agriculture is a critical sector in landlocked developing countries, as more than half (55 percent) of the population is employed in the agriculture sector – significantly higher than the global average of 25 per cent. As such, the deterioration of food security in landlocked developing countries (LLDCs) is an unfolding catastrophe.

There are 32 LLDCs, with a combined population of nearly 600 million people. The prevalence of moderate or severe food insecurity rose from an estimated 43 percent in 2015 to 51 percent in 2023, and the rate of undernourishment from approximately 15 percent to 19 percent in the same period.

Today, participants from across the globe heard about efforts to establish regional agriculture research hubs to support LLDCs’ agricultural transformation and bring much-needed innovation, resilience and hope during a high-level event focused on agriculture at the ongoing Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries in Awaza, Turkmenistan.

“Establishing regional agricultural research centres is an important deliverable in the Awaza Program of Action, aimed at turning the untapped agricultural potential of the LLDCs into drivers of inclusive growth, food security, and sustainable development,” said Rabab Fatima, Under-Secretary-General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States, and Secretary-General of the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries.

Amrit Bahadur Rai, Foreign Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Nepal, told participants that in the LLDCs, “agriculture contributes only 17 percent of GDP and engages around 55 percent of the labour force. So, we can clearly see the concentration of poverty in this agricultural sector, while the productivity in the agricultural sector is alarmingly low.”

“These research hubs, when operationalised, are envisaged as centres of excellence to champion sustainable agriculture, promote reasonably coordinated yet locally rooted innovation and reinforce science-based research and development ecosystems.”

Adopted by consensus by the UN General Assembly in December 2024, the Awaza Programme of Action (APoA) 2024–2034 provides a bold, forward-looking blueprint to tackle structural barriers in trade, infrastructure, climate resilience, and financing. Key deliverables include the establishment of Regional Agricultural Research Hubs to strengthen food security and the launch of an Infrastructure Investment Finance Facility to mobilise critical funding.

It also includes the creation of the UN Secretary-General’s High-Level Panel on Freedom of Transit, implementation of a dedicated WTO Work Programme for LLDCs and development of a UNFCCC Negotiating Body to advance trade and climate resilience. Keynote speakers during a press briefing today laid out many of the factors that necessitated the establishment of the LLDC Group under the UNFCCC.

Fatima also emphasised a landmark achievement for the LLDCs.

“The establishment of a formal negotiating group under the UNFCCC [the UNFCCC is the primary international treaty for addressing climate change] for the LLDCs. For too long, despite being among the most climate-vulnerable countries, the landlocked developing countries have not been getting special treatment such as access to climate finance from the global community.”

“For the first time,” she continued, “Climate change as a substantive action has been recognised and has a dedicated priority for the LLDCs in the new programme of action. The establishment of the negotiating group under the UNFCCC is the first tangible deliverable of this Programme of Action.”

She further stressed that this is a critical step towards ensuring that the specific vulnerabilities and unique challenges of all LLDCs are addressed, allowing them to be effective in global climate decision-making. LLDCs face significant challenges in addressing climate-related issues. A third of LLDCs were in fragile or conflict-affected situations in 2024.

Bolivia is the chair of the Group of Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs) under the UNFCCC and was instrumental in leading the group to this position. Malawi currently holds the position of chair for the Least Developed Countries (LDC) Group under the UNFCCC.

The Vice President of Malawi, Dr Michael Bizwick Usi, lauded the establishment of the LLDCs group under the UNFCCC and highlighted the need for research that reflects the realities of these countries, as it then provides them an opportunity to chart their path rather than simply consuming prescribed solutions.

Amid escalating climatic changes and suffering from droughts, desertification, and floods, he said LLDCs are now in a much better position to negotiate and produce solutions tailored to their unique circumstances. This is especially true now, as farmlands are shrinking due to the severe impacts of rising temperatures.

The Awaza Programme of Action for LLDCs for the Decade 2024-2034 supports climate adaptation, disaster risk reduction, climate finance, resilient infrastructure development, loss and damage, and biodiversity loss. Fatima stressed that one of the most pressing problems in the world today is the untapped agricultural potential of the LLDCs and that building resilience to climate change is a significant part of the solution.

“Agriculture remains the backbone of the economy in most landlocked developing nations, and it provides livelihoods for the majority and is central to reducing poverty and building resilience. Yet, despite its importance, agriculture in landlocked developing nations remains underperforming and underfunded,” she said.

“The structural constraints are well known,” Fatima continued, “difficult topographies, high transfer costs, climate shocks, limited market access, and outdated practices. Nearly 54 percent of the landlocked developing countries’ land is classified as dry land, and 60 percent of the landlocked developing countries’ population live in these areas compared to just 36 percent in neighbouring transit countries.”

Against this backdrop, the formation of the LLDCs as a recognised group of highly vulnerable countries in the relevant processes and negotiations under the UNFCCC is the key first step to providing a structured and institutional framework for such partnerships to address the LLDCs’ vulnerabilities and specific needs.

The unique geography of the LLDCs makes a unified negotiation for more favourable climate outcomes urgent for millions of lives and livelihoods, as these countries are typically situated in internal drylands, where desertification and heat stress are worsening, as well as mountainous regions that are especially exposed to melting glaciers, landslides and flash floods.

With roughly 12 per cent of the world’s land surface, LLDCs suffered more than 20 per cent of the total number of droughts and landslides between 2012 and 2023. And despite representing just 7 per cent of the world’s population, LLDCs accounted for about 18 per cent of the globally affected population by droughts and landslides over this period.

Even the complex transit routes LLDCs depend on for access to international markets are often undermined by disasters and extreme weather events, severing and jeopardising their trade and competitiveness in the global markets. Ahead of COP30, hope now looms large that the LLDCs will successfully negotiate in line with their most pressing climate-related challenges.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Volunteers at the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs). Credit: Kizito Makoye/IPS

By Kizito Makoye
AWAZA, Turkmenistan , Aug 6 2025 (IPS)

In the glass-panelled hallway straddling Buildings 2 and 3 at the Awaza Congress Centre, two smartly dressed young Turkmens stood behind an ornate national pavilion—anxious, alert, and surprisingly eloquent.

Their broad smiles visibly grabbed wide-eyed delegates attending the Third United Nations Conference on Landlocked Developing Countries (LLDCs). With a confidence far beyond their age, the volunteers clearly explained to visitors the kernel of Turkmenistan’s national identity—entangled by culture as politics.

“This is a dutar,” said one, gesturing toward a glass-encased replica of a traditional two-stringed musical instrument. “It is played during weddings and celebrations. It carries the stories of our people.”

His colleague pointed to a smaller display nearby, where a miniature replica of the monumental Neutrality Monument stood—the golden effigy of Saparmurat Niyazov, the country’s founding president, glinting under gallery lights. “This represents our neutrality,” she said proudly. “We are a peaceful nation. We do not choose sides.”

As visitors flocked to the pavilion, the two young guides continued their patient explanations—this time describing a replica of Akhal-Teke horses, symbols of national pride, bred for endurance and elegance.

“Just like the horses,” one said with a grin, “Our country is strong, swift, and steady. But we also don’t race just because others are running.”

In this resort city, hospitality is a powerful expression of national pride.

As you move around the streets, women in long traditional gowns greet you with a graceful nod and a soft “Hoş geldiňiz”—welcome.” Dressed in embroidered velvet dresses that sweep the floor and crowned with intricate headscarves, these women are the gentle face of Turkmenistan’s long-held tradition of welcoming strangers with dignity and warmth.

“It is in our blood to treat foreigners with great care and concern.”

In a world increasingly divided, the warmth of Turkmenistan’s people, cloaked in simple gestures of kindness, stands as a symbol of diplomacy—one that speaks not through declarations, but through hospitality that lingers long after the meetings are over.

A Doctrine of Distance

Since 1995, when the UN General Assembly unanimously recognized Turkmenistan’s neutrality, the Central Asian nation has embraced a foreign policy of non-alignment, eschewing military alliances, foreign bases, and entanglements in regional conflicts. The policy, enshrined in the national constitution, is described by government officials as a model of “positive neutrality”—a means of building peace through equidistance and sovereignty.

A Fortress Amid Fires

Bordered by Iran, Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, and the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan occupies a strategically sensitive patch of Eurasia. Yet it has remained almost impervious to the turmoil around it. When war engulfed Afghanistan, Turkmenistan kept its embassies open. It offered humanitarian aid—but not political commentary.

Unlike other Central Asian states, it refrained from joining Moscow-led security blocs like the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and even kept Beijing at a careful diplomatic bay despite deepening energy ties.

Turkmenistan’s hosting of the LLDC conference carried both symbolic and practical significance. It is one of the few LLDCs that has successfully leveraged its location by investing heavily in cross-border energy and transport infrastructure.

“Your hosting of this important global gathering is a testament to the country’s commitment to international cooperation and sustainable development,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.

A Landmark Moment for Landlocked Nations

On the shores of the Caspian Sea, in the resort town of Awaza, limousines ferried dignitaries past pine-lined boulevards and marble buildings as world leaders gathered for the momentous talk.

The Awaza gathering brought together representatives from 32 landlocked developing countries—home to nearly 600 million people across Africa, Asia, Europe, and South America—to chart a new course under the Awaza Programme of Action, a 10-year strategy aimed at reversing structural disadvantages stemming from geographical isolation.

Awaza’s gleaming hotels and high-tech halls stood in contrast to Burundi’s rugged highlands thousands of kilometers away—but in both, a digital transformation is underway.

The stakes could not be higher. LLDCs account for just over 1 percent of global trade and economic output, despite housing 7 percent of the global population. They face steep transport costs, limited access to global markets, unreliable infrastructure, and acute climate vulnerabilities.

A Moment for Multilateralism

As the 3rd LLDC conference convened in the windswept coastal town of Awaza, all eyes turned to Turkmenistan—not for bold pronouncements, but for the quiet power of its example. With its longstanding policy of neutrality, the Central Asian nation has carved a distinct identity rooted in non-alignment and peaceful engagement, making it an ideal host for a summit aimed at fostering regional solidarity and global support for countries isolated by geography.

Secretary-General António Guterres, in a rousing address, held up Turkmenistan’s model of diplomacy and inclusion as a guiding light for other landlocked nations struggling with marginalization. Against a backdrop of rising global fragmentation, Awaza became more than a meeting ground—it emerged as a bridge between continents and between aspiration and action.

Speaking at a high-level press conference Tuesday, Guterres issued a passionate appeal for justice, equity, and renewed international solidarity, reminding the world that “geography should never define destiny.”

“This conference reflects a new era of cooperation taking shape across Central Asia,” said Guterres, “grounded in mutual trust, shared priorities, and growing regional solidarity. At a time when multilateralism is being tested, this spirit of partnership is more essential than ever.”

A Plea for Dignity and Inclusion

Guterres’s remarks were peppered with humanistic language rarely heard at geopolitical conferences. “This is not only a matter of development,” he told journalists. “It’s a matter of dignity and justice.”

Responding to a question from Euronews, he drew a distinction between landlocked developed nations like Switzerland or Austria and their developing counterparts. “They have free access to harbors and integrated markets. But for landlocked developing countries, being far from ports and trade hubs is a real disadvantage,” he said.

He praised Turkmenistan’s multilateral diplomacy and recalled the country’s remarkable feat of granting citizenship to all stateless persons left behind after the collapse of the Soviet Union. “This was almost unique in the world—a symbol of generosity I never forgot,” he said.

Four Pillars of Action

The Awaza Programme of Action is a comprehensive development framework aligned with the UN 2030 Agenda. It charts an ambitious, multi-sectoral path forward, structured around four priorities:

1. Unlocking Economic Potential

Guterres called for bold investment in infrastructure, education, digital connectivity, and innovation.

“The countries represented here have the talent and the ideas,” he said. “They need the tools and support.”

2. Connecting to the World

“Trade corridors, transit systems, and regional integration are not technical issues—they are lifelines,” Guterres said.

He urged countries and institutions to invest in both the “hardware” and “software” of trade—resilient transport infrastructure, harmonized customs procedures, and smart logistics platforms.

3. Confronting the Climate Crisis

Though LLDCs contribute less than 3 percent to global emissions, they are among the hardest hit by climate disasters.

Guterres called on rich nations to fulfill their pledges to double adaptation finance, support green industries in LLDCs, and provide early warning systems.

4. Reforming Global Finance

Guterres described the global financial system as “unfit for the realities of today.” He called for tripling the lending capacity of development banks, expanding concessional finance, and reforming sovereign debt architecture.

Global Responsibility and Shared Future

Though the conference was set against a backdrop of regional cooperation in Central Asia, its implications reverberate far beyond.

“When LLDCs thrive, entire regions benefit.” Guterres said

Global Call for Justice, Not Charity

Though spread across four continents—from the Sahel to the Himalayas, and from Central Asia to South America—LLDCs face a strikingly similar plight: crippling transport costs, technological isolation, and rising debt burdens.

“Landlocked developing countries don’t want charity. They want justice,” Guterres told reporters. “They want equitable access.”

Digital Lifelines for a Disconnected World

One of the most pressing themes in Awaza was the digital divide that has left millions in LLDCs without access to online education, health services, or global markets.

“Digital transformation must be central to our effort,” Guterres said.

He pledged to present a report on innovative financing to support AI capacity-building and called for robust public-private partnerships.

Connecting Landlocked Economies to the World

Guterres also emphasized infrastructure investment and seamless cross-border trade as keys to transformation.

“We must cut red tape, digitize border operations, and modernize transport networks,” he said.

Building Bridges Across Borders

In an interview with IPS, Aygul Rahimova, a resident of Turkmenistan, underlined the importance of the LLDC conference for regional connectivity.

“Although we are technically landlocked, Turkmenistan borders the Caspian Sea, which offers us a unique opportunity to serve as a transport and logistics bridge between Asia and Europe,” she said.

“I hope this conference becomes a catalyst for deeper cooperation… Turkmenistan is ready to play a key role in building bridges—through the Caspian, through trade, through diplomacy.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

A panoramic view of the Castries Harbour, Castries, Saint Lucia: where smart borrowing and strategic reforms are reshaping the island’s economic future. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

By Alison Kentish
CASTRIES, Saint Lucia, Aug 5 2025 (IPS)

The beauty of the majestic Piton mountains, vibrant culture, dazzling beaches and lush landscapes of Saint Lucia are invaluable assets. The country also takes pride in having two Nobel laureates, which is remarkable for a nation with a population of over 180,000.

However, as is true for many other small island developing states (SIDS) in the Caribbean, the picture of economic stability is not as rosy.

These countries also face a complex web of challenges that include intensifying climate impacts, economic volatility, external shocks, and the vagaries of global markets. These challenges exacerbate the difficulties of finding ways to finance much-needed sustainable development projects and resilience-building.

In 2020, the country’s public debt-to-GDP ratio was over 90 percent, due in part to the deleterious effects of the coronavirus pandemic, and by 2024, this ratio was reduced to 74.5 percent. This dramatic reduction has freed up funds, which can now be invested in projects that spur growth and enrich the lives of Saint Lucians.

Strong recovery is on the horizon

For Saint Lucia, prudent debt management is proving to be a powerful catalyst for growth and shared prosperity. The island’s experience is demonstrating how tailored reforms, technology adoption and capacity building can reduce their debt burden and enable sustainable management of their public finances.

The government is taking even bolder steps for fiscal stability, with technical support from the Commonwealth Secretariat.

In March 2024, the Commonwealth Secretariat and the Ministry of Finance collaborated to develop a reform plan for the country, which started with a rigorous and comprehensive review of the public borrowing framework. Saint Lucia is now implementing this framework, which has recommended targeted and practical interventions.

Vera John-Emmanuel, Deputy Director of Finance in the Debt and Investment Management Unit in Saint Lucia’s Ministry of Finance, said, “The assessment helped pinpoint systemic strengths and weaknesses ranging from legislative gaps to coordination issues between debt management functions.

Modernising for sustainable growth

A significant outcome of the technical assistance provided by the Commonwealth team was the review of Saint Lucia’s Public Debt Management Act, which has now been passed. The revised legislation now provides a stronger legal framework for debt operations and has laid the groundwork for publishing a formal debt management strategy and annual debt reports, enhancing transparency and accountability.

Technology has also played a pivotal role in modernising Saint Lucia’s debt management practices with the adoption of the Commonwealth Meridian system. Launched in 2019, the Commonwealth Meridian debt management system is currently being used by 43 countries around the world.

John-Emmanuel said, “Meridian allows for real-time tracking of borrowing, automated reporting, and better analysis of liabilities. These upgrades have helped integrate technology into the core of Saint Lucia’s debt operations, improving both strategic planning and investor communications.”

Through technical workshops, mentoring, and regional training sessions, Saint Lucia’s debt management team has grown in both skill and confidence.

“The ongoing support has empowered our staff members to apply best practices and promote transparency,” the Deputy Director observed. “We’ve become more proactive and capable in managing our debt portfolio.”

Leveraging best practices from the Commonwealth

To mark 40 years of debt management support for member countries, this year is marked as the Commonwealth Year of Resilient, Innovative and Sustainable Debt. Initiatives, which will continue into 2026, will include sharing experiences and enhancing technical and policy solutions and support that can help governments with long-term public debt management, which will contribute to fiscal sustainability.

Dr Ruth Kattumuri, the Commonwealth Secretariat’s Senior Director of the Economic Development, Trade and Investment Directorate, noted, “The challenges for small and vulnerable states in the Commonwealth are multi-faceted. They face existential threats from frequent and extreme weather events, due to climate change, as well as economic shocks—both of which impede progress. Small island developing states also have limited potential to diversify their economies. So, maintaining a sustainable level of debt is critically important.”

Kattumuri added, “For countries like Saint Lucia, being able to tap into the experience and the knowledge base of the Secretariat means leveraging best practices from our 33 small states. We are also able to provide tailored technical assistance and capacity building to help transform public finance management, based on our long experience of supporting small states.”

Access to affordable finance is limited for Saint Lucia, which is classified as an upper-middle-income country, as are many other small island developing states (SIDS) in the Caribbean. For these countries, higher interest rates and limited funding options mean debt reform is not optional – it is essential.

Also critically important is the need to modernise governance practices in line with international standards.

These reforms have not gone unnoticed by the international financial community. Improved transparency and consistent reporting have boosted confidence among lenders and investors, enabling Saint Lucia access to concessional financing to fuel their sustainable and resilient development.

Strong partnerships for Caribbean growth

Saint Lucia’s story is not unique. Other Caribbean countries, such as The Bahamas, are also advancing sustainable debt management practices in the region. Since 2021, The Bahamas has partnered with the Commonwealth Secretariat to strengthen its public debt management framework and develop a government bond market, a project that has been supported by the India–UN Development Partnership Fund.

The experience of these Caribbean countries demonstrates that, with the right combination of thoughtful reforms, cooperation and prudent borrowing, even nations facing unique fiscal, geographic and environmental vulnerabilities can successfully manage their debt.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt: