Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President, International at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Credit: COP30

By Joyce Chimbi
NAIROBI, Jan 15 2026 (IPS)

President Donald Trump has escalated efforts to further distance the United States from international organizations and entities focused on climate, the environment, and energy. This strategy is in step with his administration’s established approach to undermine and redirect funds and international cooperation away from climate and clean energy programs.

But where some see a catastrophic escalation, other global experts, such as Yamide Dagnet, Senior Vice President, International at the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), see first and foremost a continuing formalization of damaging positions already taken by the current administration.

In January 2025, President Trump initiated a second withdrawal from the Paris Agreement on climate change to limit global warming. Simultaneously, the U.S. administration began to significantly reduce funding for climate programs, withdrawing from international climate funds such as the Green Climate Fund, cancelling billions in domestic clean energy grants, halting climate research and, overall, prioritizing fossil fuels over climate initiatives.

While conceding that the moment at hand is indeed overwhelming, especially coming on the back of COP30, Dagnet told IPS that “the rest of the world must turn this challenge into an opportunity to break new ground in climate action, financing and international cooperation.”

“I have a stubborn yet grounded optimism. The path ahead will be challenging but achieving the set-out climate goals is far from impossible. This is far from a catastrophe. Only one country has withdrawn from the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC); the rest of the world is still firmly on board.”

Regarding the exit from UNFCCC, Dagnet’s colleague Jake Schmidt from NRDC, pointed out in his blog that  the legal ramifications are such that it is unsettled constitutional law whether a president can unilaterally withdraw from international agreements that the Senate gave its advice and consent to join. The Constitution specifies the entry provisions, but it is silent on the exit provisions.

Dagnet also noted that while the withdrawal from the UNFCCC is unprecedented, making the United States the only nation outside the bedrock UN Climate Treaty, “the exit is not cast in stone; a future administration could bring the country back to the fold.”

Nevertheless, the United States will be back in the headlines come January 27, 2026, when the country will technically become a non-signatory to the Paris agreement and will not be part of international climate negotiations unless the withdrawal is reversed.

“The optimism I feel is also grounded in pragmatism. To borrow the words of author James Baldwin, ‘Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced.’ The U.S. administration was not represented at COP30 and still the world pushed forward a comprehensive climate action agenda to move beyond pledges through accelerated collaboration between governments, businesses, civil society, and investors.”

In his 2025 inauguration speech, Trump called oil ‘liquid gold’ and vowed to ‘unleash’ America’s fossil fuels in the form of oil and gas. Dagnet says the die was already cast on the path forward for the United States and that the world should continue to rethink, re-strategize and reorganize, for those who are for climate action are more than those against.

Trump finds an assortment of 66 UN and non-UN entities, including those focused on climate and clean energy, that are not aligned with the United States’ national interests. They include the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which is the world’s most authoritative scientific body on climate change, UN water, UN Oceans and UN Energy.

Others are the International Union for Conservation of Nature, which is the global authority on technical and policy advice on conservation, and the UN Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing countries.

Non-UN organizations include the International Renewable Energy Agency, Renewable Energy Policy Network for the 21st Century, 24/7 Carbon-Free Energy Compact, Commission for Environmental Cooperation, Intergovernmental Forum on Mining, Minerals, and Sustainable Development, and the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services.

Concerns are rife that communities such as those in the informal settlements will be dangerously exposed to the vagaries of climate change in the face of looming budget cuts to support climate efforts. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

There are widespread concerns that the withdrawal will have far-reaching negative consequences on financing and technical support for climate and clean energy. But Dagnet reminds us that  the United States did not pay its dues to the UN in 2025. The UN Chief has expressed regret over the country’s exit from UN entities and urged the Trump administration to settle what is owed to the international body, as the payments are mandatory. The United States owes the largest share, amounting to about 22 percent of the regular budget.

Similarly, before this withdrawal, the United States was already failing to fulfill many of its climate finance commitments.  While this new development, alongside past insufficient funding pledges, signals a major retreat from international climate action and support for developing nations, that challenge is  not insurmountable.

Climate financing trackers found that even during President Joe Biden’s administration, the United States’ international climate finance contributions were insufficient and fell far short of goals. Dagnet notes that while the country’s actions on multilateralism represent a setback, multilateralism is also evolving and will hopefully be capable of navigating uncharted territories.

She hails the broad recognition that climate change urgently and sustainably requires global cooperation and collaboration. She further stressed that international cooperation would expand the climate finance basket, as financial support for climate action can come not only from governments but also from a diverse array of non-state and public-private actors.

“This withdrawal is not the end of the road.”

Dagnet is one of nine members of the GHG (Greenhouse Gas) Protocol Steering Committee, which is the primary governing body providing direction and oversight to the GHG Protocol. The Protocol provides accounting standards and tools to help the corporate sector, countries and cities track progress towards climate goals.

The development of such standards is facilitated through a transparent multi-stakeholder governance process, drawing on expertise from business, finance, governments, academia, auditors and civil society in a milestone move and landmark partnership, she says.

The GHG Protocol is leading the global harmonization of greenhouse gas accounting with the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), as part of the COP30 Action Agenda, to enable comprehensive decarbonization action. This collaborative effort will strengthen the enabling conditions (in terms of policy, benchmarking, and governance) that are paramount to achieving sectoral breakthrough and will shape the journey towards the next global stocktake, or inventory taking, on progress towards climate goals in line with the Paris Agreement.

Subnational efforts also keep Dagnet pragmatically optimistic and solutions-focused. Indeed, she felt energized after attending the Resilient Cities Forum 2025 in London, a remarkable highlight as a major international platform where global leaders and experts converged to tackle urban resilience, emphasizing collaboration, best practices and practical innovation for sustainable, equitable cities.  She was inspired by the various and clear visions for a healthier planet.

“The resolve was stronger than ever,” says Dagnet.

“Importantly, we have locally designed tools, international frameworks and corporate standards to turn our vision towards a more prosperous, healthier and greener future into our lived reality. The worst we can do is to give up our imagination and ability to innovate.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Elephant in the Room: Fossil Fuels

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

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

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

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

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

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

Climate Finance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Loss and Damage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
  

Excerpt:

Ongoing negotiations at Bonn, Germany, during the ongoing SB62. Credit: UNFCCC

By Umar Manzoor Shah
SRINAGAR & BONN, Jun 25 2025 (IPS)

A packed conference room buzzing with the energy of over 300 national experts, negotiators, and implementers discussed their submissions of the First Biennial Transparency Reports (BTRs) during the 62nd session of the Subsidiary Body for Implementation (SB62) negotiations taking place in Bonn, Germany.

The workshop was convened as part of the ongoing SB62 under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and was being held at a crucial time for global climate governance, providing a rare and vital platform for countries to exchange honest reflections on their first forays into enhanced climate transparency.

Daniele Violetti, Senior Director at the UNFCCC, while offering a snapshot of global progress, said, “As of today, 103 Biennial Transparency Reports have been submitted, of which 67 are from developing countries, including 15 Least Developed Countries (LDCs) and Small Island Developing States (SIDS).”

The reports, which were due in December last year under the Paris Agreement’s Enhanced Transparency Framework, aim to enhance transparency and build trust among parties to the UNFCCC by providing a regular update on progress towards climate goals.

He lauded the extensive support provided through the Global Environment Facility (GEF) and other agencies, noting, “We at the UNFCCC Secretariat remain fully committed to collaborating with partners and enhancing the capacity of developing countries.”

Over the past five months, the Secretariat convened 17 country support events attended by 319 national experts and 11 sub-regional and regional workshops with 373 experts from 112 developing countries. Additionally, 1,700 review experts were certified under the BTR Technical Expert Review Training Program.

“This is a meaningful and valuable learning experience under the Paris Agreement,” Violetti said, stressing the importance of “reflection and mutual learning” to build “stronger national transparency systems that will serve countries well beyond this reporting cycle.”

The workshop’s agenda moved from introductory remarks to a series of concise presentations by key implementing agencies: the Global Environment Facility (GEF), Conservation International (CI), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), and the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF).

Esteban Bermudez Forn, Climate Change Specialist from the GEF stated that the Facility has supported the preparation of 163 BTRs in 111 countries, including multiple reports from countries advancing to their second and third BTRs. “We encourage countries to see GEF support as a savings account—prepare your BTR, but also request access to ensure you have resources available when you need them,” he advised.

Highlighting  the continued availability of funds, Forn  said, “We still have USD 92 million available under the current replenishment cycle. Please, if you haven’t requested support from the GEF, do it as soon as possible before the replenishment cycle ends.”

Ricardo Urlate of Conservation International spotlighted the importance of nurturing local talent, referencing a project in Rwanda that partners the government with academia. “Normally, there is a big dependency on external experts—very expensive experts from outside—and this is something that cannot continue if countries want to be more efficient and engaged,” he warned.

Through the Evidence-Based Climate Reporting Initiative, Rwanda’s Environmental Management Authority and the African Institute of Mathematical Sciences trained over 50 staff in data analysis, climate modeling, and greenhouse gas inventories. Ricardo emphasized, “The important thing is that there are a lot of options… to identify at the country level which is the one that better fits their own needs and priorities.”

CI also highlighted a sub-regional project with the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), which aims to build capacity for enhanced transparency across member countries. “Reporting and transparency are two of the key elements they are supporting,” Ricardo said, pointing to the value of regional approaches.

FAO’s Marcel Bernhofs drew attention to a persistent challenge: finding appropriate executing agencies with the managerial capacity to lead projects. “This gap can create bottlenecks and delay implementation, slowing down the preparation and submission of funding requests,” he observed.

FAO’s approach emphasizes on-the-ground engagement, leveraging regional and national teams. Their Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT) and Forestry and Other Land Use (FOLU) project, for example, “provides easy-to-access and knowledgeable technical experts” and focuses on supporting agriculture and land use sectors—areas that are “not easy, where we are really struggling quite a lot to do a good job,” Marcel acknowledged.

Marcel also stressed the importance of language accessibility: “Sometimes working in English is fine, but we also need, when we enter the detail and close discussion, to use the national languages.” FAO’s capacity-building activities, including a recent forest monitoring course in three languages, supported 2,500 participants from 141 countries.

The Value of Timely Technical Assistance

Richmond Azee from UNDP shared practical lessons on the importance of selecting the right executing partners and providing timely technical assistance. “Never let [countries] work alone on the BTRs but be ready beside them with some resources… to provide technical assistance as soon as possible and as needed to unlock some issues and overcome some challenges,” he advised.

He cited Guinea-Bissau’s experience aligning multiple reporting requirements and Niger’s successful correction of technical errors in their submission, both facilitated by UNDP’s hands-on support. “As a result, Guinea-Bissau, an LDC, submitted its BTR before December 2024… and Niger submitted on time, enhancing their understanding for the next cycle of BTRs.”

Funding Modalities and Sustainability Susanne Lecoyote, dialing in from UNEP, addressed the evolving funding modalities.

“Out of the total 111 countries that have accessed funding so far for BTRs, UNEP has supported 66,” she stated, describing how diverse modalities—such as bundled projects—help tailor support and ensure continuity for countries as they move through reporting cycles.

Susanne explained the streamlined approval process for expedited funding, typically taking just three to four months. She encouraged project coordinators to “be flexible to start preparing proposals while you are concluding your reports… do not mind about the technical review comments, because when they come in, we will provide a room for you to make amendments if needed.”

UNEP’s CBIT-GSP (Global Support Program) is a hub of collaboration, she said, “working closely with the Consultative Group of Experts, Climate Promise, Pacific Adaptation to Climate Change (PACC), Implementation and Coordination of Agricultural Research & Training (ICART) and many other initiatives to make sure that transparency-related services are provided to all countries, irrespective of whether they are supported by UNEP or other agencies.”

National Ownership and the Importance of Coordination

Rajan Dhappa from WWF shared Nepal’s experience, celebrating the country’s recent submission of its first BTR and its third Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), making Nepal the first in South Asia to do so.

“We tried our best to submit the document with the best available data and information. But BTR is a time-taking process; it requires coordination among agencies and also the technical and financial support,” he reflected.

He stressed the centrality of government ownership: “If there is a high level of ownership and if they tend to implement such projects… then every project gets a success result or every project receives its intended goal on time.”

Nepal’s work on establishing a national Monitoring, Reporting, and Verification (MRV) mechanism is expected to pay dividends for future reporting.

IPS UN Bureau Report

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau