Treating the polycrisis as one undifferentiated agenda has never worked; treating them as three coherent families might. Credit: Isaiah Esipisu/IPS

By External Source
APEX, North Carolina / SAN FRANCISCO, California / VIENNA, Austria / SHEFFIELD, United Kingdom / GENEVA, Switzerland, Sep 22 2026 (IPS)

In March 2025, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres launched “UN80”. Recognizing that the world is in a state of dramatic and rapid change at a time when funding for the UN is under threat from budget cuts, Guterres declared that, on the anniversary of the UN’s 80th birthday, a review of its work was long overdue. Now, UN80 is coming to a head with a set of recommendations that cover almost every aspect of the UN’s work.

Some of the recommendations are focused on reducing budgets. With some major governments cutting their funding and heavily in arrears, the UN needs to cut its spending.

The current target is a reduction of roughly 20%. This has already resulted in a decision to shift staff from high-cost duty stations like New York or Geneva, to lower-cost locations such as Bonn and Nairobi.

There has also been more “structural and programmatic alignment”—in other words, finding ways to make different parts of the UN work together more efficiently, or even merge different groups. So far, this has included the UN General Assembly agreeing to merge the UN System Staff College (UNSSC) and the UN Institute for Training and Research (UNITAR) into the UN Institute for Capability and Learning Innovation.

On the research side, the UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD) has been integrated into the UN University. Meanwhile, the UN Interregional Crime and Justice Research Institute (UNICRI) has been absorbed into the UN Office on Drugs and Crime.

Finally, in the development agenda, there have been proposals to merge the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and UN Office for Project Services (UNOPS), and to join together the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and UN Women, while also integrating the Joint UN Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) into existing programs.

Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation: Improving Multilateral Environment Agreements

But what about all-important environmental issues? Does UN80 address the triple planetary crisis of climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution?

The short answer is, yes. UN80 includes “Work Package 27” dealing with the environment. We are delighted to see the inclusion of several issues we believe would improve how multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) are organized, including the idea of “clustering.”

The UN80 process of the past 18 months has generated some excellent ideas. The window for acting on them is narrower than it looks: a new Secretary-General takes office in January 2027, and proposals that have not been anchored in a mandate by then will be inherited by someone who did not make them. Now is the time to bring them to fruition

Over the past year, we have advocated taking up an idea first mooted by UNEP’s Executive Director Klaus Töpfer back in the 2000s. He proposed grouping—or clustering—MEAs and making them work more closely and effectively together. These could be grouped along the lines of the triple planetary crisis (or “polycrisis”): (i) chemicals, waste and pollution; (ii) biodiversity loss and (iii) climate change.

The logic of the groupings matters. Chemicals and waste are fundamentally about pollution and health; biodiversity is about conservation and sustainable use, while climate change sits at the nexus of these challenges. This means effectively exploiting all synergies. Treating the polycrisis as one undifferentiated agenda has never worked; treating them as three coherent families might.

Achim Steiner, who took over from Töpfer as Executive Director of UNEP in 2006, made the first attempt at clustering. The chemicals and waste conventions—Basel, Rotterdam and Stockholm—agreed a synergies process that produced joint decisions and, from 2010, back-to-back conferences of the parties, a shared secretariat structure and common administrative services.

It has been largely a success on the terms it set itself: it improved collaboration and cut costs, even if programmatic integration has gone less far than administrative integration.

Steiner also started efforts to cluster MEAs focused on biodiversity. However, this process was never completed. We believe UN80 provides an ideal opportunity for this to be revisited and moved forward.

We are pleased to see that UN80 recommends establishing “a time-limited, independent and regionally representative Consultative Group of Ministers or High-level representatives of UN Member States to evaluate benefits, feasibility and possible options for MEA consolidation.” (Action 5.1)

This group should focus on two areas: clustering the three biodiversity conventions administered by UNEP—the Convention on Biological Diversity, CITES and the Convention on Migratory Species—with the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework as a unifying umbrella; and bringing the Minamata Convention on Mercury closer to the other chemicals and waste MEAs (Basel, Rotterdam, Stockholm).

If achieved, such clustering would strengthen both the treaties seeking to address biodiversity loss and those dealing with chemicals and waste.

Clustering the three UNEP-administered biodiversity conventions is only the start: working relationships will also be needed with the biodiversity-related conventions outside UNEP—Ramsar (wetlands), World Heritage, the Plant Treaty, and Biodiversity Beyond National Jurisdiction (BBNJ) —and with the other Rio conventions.

We already have more than a decade of experience of what the chemicals and waste cluster has achieved and believe there is much to learn from it, and to replicate.

Better Science

Another recommendation that should be implemented is the better coordination of environmental science, and closer links between science and policy.

This matters because so many environmental issues, such as biodiversity loss and climate change, are interlinked. Connecting the scientific work in these areas helps us “join the dots” and also develop and implement better policy.

The UN80’s recommendations include several very good ones on science coordination and science policy. For instance, it proposes that we:

• “Institutionalize a periodic science–policy dialogue anchored in UNEP’s science function that informs UNEA, as well as MEAs and other UN entities governing-bodies, as appropriate.” (Action 2.1)
• “Promote structured coordination and collaboration among chairs of MEA scientific and technical bodies and other science-policy interfaces, using existing mechanisms while respecting mandates.” (Action 3.1)
• “Build a user-driven, modern knowledge ecosystem and repository of environmental science and knowledge as a shared UN asset, linking country-to-global data and existing science platforms through shared standards and interoperable search.” (Action 3.2)

These are also the cheapest recommendations on the list, and the ones with the widest benefit. It is worth making this very clear at a moment when everything is being weighed against a 20% savings target: coordination costs very little and duplication costs a great deal.

With the global community appearing to be so divided and splintered across so many issues, we understand that not all ideas will command universal support.

This is why we applaud the idea of developing “coalitions of the willing” or communities of practice around various MEAs. We believe UNEP can and should play a convening role in this, as well as related discussions about how the Rio treaties dealing with climate change, desertification and biodiversity loss can work more closely and effectively together.

Environmental Interlinkages

When UNEP was set up in 1972, one of its key missions was to help coordinate environmental work by different UN bodies. Much of this has fractured over the years as new MEAs and organizations have emerged to address major environmental issues like climate change. However, we believe it is time to reinvigorate UNEP’s mission.

UN80 addresses this by proposing that the UN’s Environment Management Group (which is chaired by the head of UNEP) should:

• “Develop and roll-out a new EMG strategy and operating model. (Action 4.1)
• “Adopt a common UN system-wide results framework for environmental mainstreaming.” (Action 4.2)
• “Establish effective linkages with the UN Secretary-General and key governing bodies (e.g., UNEA, World Health Assembly, Human Rights Council, World Meteorological Congress, etc.).” (Action 4.3)

It is worth being clear about which of these the UN can simply decide to do, and which it cannot. The science function, the knowledge ecosystem and a reinvigorated Environment Management Group are Secretariat matters: they can be delivered by the UN system itself. Clustering conventions is not.

MEAs are autonomous treaties, and only their Parties can agree to consolidate them. That is precisely why Action 5.1 proposes a group of ministers rather than an administrative decision—and why governments, not officials, will determine whether this part of UN80 goes anywhere.

Strengthening Political Leadership

What else should be done? In 2025, we proposed reintroducing the Global Ministerial Environment Forum—a body that met annually through the 2000s in conjunction with UNEP’s Governing Council, until it was superseded by the creation of the UN Environment Assembly. The Forum’s goal was to elevate discussions on environmental issues to a high political level.

Work Package 27 suggests a slightly different approach, but with similar aims. It suggests a Global Environment Leaders’ Summit, to be held every four years and attended by heads of state and government. We support this (or similar) initiatives intended to bring presidents and prime ministers to the table. In short, we need decision makers at the highest level coming together to address global environmental matters.

But four years is almost too long given the speed and acceleration of global environmental change. A simpler answer is available: a ministerial segment attached to each session of the Environment Assembly, which already meets every two years and already has universal membership, with a leaders’ summit every four. That adds almost no additional costs, and it builds political attention into a cycle that already exists rather than competing with it.

A New Secretary-General — and the Question of Who Carries This Forward

There is one complication none of this can avoid. UN80 is António Guterres’ initiative, and his term ends in December 2026. The recommendations in Work Package 27 have been prepared for a Secretary-General who will not be in office to implement them.

Whoever succeeds him will inherit these proposals rather than own them—and on the evidence of the selection process so far, will arrive with no particular commitment to them. Eight candidates have published vision statements and taken part in interactive dialogues with the General Assembly since April.

So, what can we expect? Continuity on the efficiency agenda, almost certainly. Every candidate has endorsed UN80 in some form, and the Organization’s financial position leaves little choice.

Several have committed to sustained mandate discipline, which the General Assembly’s March 2026 resolution on the creation, implementation and review of mandates now underpins. That is genuinely useful, and over time it should reduce reporting burdens across the system.

But it carries a risk worth naming. Mandate discipline affects Secretariat mandates. It does not reach the treaty bodies, whose mandates are made by their own Parties.

If an incoming Secretary-General treats Work Package 27 primarily as a savings exercise, clustering becomes consolidation by austerity. This means the functions most likely to be cut are precisely those with no treaty constituency to defend them: science coordination, the knowledge ecosystem, the Environment Management Group.

Two practical conclusions follow. The first is that the Consultative Group proposed under Action 5.1 should be established now, with a mandate and a reporting line designed to survive the transition, rather than left to a successor to constitute. The second is that in whatever dialogue remains before the appointment, candidates should be asked a question none has yet been put to them: what do you intend to do with Work Package 27?

Optimism and Action

The suggestions in UN80 and Work Package 27 offer a new approach to environmental issues and show great potential. A more empowered UNEP could provide stronger systemwide coordination across the UN and significantly enhance the integration and coherence of science, policy, and environmental protection.

To succeed, decision makers will need to be bold and to move forward quickly and decisively. The UN80 process of the past 18 months has generated some excellent ideas. The window for acting on them is narrower than it looks: a new Secretary-General takes office in January 2027, and proposals that have not been anchored in a mandate by then will be inherited by someone who did not make them. Now is the time to bring them to fruition.

Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in United Nations talks on climate change and other environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022) and wrote Environmental Lobbying at the United Nations: A Guide to Protecting Our Planet (Routledge, 2025). Their next book, Political Heroes of the Environment: Profiles in Courage, is due for release in 2027.

Hugo-Maria Schally is former Head of the Multilateral Environmental Cooperation Unit at the Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission.

Peter Bridgewater is an Associate Researcher at the Advanced Wellbeing Research Centre, Sheffield Hallam University, UK.; Adjunct Professor at the University of Canberra, Australia; a former Director of the Division of Ecological Sciences in UNESCO; and former Secretary General of the Ramsar Convention on Wetlands.

Craig Boljkovac is Executive Director of Green Cross International, a Geneva-based Senior Advisor with a Regional Centre for the Basel and Stockholm Conventions, and an independent international environmental consultant with over 35 years of experience in relevant fields. He has participated in several INCs and related meetings for the global plastics agreement.

The opinions expressed in this article are the personal views of the individuals listed and do not necessarily reflect those of the organizations with which they are affiliated.

The choice is not between an unmanageably open meeting and a completely closed process. What matters is that observers have some direct line into the negotiations and can see that their expertise and proposals are genuinely considered. Credit: Albert Oppong-Ansah/IPS.

By Craig Boljkovac
GENEVA, Aug 24 2026 (IPS)

In 2022, the United Nations Environment Assembly mandated an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC) to develop a global, legally binding instrument addressing the full life cycle of plastics, from production and product design to disposal. After the resumed fifth session adjourned without consensus in Geneva in August 2025, the divided process moved into informal consultations before INC-5.4 in March 2027.

The exclusion of observers from the June 2026 Heads of Delegation meeting in Nairobi and the next meeting in Bangkok points to a forced separation between governments and observers during these decisive months. At the moment the negotiations most need scientific knowledge, practical experience, public scrutiny and political confidence, they are becoming less inclusive.

Governments negotiate treaties and take decisions; observers do not claim either function. Meaningful observer participation is nevertheless a mainstream feature of United Nations environmental negotiations, not an optional courtesy or a privilege that must be earned by reorganizing civil society into a form administratively convenient to the Chair and Secretariat

There should be no misunderstanding about roles. Governments negotiate treaties and take decisions; observers do not claim either function.

Meaningful observer participation is nevertheless a mainstream feature of United Nations environmental negotiations, not an optional courtesy or a privilege that must be earned by reorganizing civil society into a form administratively convenient to the Chair and Secretariat.

At the online consultation with observers on 14 July 2026, I personally asked Chair Julio Cordano whether there would be any opportunity for observers to participate face-to-face with governments in the pre-negotiations before INC-5.4.

His answer, although somewhat circuitous, was clear: there would not. The official roadmap currently places governments in informal in-person meetings while observers are offered separate webinars in which they may share their views with the Chair.

The webinars may be useful, but they are not participation in the negotiations. Observers speaking to the Chair while governments negotiate separately is consultation at a distance. Direct observer engagement with governments may therefore be almost entirely prevented until INC-5.4, with no certainty about how meaningful participation will be even then.

Bangkok is important, but it is not the fundamental issue. The question is whether the remaining process will rebuild trust and establish genuine engagement rather than maintain parallel tracks.

The Chair’s statement that INC-5.4 will follow previously agreed participation arrangements, including observers, is cautiously positive, but it does not replace clear modalities or direct engagement while the political package is being shaped.

None of this is intended as disrespect toward Ambassador Cordano. He inherited an exceptionally difficult negotiation, with a fractured text and a political divide between the High Ambition Coalition and the Like-Minded countries.

The June Heads of Delegation meeting reportedly produced a more constructive atmosphere, and confidential spaces for governments to test compromises are sometimes essential. But confidentiality and meaningful observer engagement are not mutually exclusive.

The Stockholm Convention negotiations set an admittedly high bar. Civil-society networks organized themselves, developed technical and policy positions and built working relationships with governments throughout the process.

The International Pollutants (formerly “POPs”) Elimination Network – IPEN – itself emerged at the first Stockholm Convention INC in 1998 as a self-organised public interest entity for engagement in such negotiations.

The Rotterdam and Stockholm Convention secretariats continue to recognize NGOs as important stakeholders and provide for their representation as observers at meetings of Convention bodies. These negotiations did not succeed ‘despite’ observer involvement; they benefited from the expertise, organization, implementation knowledge and political attention observers brought.

The plastics negotiations should aim to meet or exceed that standard, not retreat from it. Plastics are chemical products, made with chemical inputs, that generate enormous pollution and waste-management challenges. The negotiations belong within the chemicals and wastes tradition, where constructive observer participation has been part of both treaty development and implementation.

The UNEA mandate points in the same direction. Resolution 5/14 stressed the need for the widest and most effective participation possible, opened participation to relevant stakeholders consistent with applicable UN rules and requested UNEP to facilitate their participation and cooperation.

More generally, UNEP accreditation gives civil-society organizations observer status at UNEA and its subsidiary bodies, with opportunities for written and oral contributions. A process that progressively removes stakeholders from the settings in which substantive discussions occur diminishes the practical meaning of that mandate.

The Chair’s continuing emphasis on “organizing” and “rationalizing” observer participation is therefore understandable as an attempt to manage a large and diverse community at a particularly fraught point in the negotiations, but it becomes concerning when substantive proposals from major observer groups receive no meaningful response.

Better coordination may improve participation; it cannot be a prerequisite for access. Indigenous Peoples, scientists, waste pickers, workers, public-health organizations, environmental NGOs, consumer groups, local authorities and business coalitions have distinct mandates and cannot simply be compressed into a few convenient voices without losing the diversity that gives observer participation its value.

There is, however, a practical way forward. the process that the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control has made a distinction between observers with “vested interests” (i.e. the tobacco companies and their associated interests) and the “public interest.” This possible approach has also been suggested during the negotiations, with no substantive response received.

Alternatively, UNEP already has a recognized Major Groups Facilitating Committee, composed of elected representatives of the nine Major Groups and supported by the UNEP Civil Society Unit, whose responsibility includes facilitating accredited civil-society participation in UNEP’s intergovernmental processes.

The Chair could ask this existing mechanism to invite each Major Group to nominate one or two organizations, selected for relevant expertise and balanced representation, to attend informal governmental meetings as silent observers or, where appropriate, to contribute at designated sessions.

This would resemble the approach used under the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, where the secretariat contacts constituency focal points to nominate a limited and balanced number of observer representatives for smaller workshops and meetings.

The model is imperfect: UNEP’s Major Groups do not neatly encompass every constituency engaged in the plastics negotiations, and limited representation at informal meetings must not replace broad access at formal INC sessions. It would nevertheless remove the claim that observers have failed to organize themselves, place responsibility within an existing and recognized UNEP process, and avoid the Chair or Secretariat choosing preferred interlocutors.

The choice is not between an unmanageably open meeting and a completely closed process. What matters is that observers have some direct line into the negotiations and can see that their expertise and proposals are genuinely considered.

The present separation also carries financial and political risks. The INC has depended heavily on voluntary donor support. As of 25 March 2026, UNEP reported more than USD 40 million in contributions, including more than USD 7.2 million from Norway and approximately USD 2.5 million from Switzerland. Norway’s subsequent review and reported hold on aspects of its wider UNEP funding was already a warning that financing cannot be treated as politically unconditional.

No donor has announced that restrictions on observers will cause it to withdraw support. Donor governments may nevertheless ask why they should continue financing a process that repeatedly postpones decisions, accommodates the least ambitious actors and limits access for many of the organizations supplying evidence, implementation experience and public accountability. A process that loses legitimacy also places its financing at risk.

INC-5.4 is the final credible test of whether the UNEP process can produce a treaty reflecting the mandate agreed in 2022. The session cannot arrive after months of closed governmental discussions with observers presented with a largely completed political package. The Chair and Secretariat should clarify participation modalities now and establish structured, direct engagement with observers before March, using UNEP’s existing civil-society architecture if necessary.

If INC-5.4 produces another continuation or a lowest-common-denominator text stripped of meaningful lifecycle measures and effective controls on products, production and chemicals, high-ambition governments should be prepared to pursue an Ottawa-style diplomatic process.

That is not the preferred outcome; a strong global treaty concluded through UNEP remains the better course. But the UN process cannot demand political loyalty, donor financing and stakeholder expertise while progressively closing the door on those stakeholders.

Rebuilding trust with observers will not solve every substantive division in the plastics negotiations. It is, however, a necessary test of whether the process still intends to be ambitious, legitimate and capable of delivering an effective treaty. If that test cannot be met, countries serious about ending plastic pollution may need to create a different pathway.

Craig Boljkovac is Executive Director of Green Cross International and has more than 35 years of experience in international environmental policy and sustainable development. He is a co-founder of IPEN. He has participated in several sessions and related meetings of the global plastics treaty negotiations. The opinions expressed are his own.

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