LONDON, Jan 13 2026 (IPS) – The richest 1% have exhausted their annual carbon budget – the amount of CO2 that can be emitted while staying within 1.5 degrees of warming – only ten days into the year, according to new analysis from Oxfam. The richest 0.1% already used up their carbon limit on the 3rd January.
This day – named by Oxfam as ‘Pollutocrat Day’ – highlights how the super-rich are disproportionately responsible for driving the climate crisis.
The emissions of the richest 1% generated in one year alone will cause an estimated 1.3 million heat-related deaths by the end of the century. Decades of over consumption of emissions by the world’s super rich are also causing significant economic damage to low and lower-middle income countries, which could add up to $44 trillion by 2050.
To stay within the 1.5 degrees limit, the richest 1% would have to slash their emissions by 97% by 2030. Meanwhile, those who have done the least to cause the climate crisis – including communities in poorer and climate-vulnerable countries, Indigenous groups, women and girls – will be the worst impacted.
“Time and time again, the research shows that governments have a very clear and simple route to drastically slash carbon emissions and tackle inequality: by targeting the richest polluters.
By cracking down on the gross carbon recklessness of the super-rich, global leaders have an opportunity to put the world back on track for climate targets and unlock net benefits for people and the planet,” said Oxfam’s Climate Policy Lead Nafkote Dabi.
On top of their lifestyle emissions, the super-rich are also investing in the most polluting industries. Oxfam’s research finds that each billionaire carries, on average, an investment portfolio in companies that will produce 1.9 million tonnes of CO2 a year, further locking the world into climate breakdown.
The wealthiest individuals and corporations also hold disproportionate power and influence. The number of lobbyists from fossil fuel companies attending the recent COP summit in Brazil, for example, was more than any delegation apart from the host nation, with 1600 attendees.
“The immense power and wealth of super-rich individuals and corporations have also allowed them to wield unjust influence over policymaking and water down climate negotiations.” Dabi added.
Oxfam calls on governments to slash the emissions of the super-rich and make rich polluters pay through:
Increase taxes on income and wealth of the Super-rich and proactively support and engage on the negotiations for the UN Convention of International Tax Cooperation to deliver a fairer global architecture.
Excess profit taxes on fossil fuel corporations. A Rich Polluter Profits Tax on 585 oil, gas and coal companies could raise up to US $400 billion in its first year, equivalent to the cost of climate damages in the Global South.
Ban or punitively tax carbon-intensive luxury items like super-yachts and private jets. The carbon footprint of a super-rich European, accumulated from nearly a week of using super yachts and private jets, matches the lifetime carbon footprint of someone in the world’s poorest 1 percent
Build an equal economic system that puts people and planet first by rejecting dominant neoliberal economics and moving towards an economy based on sustainability and equality.
Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement. —Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert
Agriculture is both a challenge and a solution for climate change. Busani Bafana/IPS
BULAWAYO, Jan 9 2026 (IPS) – As they ate catered meals, COP30 negotiators had no appetite for fixing broken food systems, a major source of climate pollution, experts warn.
Food systems are the complete journey food takes—from the farm to fork—which means its growing, processing, distribution, trade and consumption and even the waste.
The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) warns that the final COP30 agreement risks deepening climate and hunger crises. It failed to address global warming emissions from food systems and the escalating damages caused by fossil-fuel-dependent industrial agriculture.
Food appears only once in the negotiated text, as a narrow indicator on ‘climate resilient food production’ under the Global Goal on Adaptation, IPES-Food pointed out.
“There is no mention of food systems, no roadmap to tackle deforestation, and no recognition that industrial agriculture drives nearly 90 percent of forest loss worldwide,” noted the think tank, emphasizing that negotiators also weakened language in the Mitigation Work Programme from addressing the ‘drivers’ of deforestation to vague ‘challenges.’
IPES-Food argued that the omission of food systems in the COP30 agreement was in stark contrast to the summit itself, which was held in the heart of the Amazon. Thirty percent of all food served during COP30 came from agroecological family farmers and traditional communities, and concrete public policy proposals for a just transition of food systems were on full display, IPES-Food said.
By not supporting a transition to environmentally friendly and low-emission agriculture, the agreement has left the global food system—and the billions who depend on it—highly vulnerable to the very climate shocks it helps cause, experts said.
“Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement,” said Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert and president of the Brazilian National Food and Nutrition Security Council (Consea), in a statement.
“Despite all the talk, negotiators failed to act, and the lived realities of people most affected by hunger, poverty, and climate shocks went unheard.”
Big Oil and Big Ag, Bigger voice
More than 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists were registered as delegates to COP30. They are blamed for influencing discussions and promoting false solutions to climate change.
“COP30 was supposed to be the Implementation COP—where words turned into action,” Danielle Nierenberg, an expert on sustainable agriculture and food issues and President of Food Tank, told IPS. “But once again, corporate interests won over people, nature, and the future of our food and agriculture systems as part of the solution to the climate crisis.”
Raj Patel, IPES-Food panel expert and professor at the University of Texas, argues that agribusiness lobbyists captured COP30 to influence outcomes favoring industrial agriculture and big oil interests.
“Food systems are second only to oil and gas as a driver of the climate crisis, and unlike oil wells, they are also the first victim of the chaos they create, Patel noted.
Obstacles and Opportunities
Scientists have warned that carbon emissions, including those from agriculture, must be cut considerably if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C or less.
Even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target, scientists have said.
Selorm Kugbega, a Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, agrees that despite many promises made to tackle agriculture-linked emissions, COP30 turned out to be a damp squib for agrifood systems.
Initiatives such as RAIZ to restore 500 million hectares of degraded agricultural land by 2030 and TERRA to scale out climate solutions for smallholder farmers through blended finance, which were launched at COP30 omitted to highlight the effects of industrial food systems. Over 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists participated in discussions at COP30, leading to accusations of swaying the outcomes.
Analysts warn the final agreement at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, risks deepening climate and hunger crises. Credit: Raimundo Pacco/COP30
Kugbega observed that after several years of slow progress and momentum in integrating food systems in climate negotiations, COP30 should have been the opportunity to seal agriculture’s centrality in future COPs. However, it ended with no clear agreements on grant-based public finance for adaptation in agriculture or redirection of public funds that subsidize industrial systems.
The climate negotiations demonstrated power inequality in climate negotiations with the implicit protection of industrial agriculture interests, which weakened the credibility of any global efforts at mitigating agriculture-based emissions, Kugbega observed, highlighting that smallholders bear a high burden of climate risks and have little adaptation financing.
Kugbega argued the most powerful countries, which are generally less dependent on agriculture, tend to prioritize sectors such as energy and transport in climate negotiations. However, many least developed countries, particularly in Africa, are highly dependent on agriculture for employment and economic stability and face urgent climate risks.
“Yet these countries often lack the political influence to elevate agriculture and food systems as central issues in COP negotiations,” he said. “COP30 in Brazil presented a major opportunity to shift this imbalance, making the failure to position food systems at the center of the climate agenda particularly troubling.”
Frugal Financing for Food and Farmers
According to the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the UN’s Standing Committee on Finance, agriculture receives a small and insufficient share of total global climate finance.
Of the available approximate total global climate finance of USD 1.3 trillion per year on average, agriculture gets around USD 35 billion per year. This is a huge shortfall given that food systems are estimated to be responsible for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and are one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, according to the CPI. Worse still, smallholder farmers, who produce up to 80 percent of food in developing countries, only receive 0.3 percent—a striking imbalance, yet they feed the world and are more exposed to climate impacts.
Will COP31 Deliver?
While COP30 highlighted the need to tackle climate change impacts through the transformation of food systems, such as highlighted in the Belém Declaration on Hunger, Poverty and Human-Centered Climate Action, it remains to be seen if COP31 will deliver a positive outcome on food systems.
Waiting for COP31 to save the world is surrendering because agribusiness lobbyists do not take holidays, argues IPES-Food panel’s Raj Patel.
“The test is not whether diplomats can craft better language in Antalya, but whether farmers’ movements, indigenous movements, and climate movements can generate enough political pressure to make governments fear inaction more than they fear confronting corporate power,” he said.
COP31, to be hosted by Turkey with Australia as negotiations president in 2026 , is expected to prioritize an action agenda centered on adaptation finance, fossil fuel phase-out, adaptation in Small Island Developing States, and oceans.
While this agenda aligns with broader climate justice goals, it means food systems risk becoming indirectly addressed rather than explicitly championed, Kugbega said.
Given the stalled negotiations on financing sustainable agriculture transitions and the postponement of the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Agriculture, Kugbega said COP31 will likely focus more on developing new roadmaps and agreements than on full-scale implementation.
COP32 could be a greater opportunity for the implementation of the work program under Ethiopia’s COP32 presidency, given the country’s direct exposure to climate risks in agriculture, he noted.
“COP31 will likely shape whether the world arrives at COP32 ready to implement and operationalize sustainable food systems or once again be forced to renegotiate what is already known.”
This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.
People take part in an anti-corruption protest in Kathmandu, Nepal on 8 September 2025. Credit: Navesh Chitrakar/Reuters via Gallo Images
NEW YORK, Dec 24 2025 (IPS) – 2025 has been a terrible year for democracy. Just over 7 per cent of the world’s population now live in places where the rights to organise, protest and speak out are generally respected, according to the CIVICUS Monitor, a civil society research partnership that measures civic freedoms around the world. This is a sharp drop from over 14 per cent this time last year.
Civic freedoms underpin healthy democracies, and the consequences of this stifling of civil society are apparent. At the end of the first quarter of the 21st century, the world is experiencing 19th century levels of economic inequality. The wealth of the richest 1 per cent is surging while some 8 per cent of the world’s population – over 670 million people – suffer from chronic hunger. Weapons-producing firms, closely intertwined with political elites, are reaping windfall profits as death and destruction rains down in Gaza, Myanmar, Sudan, Ukraine and many other places. It should surprise no one that the political leaders fomenting these conflicts are also squashing civic freedoms to avert questions about their motivations.
From Lima to Los Angeles, Belgrade to Dar es Salaam and Jenin to Jakarta, far too many people are being denied the agency to shape the decisions that impact their lives. Yet these places have also been the site of significant protests against governments this year. Even as authoritarianism appears to be on the march, people are continuing to pour onto the streets to insist on their freedoms. As we speak people in Sofia in Bulgaria are demonstrating in large numbers against endemic corruption which recently forced the government to resign.
History shows that mass demonstrations can lead to major advances. In the 20th century, people’s mobilisations helped achieve women’s right to vote, liberation of colonised peoples and adoption of civil rights legislation to address race-based discrimination. In the 21st century, advances have been made in marriage equality and other LGBTQI+ rights, and in highlighting the climate crisis and economic inequality through protests. But in 2025, the right to protest, precisely because it can be effective, is under assault by authoritarian leaders. Around the world, the detention of protesters is the number one recorded violation of civic freedoms, closely followed by arbitrary detentions of journalists and human rights defenders who expose corruption and rights violations.
This backsliding is now happening in major established democracies. This year, the CIVICUS Monitor downgraded Argentina, France, Germany, Italy and the USA to an ‘obstructed’ civic space rating, meaning the authorities impose significant constraints on the full enjoyment of fundamental rights. This regression is being driven by anti-rights nationalist and populist forces determined to degrade constitutional checks and balances and advance ballot box majoritarianism that denies minorities a fair say in economic, political and social life.
The push to degrade democracy by anti-rights forces now coming to fruition has been many years in the making. It accelerated this year with the return of Donald Trump. His administration immediately withdrew support to international democracy support programmes and instead built links to politicians responsible for crushing civic freedoms and committing grotesque human rights violations. Trump has laid out of the red carpet to El-Salvador’s Nayib Bukele, Hungary’s Victor Orbán, Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Saudi Arabia’s Mohammed bin Salman, ushering in a new era of values-free might-is-right diplomacy that threatens to undermine decades of painstaking progress achieved by civil society.
The fallout is clear. Many wealthy democratic governments that traditionally fund civil society activities have significantly reduced their contributions. At the same time, they have linked their remaining support for civil society to narrowly defined strategic military and economic interests. In doing so, they have played directly into the hands of powerful authoritarian states such as China, Egypt, Iran, Nicaragua and Venezuela that seek to discredit domestic calls for accountability. Countries including Ecuador and Zimbabwe have introduced laws to limit the ability of civil society organisations to receive international funding.
All these developments are negatively impacting on civil society efforts for equality, peace and social justice. Yet the story of 2025 is also one of persistent resistance, and some successes. The courage demonstrated by Generation Z protesters has inspired people around the world. In Nepal, protests triggered by a social media ban led to the fall of the government, offering hope for a much-needed political reset. In Kenya, young protesters continued to take to the streets to demand political reform despite state violence. In Moldova, a cash-rich disinformation campaign run by a fugitive oligarch failed to sway the course of the national election away from human rights values. In the USA, the number of people joining the No-Kings protests just keeps on growing.
With over 90 per cent of the world’s population living with the institutional denial of full civic freedoms, anti-rights forces must be feeling pretty smug right now. But democratic dissent is brewing, particularly among Generation Z, denied political and economic opportunities but understanding that another world – one more equal, just, peaceful and environmentally sustainable – is possible. It’s far from game over yet, and even in difficult times, people will demand freedoms – and breakthroughs may be just around the corner.
Mandeep S Tiwana is Secretary General of CIVICUS, the global civil society alliance.
Two years ago, a Karam tree branch brought from another district was being planted in the SAMS office premises along the Shyamnagar-Munshiganj road, but it didn’t survive. Credit: Rafiqul Islam Montu/IPS
SATKHIRA, Bangladesh, Dec 9 2025 (IPS) – A dried karam tree branch stands on the bank of a pond in a field in Datinakhali village adjacent to the Sundarbans. Despite many efforts, the tree could not be saved.
For two years, the Munda community in Bangladesh’s Sundarbans had been fighting to save the Karam tree so that they could bring back their traditional Karam festival—once the biggest festival in their community. Many trees are unable to survive due to the effects of salinity—this list includes the Karam tree, which is the main ingredient in celebrating the festival.
Bhakta Sardar, a priest from the Munda community, says the festival of the indigenous Munda community would be incomplete without the branches of the Karam tree
“We believe that our prosperity and well-being are hidden in the branches of the Karam tree. We pray to God to achieve our prosperity around this festival. But frequent cyclones and salinity have killed the Karam trees.”
“Now we celebrate this festival in its name only for the prosperity of the community. We cannot leave the festival for the next generation,” added Bhakta Sardar, referring to a smaller festival where the community uses fig tree branches as an alternative.
While the debate about how to integrate non-economic losses and damages due to the impact of climate change continued during the 30th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, the Munda community is looking for ways to revive the Karam festival, a symbol of their prosperity. A recent study emphasized that these non-economic losses and damages included the loss of religious and cultural practices.
The study says that climate risks are increasing on the coast of Bangladesh. The risk is even higher in the southwest. If this situation continues in the future, small communities like the indigenous Munda community will be in even greater crisis. The study called for policy and financial reform to assist communities like this to adapt to the impacts of climate change.
In Search of the Karam Tree
The scientific name of the Karam tree is Mitragyna parvifolia. This tree in the Asian region is also known as Kelikadam. It mainly blooms before the monsoon. As the Karam tree has disappeared, the indigenous Munda community of Bangladesh now celebrates a similar festival on a smaller scale, with branches of a fig tree. The scientific name of this tree is Ficus religiosa.
There were once many Karam trees in the villages of southwestern Bangladesh. Datinakhali, adjacent to the Sundarbans in the Shyamnagar upazila (subdistrict) of Satkhira district, is one such village. This village celebrated the Karam festival with a grand event, with people from the Munda community from different areas joining in.
In addition to their time-honored religious tradition, the community in this village on the banks of the Chuna River faces economic difficulties.
The indigenous Munda community lives in several villages adjacent to the Sundarbans in Koyra upazila (sub-district) of Khulna district in southwestern Bangladesh.
Shukkuri Rani Munda used to attend the Karam festival organized in the courtyard of Fulsingh Munda’s house in Uttar Haztakhali village.
“To everyone now, the festival feels like a myth. A storm has swept away the entire festival. The next generation will forget the name of the Karam festival,” she says.
Munda Young Balai Krishna Sardar (38), president of the Sundarban Adivasi Unnayan Sangstha of that village, cannot recall attending the festival. Rangalal Munda’s 60-year-old father, Fulsingh Munda, witnessed a small-scale celebration five years ago. After Fulsingh’s death a year ago, no one in the village now knows how to initiate the Karam festival.
Geeta Rani Munda, 42, lives precariously in Datinakhali village, adjacent to the Sundarbans. She wants the Karam festival to return for her prosperity. Credit: Rafiqul Islam Montu/IPS
‘A Symbol of Our Faith’
The Munda community holds the belief that the branches of this tree conceal prosperity and well-being. They believe that the Karam festival ensures their good health and the well-being of future generations. Various tribal communities in Jharkhand, West Bengal, and Bihar, India, celebrate this festival with the same beliefs. Indigenous communities like Munda, Mahato, Kurmi, Matato, Santal, Orao, Baraik, Singh, Pahan, Mahali, Bhumij, etc., all celebrate the Karam festival.
“The Karam festival is our faith. Perhaps our economic condition is gradually deteriorating because we cannot follow our religious instructions,” said Anandini Rani Munda of Datinakhali village, articulating the belief that religious and economic wellbeing are intrinsically interlinked.
Nilkant Pahan, a priest of Burigoalini village in Shyamnagar upazila (sub-district), had been conducting the puja (religious ceremony) of the Munda community for eight years. He has organized the Karam festival several times following the ancestral tradition. But they were small events.
“Celebrating the Karam festival is our religious tradition. Our ancestors observed this tradition. We are trying to maintain its continuity. We are facing a much greater socio-economic and cultural crisis than before. We do not know what this crisis is because we cannot observe religious traditions,” Pahan says.
Impact of salinity
During Cyclone Aila in 2009, the entire area was submerged in the wave of salt water that broke the dam. The land was submerged in salt water for a long time, and the Karam trees could no longer survive. Many elderly Munda citizens believe that not only Aila but also other cyclones, especially a strong cyclone that hit the region in 1988, helped reduce the number of Karam trees.
GM Mostafizur Rahman, Chief Scientific Officer of Khulna Soil Resources Institute, said, “Both the intensity and extent of salinity in soil and water are increasing due to climate change; 81 percent of land in Shyamnagar is affected by varying degrees of salinity.”
Professor Saleh Ahmed Khan, Department of Botany, Jahangirnagar University, said, “The tree that the Munda community calls the ‘Karam’ tree is ‘Kelikadam.’ We did not find it among the 528 species under our research. The tree may not have survived due to the spread of salinity.”
Fight To Bring Back the Karam Festival
The Sundarbans Adivasi Munda Sangstha (SAMS) and leading members of the Munda community are working to bring back the Karam tree. They are trying to bring back the Karam festival by bringing branches of the Karam tree from other districts.
Two years ago, a branch of the Karam tree was planted in the SAMS office premises on the Shyamnagar-Munshiganj road, and another branch was planted in the Munda-dominated Datinakhali village. But it was not possible to save the tree. They will try again next year.
“We celebrate the Karam festival for our prosperity. We are trying to save the Karam trees for the festival. But due to salinity in the soil, the Karam trees cannot be saved. As an alternative, we use the branches of the fig (Ficus religiosa) tree,” said Geeta Rani Munda of Datinakhali village.
Krishnapada Sardar, Executive Director of SAMS, said it wasn’t enough that this festival only survives in the stories of elders.
“It was a major event in the rural culture of this community, which is proud of its identity. Climate change has changed the food habits of the Munda community, and the opportunities for livelihood have narrowed. The families of the community are facing an extreme economic crisis.
“Our lost festivals can be brought back by restoring the Karam tree. We want to return to our lost traditions. We want to return to our roots.”
Local farmer ploughing a field in Indonesia. Credit: Unsplash
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil, Nov 26 2025 (IPS) – The UN climate talks at COP30 once again brought the critical issue of climate finance to the forefront of global discussions.
However, while much of the debate revolved around traditional forms of aid directed at developing countries most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change, a faster, more transformative approach lies in expanding access to carbon markets.
When emerging and developing economies (EMDEs) are equipped with the tools and knowledge needed to engage in these markets on their own terms, carbon finance can be generated and harnessed in ways that reflect their unique natural assets, governance, social contexts, and national priorities.
Achieving global climate and sustainable development goals depends on ensuring that those worst affected by climate change can fully participate in and benefit from this growing flow of finance.
EMDEs are on the frontlines of climate change — from rising sea levels threatening Pacific island nations to intensifying droughts and fires in the Amazon and Horn of Africa, and increasingly intense and frequent hurricanes in the Caribbean. These crises often hit hardest in regions that have contributed least to global emissions and in the most difficult position to react to them.
Yet, these same nations face a climate finance shortfall of $1.3 trillion per year. Carbon markets present an opportunity for these countries to bridge this gap by turning their natural advantages into climate finance assets.
Despite successful initiatives aimed at bolstering both high-integrity supply and demand for carbon credits, significant barriers to access persist, particularly for EMDEs. From fragmented policy landscapes to weak governance structures, limited institutional capacity, and low investor confidence, various obstacles prevent the vast potential of EMDEs to engage fully.
The Access Strategies Program — led by the Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative — is a direct response to these challenges. It helps governments design and implement their own pathways into high-integrity carbon markets, enabling them to build the policies, institutional capacity, and investor confidence needed to meet their climate finance needs and transform their potential into progress.
Each country’s natural capital — from Brazil’s vast rainforest and agricultural landscapes, to the Caribbean’s blue carbon ecosystems, or Kenya’s grasslands and renewable energy potential — represents a unique competitive advantage, ready to be realised.
Simultaneously, no two countries share the same development goals or governance contexts. In some, carbon markets can drive forest conservation and biodiversity protection; while in others, they deliver the most impact by strengthening rural livelihoods or financing clean energy transitions.
The Access Strategies model recognises this uniqueness, tailoring its support to help countries use carbon finance in ways that align with their own specific economic and environmental strategies and goals.
For example, the Partnership for Agricultural Carbon (PAC) — developed with the Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (IICA) — is building capacity across Latin American and Caribbean agriculture ministries to participate in high-integrity carbon markets. It provides training, policy guidance, and decision-making tools that help governments and farmers identify viable carbon projects aligning with national agricultural and sustainability goals.
The collaboration has given small and medium producers a clearer route to investment, while positioning agriculture as a central player in regional climate strategies. Another example of the Access Strategies work is the recently launched Amazon Best Practices Guide, which will help Amazon state governments design and implement carbon market frameworks made specifically for their unique ecological and governance realities.
Moreover, in countries such as Kenya, Peru, and Benin, the Program has provided tailored support to develop policy and regulatory frameworks, strengthen institutional capacity, and attract responsible investment for high-priority climate mitigation projects — all in line with country-led goals.
These examples show what’s possible when governments have the tools and expertise to engage in high-integrity carbon markets on their own terms. More countries should seize this opportunity to tap into the growing flow of finance from carbon markets.
While carbon markets are not a silver bullet, they are one of the few scalable and self-sustaining tools available when grounded in integrity and tailored to each country’s needs.
Programs like Access Strategies do more than transfer technical knowledge — they build the enabling conditions for locally led action, drawing on countries’ unique ecological, social, and institutional insights to shape solutions that work in practice.
The focus of global climate action should not only be on new funding pledges, but on ensuring funding that is already available is effectively redirected for EMDEs countries to harness their own natural capital and promote social inclusion, while meeting their climate goals and reshaping their development pathway.
Building this kind of capacity is how we turn global ambition into lasting, locally owned progress, and moreover how carbon finance can become a true instrument of sustainable development.
Ana Carolina Avzaradel Szklo, Technical Director, Markets and Standards, Voluntary Carbon Markets Integrity Initiative (VCMI)
VICTORIA, Seychelles, Nov 25 2025 (IPS) – When the world gathered in Glasgow for COP26, the mantra was “building back better.” Two years later, in Sharm El Sheikh, COP27 promised “implementation.”
This year, in Belém, Brazil, COP30 arrived with a heavier burden: to finally bridge the chasm between lofty rhetoric and the urgent, measurable steps needed to keep 1.5 °C alive.
James Alix Michel
What Was Expected of COP30 were modest yet critical. After the disappointments of Copenhagen (2009) and the optimism sparked by Paris (2015), developing nations, small island states, Indigenous groups and a swelling youth movement demanded three things:
1. Binding phase out timelines for coal, oil and gas. 2. A fully funded Loss and Damage Facility to compensate vulnerable countries already suffering climate impacts. 3. Scaled up adaptation finance—tripling the $120 billion a year pledge and ensuring it reaches the frontline communities that need it most.
However the negotiations evolved into a tug of war between ambition and inertia. Wealthier nations, still reeling from economic shocks, offered incremental increases in adaptation funding and a new Tropical Forests Forever Facility (TFFF) worth $125 billion, with 20 percent earmarked for Indigenous stewardship. The Global Implementation Accelerator—a two year bridge to align Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) with 1.5 °C—was launched, alongside a Just Transition Mechanism to share technology and financing.
However, the text on fossil fuel phase out remained voluntary; the Loss and Damage Fund was referenced but not capitalised; and the $120 billion adaptation pledge fell short of the $310 billion annual need.
But there were Voices That Could Not Be Ignored.
Developing Nations (the G77+China) reminded the plenary that climate justice is not a charity—it is a legal obligation under the UNFCCC. They demanded that historic emitters honor their “common but differentiated responsibilities.”
Island States(AOSIS) warned that sea level rise is no longer a future scenario; it is eroding coastlines and displacing entire cultures. Their plea: “1.5 °C is our survival, not a bargaining chip.”
Indigenous Peoples highlighted the destruction of Amazon and Boreal forests, urging that 30 percent of all climate finance flow directly to communities that protect 80 percent of biodiversity.
Youth — The Gen Z generation, marched outside the venue, chanting “We will not be diluted” demanding binding commitments and accountability mechanisms.
The Legacy of Copenhagen, Paris, and the Empty COPs –
I attended COP15 in Copenhagen (2009), where the “Danish draft” was rejected, and the summit collapsed amid accusations of exclusion. The disappointment lingered until Paris (2015), where the 1.5 °C aspiration was enshrined, sparking hope that multilateralism could still work. Since then, COPs have been a carousel of promises: the Green Climate Fund fell $20 billion short; the 2022 Glasgow Climate Pact promised “phasing out coal” but left loopholes. Each iteration has chipped away at trust.
COP30 was billed as the moment to reverse that trend.
And the result? Partial progress, but far from the transformational shift required.
Did We Achieve What We Hoped For?
In blunt terms: No. The pledges secured are insufficient to limit warming to 1.5 °C, and critical gaps—binding fossil fuel timelines, robust loss and damage funding, and true equity in finance—remain unfilled.
Yet, there are glimmers. The tripling of adaptation finance, the first concrete allocation for Indigenous led forest protection, and the creation of an Implementation Accelerator signal that the architecture for change exists. The challenge now is to fill it with real money and accountability.
Let us look at ‘What Must Happen Next’
1. Full Capitalisation of Loss and Damage Fund – G20 nations must commit 0.1 % of GDP and disburse within 12 months. 2. Binding Fossil Fuel Phase out – Coal, oil and gas with just transition financing for workers. 3. Scale Adaptation Finance to $310 billion/yr – Re channel subsidies from fossil fuels to resilience projects. 4. Direct Funding for Indigenous and Youth Initiatives – Allocate 30 % of climate finance to community led stewardship. 5. Strengthen Accountability – Mandate annual NDC updates with independent verification and penalties for non compliance.
But for all this to become reality there must be a determined effort to achieve Future Actions. We have watched promises fade after every COP, yet the physics of climate change remains unforgiving. The urgency is not new; the window to act is shrinking. But hope endures – in the solar panels lighting remote villages, in mangroves being restored to buffer storms, in the relentless energy of young activists demanding a livable planet.
Humanity has the knowledge, technology, and resources. What we need now is the collective political will to use them. Let COP30 be remembered not as another empty summit, but as the turning point where the world chose survival over complacency.
The future is not written; we write it with every decision we make today.
James Alix Michel, Former President Republic of Seychelles, Member Club de Madrid.
