UNITED NATIONS, Dec 1 2025 (IPS) – As we gather in Doha for the High-Level Meeting on “Forging Ambitious Global Partnerships for Sustainable and Resilient Graduation of Least Developed Countries,” the stakes could not be higher. A record number of fourteen countries-equally divided between Asia and Africa are now on graduation track. Graduation from the Least Developed Country (LDC) category is a landmark national achievement—a recognition of hard-won gains in income, human development, and resilience. Yet, for too many countries, this milestone comes with new vulnerabilities that risk undermining the very gains that enabled graduation.
Since the establishment of the LDC category in 1971, only eight countries have graduated. Today, 44 countries remain in the group, representing 14% of the world’s population, but contributing less than 1.3% to global GDP. The Doha Programme of Action (DPoA) charts an ambitious yet achievable target: enabling at least 15 additional countries to graduate by 2031. But as the DPoA underscores graduation must be sustainable, resilient and irreversible. It must serve as a springboard for transformation— not a moment of exposure to new risks.
USG Rabab Fatima
Graduation with momentum: Graduation often coincides with a significant shift in the international support landscape. As preferential trade arrangements, concessional financing, and dedicated technical assistance begin to phase down, countries may face heightened fiscal pressures, reduced competitiveness, and increased exposure to external shocks. Without well-sequenced and forward-looking transition planning, these shifts can slow progress toward the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) and strain national systems.
Yet within these challenges also lie opportunities. With the right policies, partnerships, and incentives, graduation can catalyse deeper structural transformation, expand access to new financing windows, strengthen institutions, and unlock pathways to diversified, resilient, and inclusive growth. The task before us is to manage risks while harnessing these opportunities—ensuring that no country graduates without momentum.
Smooth Transition Strategies: A National Imperative The DPoA calls for every graduating country to develop inclusive, nationally owned Smooth Transition Strategies (STS) well-ahead of the graduation date. These strategies must be fully integrated into national development plans and SDG frameworks, ensuring coherence and resilience. They should prioritize diversification, human capital investment, and adaptive governance, while placing women, youth, and local actors at the center of design and oversight. STS must be living documents—flexible, participatory, and backed by robust monitoring and financing.
Reinvigorated Global Partnerships: The essential Pillar No country can navigate this transition alone. The Doha Programme of Action calls for an incentive-based international support structure that extends beyond graduation. For LDCs with high utilization of trade preferences – the withdrawal of preferential market access must be carefully sequenced to avoid abrupt disruptions. For climate-vulnerable SIDS and LLDCs, enhanced access to climate finance, debt solutions, and resilience support are key elements in their efforts to tackle post-graduation challenges.
Deepened South-South and triangular cooperation, innovative financing instruments, blended finance, and strengthened private-sector engagement will be essential to building productive capacities and unlocking opportunities in digital transformation, green and blue economies, and regional market integration.
iGRAD: A Transformative Tool The operationalization of the Sustainable Graduation Support Facility—iGRAD—is a concrete step forward. By providing tailored advisory services, capacity-building, and peer learning, iGRAD can serve as a critical tool to help countries anticipate risks, manage transitions, and sustain development momentum. Its success, however, hinges on strong political support and adequate, predictable resourcing from development partners.
Graduation as a Catalyst for Transformation Graduation should not be the end of the story—it should be the beginning of a new chapter of resilience and opportunity. With integrated national strategies and reinvigorated global partnerships, we can turn graduation into a catalyst for inclusive, sustainable development. Let us seize this moment in Doha to reaffirm our collective commitment: no country should graduate into vulnerability. Together, we can ensure that graduation delivers on its promise—for communities, for economies, and for future generations.
Rabab Fatima is UN Under Secretary General and High Representative for the Least Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small Island Developing States
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.
DHAKA, Bangladesh, Nov 25 2025 (IPS) – COP30 in Belém is not just another annual climate meeting, it is the 32-year report card of the world governance architecture that was conceived at the Rio Earth Summit of 1992. And that is what report card says: delivery has been sporadic, cosmetic and perilously disconnected with the physics of climatic breakdown.
M. Zakir Hossain Khan
The Amazon, which was once regarded in Rio as an ecological miracle of the world, is now on the verge of an irreversible precipice. Even the communities that struggled to protect it over millennia also demonstrate against COP30 to make it clear that they do not oppose multilateralism, but because multilateralism has marginalized them many times.
Rio Promised Rights, Take Part, and Protection, But Delivery Has Been Fragmented
Rio Summit gave birth to three pillars of international environmental control: UNFCCC (climate), CBD (biodiversity) and UNCCD (desertification). Every one of them was supposed to be participating, equitable and accountable. But progressively delivery disintegrated:
• Rio has only achieved 34 per cent biodiversity commitments (CBD GBO-5). • CO₂ emissions rose over 60% since 1992. • The globe is headed to 2.7 o C with the existing policies (UNEP 2024). • The funding obligations are in a chronic state of arrears, adaptation requirements are three times higher than the real flows.
Rio gave the world a vision. COP30 demonstrates the fact that that vision is yet to be developed.
The Rights Gap: The Key Failure between Rio and Belém
Although Rio pledged to involve Indigenous people, Indigenous people today are only getting less than 1 percent of climate finance. In addition, it caused a rising trend of carbon market-related land grabs and resource exploitation, because of the lack of binding power in the decisions regarding climate. This is not a delivery gap but a right gap. COP30 has been improved technically but has failed to redress the inherent imbalance at Rio that remained unaddressed: decision-making in the absence of custodianship.
The Sleepiness Menace Came to Rio and Detonated by COP30
Rio established three overlapping conventions that lacked a single governance structure. Climate to oceans, food, forests, finance, security, and technology; CBD to traditional knowledge, access and benefit-sharing, and UNCCD to migration, peace and livelihoods all increased over the decades.
The outcome is an institution that is too broad to govern effectively, making watered-down decisions and poor accountability. COP30 is being developed, however, within a system that was never intended to deal with planetary collapse on this level.
The Amazon: The Ultimate Test of Rio on Prognosis
Rio glorified forests as the breathing organs of the world. However, three decades later:
• Amazon was deforested by 17 per cent and was close to the 20-25 per cent dieback mark. • Native land protectors become increasingly violent. • Carbon markets run the risk of stimulating extraction in the name of green growth.
Another pledge is not required by Amazon. It requires energy from its protectors. That was missing in Rio. It is still missing in COP30. Indigenous people depicted in CoP30 in all their frustration and agitation are the consequences of the system failure to provide them with a say in the decision-making process and the unceasing denial of their natural rights.
Young: The Post-Rio Generation that was Duped by Incrementalism
The post-Rio generation (those that were born after the year 30) is more than 50 percent of the world population. They left behind a) tripled fossil subsidy regime; b) soaring climate debt; c) ever-turbid biodiversity collapse; d) rising climate disasters; and e) inability to send up $100B/year finance on time.
They are only impatient not because of emotions. They observe that a system that was developed in 1992 to address a slow-paced crisis can no longer be applied to the fast emergency of 2025.
Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG): Making Good What Rio Left, but Left Incomplete
Natural Rights-Led Governance (NRLG) provides the structural correction that Rio has evaded: a) Nature as a law-rights holder, not a resource; b) Indigenous peoples as co-governors, not consultants; c) Compulsory ecological and rights-based control, not voluntary reporting; d) Direct financing to custodians, not bureaucratic leakage; e) Accountability enforceable in law, not conditional on political comfort. NRLG is not the alternative to the vision of Rio, it is the long-deserved update that will turn the arguments of Rio into reality.
The Verdict: COP30 Moves forward, yet Rio Business Unfinished Haunts it
The advancement of COP30 with its stronger fossil language, more comprehensible measurements of adaptation, new pressure on financing is a reality that is inadequate. It advances the paperwork. It is yet to develop the power shift that would safeguard nature or humanity. As long as rights are not yet non-negotiable, the Rio-to-COP30 trip will be a tale of great promises, half-fulfilled and increasingly dangerous.
What the World Must Do Now
Include nature and Indigenous rights in the COP document; construct governance based on custodianship and co-decision; a system of NCQG to deliver finance to communities; no longer voluntary but obligatory commitments reflecting the final Advisory of ICJ assuming integration of natural rights as a prelude to human rights; and use NRLG as the backbone to all future multilateral climate action.
Rio taught us what to do. COP30 is an education about the consequences of procrastinating. The 30-year period is not going to forgive the errors made in the previous 30. The world should stop being a promise and change to power, negotiate to justice, Rio dream of NRLG deliveries. The deadline is not 2050. It is now.
Rio had sworn justice and rights, but COP30 taught a crueler lesson: the world made promises and not protection. Emission increased, ecosystems failed, money is not spent on fulfilling the finances and Indigenous guardians, to the last remaining forests, continue to get less than 1% of climate money and nearly no say. It is not a policy gap but a failure of rights and governance. If the leaders of the world do not recalibrate climate architecture based on natural rights, since co-decision of the Indigenous and on binding commitments rather than a voluntary one, COP30 will be remembered as the moment when the system was exposed as limiting, not as the moment when the system was fixed. This is no longer a promising problem it is a power problem. And the deadline is not 2050. It is now.
M Zakir Hossain Khan is the Chief Executive at Change Initiative, a Dhaka based think-tank, Observer of Climate Investment Fund (CIF); Architect and Proponent of Natural Rights Led Governance (NRLG).
The Global Environment Facility’s food systems program found that its programs are highly relevant to global efforts to curb deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, fisheries, and commodity supply chains. Pictured here is a farmer in Kashmir’s frontier hamlet of RS Pura bordering Pakistan, farmers in this region have been affected by both climate change and conflict. Credit: Umar Manzoor Shah/IPS
WASHINGTON, D.C & SRINAGAR, Nov 21 2025 (IPS) – A new independent evaluation of the Global Environment Facility’s food systems programs says they are delivering strong environmental and livelihood gains in many countries but warns that a narrow focus on farm production, weak political analysis, and shrinking coordination budgets are holding back deeper transformation.
The Evaluation of GEF Food Systems Programs, prepared by the GEF Independent Evaluation Office for the 70th GEF Council in December 2025, reviews five major programs from GEF 6 to GEF 8. Together they cover 84 projects in 32 countries, backed by about USD 822 million in GEF finance and more than USD 6 billion in co-financing.
The report finds that the programs are highly relevant to global efforts to curb deforestation, land degradation, biodiversity loss and greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, fisheries and commodity supply chains. They also respond to growing pressure on food systems as the world’s population rises and millions still lack access to healthy diets.
“Food systems are major drivers of global forest and biodiversity loss, land degradation, water pollution and greenhouse gas emissions,” the report notes. It says GEF funding has helped countries design more integrated approaches that connect environmental goals with farming, fisheries and rural development.
Results Most Visible at Community Level
During a webinar to launch the report, Fabrizio Mario Dante Felloni, Deputy Director of the Independent Evaluation Office, said the team had used a systemic lens, looking at the whole food system rather than isolated projects. The evaluation drew on document reviews, geospatial analyses, surveys, interviews, and case studies in Ghana, Indonesia, Peru, and Tanzania.
Felloni said the programs mark a clear shift from earlier, more fragmented efforts. They try to connect ministries and sectors that often work in isolation. “Because it was a food system, looking at the different sectors involved” was central to the design, he explained during the presentation.
The evaluation confirms that GEF food systems projects address several environmental pressures at once. Most initiatives target land and soil degradation, deforestation and biodiversity loss, often through better land use planning, sustainable farming practices, and stronger governance of coastal fisheries. Many projects also seek to link environmental gains with better incomes, skills for women and youth, and improved food security.
Results are most visible at the community level. The report highlights gains in biodiversity, improved land management and reduced emissions when farmers have adopted climate-smart or ecosystem-friendly practices. Socioeconomic benefits include higher yields and incomes, new skills for women, and greater youth engagement in agriculture.
At a meso level, some projects are improving value chains through better market access, traceability and basic processing support. At the macro level, the evaluation records progress on policies and governance, including multi-stakeholder platforms, land use and marine planning, and early steps toward aligning national and local policies.
Yet the evaluation also finds clear gaps. While more than 90 percent of projects focus on the production stage, only about 40 percent look seriously at postharvest issues such as storage, processing, transport and markets. Very few tackle food loss, waste or dietary change, even though these are critical for shifting entire food systems.
“Despite having an ambition to look at the food system and value chains, there was still a production-focused type of approach,” Felloni said. Environmental drivers and biophysical issues receive strong attention in design, but only 40 percent of projects examine the political context, and around 30 percent look closely at socioeconomic drivers.
That limited attention to political economy and social dynamics restricts transformational potential, the report argues. It notes that many designs assume that coordination and platforms will naturally lead to policy alignment, without fully analyzing power relations, trade offs or vested interests.
‘Coordination Budgets Are Shrinking’
Jessica Kyle of ICF, who led parts of the evaluation, told the webinar that private sector engagement has been a “key feature” of the food systems programs. Around two-thirds of country projects include some engagement with businesses, from public private partnerships and capacity building to support for national commodity platforms. At the global level, partners such as the International Finance Corporation have mobilized significant private finance for sustainable commodities.
However, she said scaling these efforts remains difficult. Fragmented supply chains, often weak regulatory incentives for sustainability, and unclear business cases are some of the challenges. Programs have also struggled to link global work on standards and finance with activities in country projects.
On the program approach itself, Kyle said the evaluation found real added value. Stronger program governance, shared design frameworks and knowledge pathways have improved the coherence of activities and allowed influence to extend beyond individual project boundaries. The programs have generated many knowledge products, trainings and learning events and have increasingly shifted from broad global exchanges to more targeted regional and commodity-focused dialogues.
Even so, the report finds “relatively limited evidence” that countries are applying this knowledge in a systematic way. Timing is one reason. In some cases, guidance arrived before projects were ready to use it. In others, knowledge products were not tailored to local needs, or project teams were reluctant to adjust activities mid-course.
To address this, the evaluation calls for stronger “country docking” so that global coordination projects can provide support when countries actually need it and in forms they can absorb. It also urges more participatory processes to identify country demands for technical assistance and learning.
A recurring concern is that coordination budgets are shrinking, even as the scope of programs widens. Coordination funding fell from about 10 percent of total program cost in GEF 6 food systems programs to around 7 percent in GEF 8, even though the number of countries and commodities grew. The report warns that this gap risks undermining the entire programmatic promise, since meaningful integration and tailored support require time, travel and staff.
The Catalytic Capital
Speaking for the GEF Secretariat, Peter Mbanda Umunay, thematic lead for food systems and land use, welcomed the evaluation and said many of its findings were already shaping the design of GEF 8 and early thinking on GEF 9. He described it as “one of the less contentious evaluations,” noting that the Secretariat agreed with most points.
Umunay traced the evolution from the first Integrated Approach Pilots in 2015, focused on resilient food systems in sub-Saharan Africa and commodity supply chains, to the FOLUR Impact Program in GEF 7 and the Food Systems Integrated Program in GEF 8. Over time, he said, the Secretariat has tried to tighten links between global coordination platforms and country projects and to use limited GEF funds more strategically as catalytic capital.
He highlighted efforts to promote “country docking” so that information and technical support flow more clearly between global hubs and national projects. The aim is to empower coordination platforms with enough resources and authority to structure strong connections with governments.
On private finance, Umunay said the evaluation had reinforced the case for using GEF resources to unlock much larger flows. By using GEF grants to de-risk investments or support blended finance, he argued, programs can shift perceptions that agriculture and land use are too risky for private investors and bring in both large companies and small and medium enterprises.
He also accepted the criticism that programs focus too much on production and not enough on postharvest value chains. This, he said, is now being addressed in GEF 8 and in plans for GEF 9, including through work on processing, storage, school meal schemes and nutrition outcomes, which can also bring in more ministries and strengthen policy coherence.
The evaluation ends with four main recommendations. It calls on the GEF to sharpen the focus of food systems programs and consider phasing them across replenishment periods so that countries can move from readiness and pilots to larger-scale investments over longer time frames. It urges a broader focus beyond production, especially on value chain integration and demand-side measures, where this can secure environmental and social gains.
The report also recommends deeper analysis of political economy and behavior change at design and during implementation and stronger country docking to turn knowledge and global services into real changes on the ground.
Umunay said the Secretariat had already prepared a management response and would use the findings to strengthen current and future programs. He stressed that the GEF remains country-driven. Governments must see these programs as supporting their priorities, from climate plans and food security strategies to rural development.
“We have been very successful in some countries that have continuously applied this program all across,” he told participants. “We will continue to do that, and this evaluation is eye-opening for the next steps.”
In the midst of the COP30 climate talks, consensus will depend on recognizing that climate action and protecting livelihoods must advance together.
Delegates met at the Global Climate-Smart Agriculture Conference in Brasília before the COP30 climate talks. Credit: 2025Clim-Eat/Flickr
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS) – The language of agricultural sustainability changes like the seasons—from “climate-smart” to “regenerative,” “agroecological,” and “nature-positive.” Each term reflects good intentions, but the growing list risks duplication, confusion and delays.
The recent CSA Conference in Brasília gathered leaders from policy, science and finance ahead of COP30 to focus not on buzzwords but on the shared foundations of sustainable food systems, which is all the more important in the Grave New World. For all the various theories of change, many share the same principles of soil health, crop innovation, inclusive finance and resilient livestock production.
In the midst of the COP30 climate talks, consensus will depend on recognizing that climate action and protecting livelihoods must advance together. Leaders must challenge themselves to measure success not only in emissions reduced, but also in the quality of life sustained by a thriving and resilient rural economy. With Brazil’s COP presidency determined to accelerate agreements into action, the challenge now is to accept and advance context-specific approaches in pursuit of a shared goal.
At present, fragmentation continues to divide institutions, donors, NGOs and producers, with competing ideologies slowing progress toward sustainability at the speed and scale required. For example, while a vast number of organizations are currently backing the concept of regenerative agriculture, others tread the paths of sustainable intensification or climate-smart agriculture. But some of the practices, such as agroforestry, could fall under each of these concepts.
And the Koronivia Joint Work on Agriculture (KJWA), established prior to COP26, has been succeeded by Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on the Implementation of Climate Action on Agriculture and Food Security and yet farmers are still waiting for clear national strategies to emerge from years of workshops and working papers. While the principles underpinning these joint work programs are sound, they have not generated action at the speed needed.
On the other hand, the six CSA Conference themes—from soil health and crop innovation to finance and policy—offer a fundamental framework around which there is already much agreement and can deliver results under whichever buzzword it is categorized. The themes also reflect the priorities of Brazil’s Action Agenda and ABC+ Plan, highlighting practical areas of consensus.
Brazil’s experience offers tangible examples of how shared priorities can move from discussion to delivery. The ABC+ Plan (2020–2030) forms the backbone of the country’s low-carbon agriculture strategy, integrating sustainable practices like no-till farming, pasture recovery and biological nitrogen fixation into a coherent national framework. It represents a direct contribution to the COP30’s Action Agenda’s agricultural pillar, transforming abstract goals on soil health and productivity into measurable outcomes.
Building on this, Brazil’s RENOVAGRO is the financing arm that enables the implementation of the ABC+ Plan, demonstrating how public policy can activate private investment to move all Action Agenda ambitions forward together. By tying credit eligibility to verified adoption of low-carbon practices, the program allows farmers to commit to transitions that would otherwise be out of reach. This realizes the ABC+ Plan’s policy objectives and shows that progress depends not necessarily on new ideas, but on acting decisively on the systems that already work.
At COP30, the challenge is not to settle on the right language but to sustain the right actions—whatever this might look like according to local circumstances and resources. Progress depends on scaling what we already agree on: sound policies, accessible finance that doesn’t exclude vulnerable populations and resilient food systems that keep production within environmental limits. The next phase must prioritize implementation over invention.
Leaders have an opportunity to move from promises to performance. The task ahead is to scale what already works—not to define new concepts, but to deliver proven solutions faster.
Brazil’s example shows that integration works better than focusing on the continued search for a universal solution. There is no single path forward, only a combination of context-specific approaches bound by diplomatic agreement and sustainable financing.
By focusing on fundamentals, we can avoid the paralysis of competing definitions and begin to act collectively by applying the policies and practices we know work in ways that fit local realities.
Ana Maria Loboguerrero, Director, Adaptive and Equitable Food Systems at Gates Foundation Dhanush Dinesh, Chief Climate Catalyst at Clim-Eat
