Evaluation Finds Food Systems Programs Deliver Results but Warns of Missed Transformation Chances

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Environment, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Global, Headlines, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Food Systems

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

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.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Beyond Buzzwords: COP30’s Opportunity to Deliver on Sustainable Food Systems

Posted on by admin

Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, COP30, Economy & Trade, Environment, Food and Agriculture, Food Security and Nutrition, Food Sustainability, Food Systems, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Natural Resources, Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion


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

IPS UN Bureau

 

Cold or Heat, A Disputed Roadmap to Leave Fossil Fuels Behind in COP30

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, COP30, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Headlines, Integration and Development Brazilian-style, Latin America & the Caribbean, Natural Resources, Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Climate Change

Entrance to the Hangar Convention Center of the Amazonia in the northeastern Brazilian city of Belém. The climate summit, which began on November 10 and is due to conclude on Friday the 21st, is debating issues such as the phase-out of fossil fuels and adaptation goals. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

Entrance to the Hangar Convention Center of the Amazonia in the northeastern Brazilian city of Belém. The climate summit, which began on November 10 and is due to conclude on Friday the 21st, is debating issues such as the phase-out of fossil fuels and adaptation goals. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS) – The heat in the Hangar Convention Center of the Amazonia, in the northeastern Brazilian city of Belém, has reached the negotiation rooms of the climate summit. Over the past 72 hours, one of the most delicate and significant discussions of this climate meeting has been taking place: the path to progressively abandon the production and use of coal, gas, and oil.

In recent hours, a global coalition of rich and developing countries, led by Colombia, has doubled down on pushing for a fossil fuel phase-out roadmap, while major producer countries resist it.

“The plan must have differentiated commitments, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the reform of the international financial system, because foreign debt payments are punishing us,” Colombian Environment Minister Irene Vélez explained to IPS.

For the official, the 30th United Nations Conference of the Parties (COP30) on climate change must result in a roadmap. “People are mobilizing, demanding climate action; we have to start now,” she urged.

In Belém, the gateway to the planet’s largest rainforest, it is no longer just about reducing emissions but about transforming the foundation of the energy system, thus acquiring a moral, political, and scientific urgency. What was initially meant to be the “Amazon COP” has mutated into the “end-of-the-fossil-era-COP,” but the roadmap to achieve it is a toss-up.

“The plan must have differentiated commitments, the elimination of fossil fuel subsidies, and the reform of the international financial system, because external debt payments are punishing us” –Irene Vélez.

Two years after the world agreed at COP28, held in 2023 in Dubai, to move away from fossil fuels, Belém is the moment of truth, upon which the effort to keep global warming below the 1.5° Celsius limit largely depends—a goal considered vital to avoid devastating and inevitable effects on ecosystems and human life.

Thus, the discussion among the 197 parties to the United Nations climate convention has shifted from the “what” to the “how,” and especially to the “when,” questions that have turned potential coordinates into a geopolitical labyrinth.

In that vein, a coalition of over 80 countries emerged on Tuesday the 18th to push the roadmap, including Colombia, Chile, Guatemala, and Panama among the Latin American countries.

One challenge for the roadmap advocates is that the issue is not explicitly part of the main agenda, a resource that the Brazilian presidency of COP30 could use to shirk responsibility on the matter.

The issue appears on the thematic menu of COP30, which started on the 10th and is scheduled to conclude on the 21st, and whose official objectives include approving the Global Goal on Adaptation to climate change and securing sufficient funds for that adaptation.

Approximately 40,000 people are attending this climate summit, including government representatives, multilateral agencies, academia, and civil society organizations.

An unprecedented indigenous presence is also in attendance, with about 900 delegates from native peoples, drawn by the ancestral call of the Amazon, a symbol of the menu of solutions to the climate catastrophe and simultaneously a victim of its causes.

Also present and very active in Belém are about 1,600 lobbyists from the hydrocarbon industry, 12% more than at the 2024 COP, according to the international coalition Kick Big Polluters Out.

The clamor from civil society demands an institutional structure with governance, clear criteria, measurable objectives, and justice mechanisms.

“The roadmap has become a difficult issue to ignore; it is already at the center of these negotiations, and no country can ignore it. The breadth of support is surprising, with rich and poor countries, producers and non-producers, indicating that an agreement is about to fall,” Antonio Hill, Just Transitions advisor for the non-governmental and international Natural Resource Governance Institute, told IPS.

Activists protest on Wednesday the 19th against fossil fuel exploitation at the entrance to the venue of the Belém climate summit, in the Amazonian northeast of Brazil. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

Activists protest on Wednesday the 19th against fossil fuel exploitation at the entrance to the venue of the Belém climate summit, in the Amazonian northeast of Brazil. Credit: Emilio Godoy / IPS

Poisoned

The push for the roadmap comes from the Fossil Fuel Non-Proliferation Treaty, promoted by civil society organizations, strongly adopted by Colombia, and which so far has the support of 18 nations, but no hydrocarbon-producing Latin American country, such as Argentina, Brazil, Ecuador, Mexico, or Venezuela.

Colombia, despite also being a producer and exporter of fossil fuels, has presented its Roadmap for a Just Energy Transition, with which it seeks to replace income from coal and oil with investments in tourism and renewable energy.

Colombia’s 2022-2052 National Energy Plan projects long-term reductions in fossil fuel production. The country announced US$14.5 billion for the energy transition to less polluting forms of energy production.

But for the rest of the region, the duality between maintaining fossil fuels and promoting renewable energies persists.

A prime example of this duality is the COP30 host country itself, Brazil. While the host President, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, and his Minister of Environment and Climate Change, Marina Silva, have insisted on the need to abandon fossil fuels, the government is promoting expansive oil and gas extraction plans.

In fact, just weeks before the opening of COP30, the state-owned oil group Petrobras received a permit for oil exploration in the Atlantic, just kilometers from the mouth of the Amazon River.

But Lula and his team committed that this summit in the heart of the Amazon would be “the COP of truth” and “the COP of implementation,” and the issue of fossil fuels has become central to the negotiations, which Lula joined on Wednesday the 19th to give a push to the talks and the outcomes.

In their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs)—the set of mitigation and adaptation policies countries must present to comply with the Paris Agreement on climate change signed in 2015 at COP21—Argentina, Brazil, Mexico, or Chile avoid mentioning a managed phase-out of fossil fuels.

Simply put, they argue they cannot let go of the old vine before grasping the new one. This stance also involves a delicate aspect, as nations like Ecuador depend on revenues from hydrocarbon exploitation.

Therefore, the Global South has insisted on its demand for funding from rich nations, due to their contribution to the climate disaster through fossil fuel exploitation since the 17th century.

The result of the presented policies is alarming: although many countries have increased their emission reduction targets on paper, they lack details on phasing out production. The only existing roadmap is the growing extractive one.

In fact, the Global Stocktake of the Paris Agreement process, originating from COP28, demanded that countries take measures to move towards a fossil-free era.

The argument is unequivocal: various estimates indicate that fossil fuels contribute 86% of greenhouse gas emissions, the cause of global warming.

But a key point is where to start. For Uitoto indigenous leader Fanny Kuiru Castro, the new general coordinator of the Coordinator of Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin –which  brings together the more than 350 native peoples of the eight countries sharing the biome–, the starting point must precisely be at-risk regions like the Amazon.

“It is a priority. If there isn’t a clear signal that we must proceed gradually, it means the summit has failed and does not want to adopt that commitment. We will have another 30 years of speeches,” she told IPS, alluding to that number of summits without substantial results.

In the Amazon, oil blocks threaten 31 million hectares or 12% of the total area, mining threatens 9.8 million, and timber concessions threaten 2.4 million.

And in that direction, a major obstacle arises: how to finance the phase-out. The roadmap has a direct link to the financial goals aimed at the Global South, with a demand for US$1.2 trillion in funding for climate action starting in 2035.

“Can the COP deliver the financial backing that countries need to reinvent their economies in time to guarantee just and inclusive development?” Hill questioned.

The atmosphere in Belém is of a different urgency compared to Dubai or Baku, where COP29 was held a year ago. The roadmap to a world free of fossil fuel smoke remains a blurry map, drawn freehand on ground that is heating up far too quickly.

In Belém, humanity is deciding whether to brake gradually or to accelerate, with the air conditioning on and a full tank.

 

Explainer: Inside COP30’s 11th Hour Negotiations for Legacy-Building Belém Climate Deal

Posted on by admin

Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP30, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Human Rights, Humanitarian Emergencies, Latin America & the Caribbean, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

COP30


The COP30 Presidency is urging all “negotiators to join in a true mutirão—a collective mobilization of minds, hearts, and hands,” saying this approach helps “accelerate the pace, bridge divides, and focus not on what separates us, but on what unites us in purpose and humanity.”

Negotiations take place throughout the day and now late into the night. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

Negotiations take place throughout the day and now late into the night. Credit: UN Climate Change/Kiara Worth

BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 19 2025 (IPS) – At a Conference of the Parties, where science intersects with politics, reaching agreements is often a tricky business. What is inside the last-minute negotiations as the COP presidency tries to get the parties to agreement at the final plenary?

COP negotiators are diplomats and government officials who meet at the Conference of the Parties to negotiate and agree on how to address climate change. They are also often joined by COP delegates’ representatives from civil society, social movements and businesses.

As representatives of their respective countries that are parties to the UNFCCC treaty, they discuss, debate, and haggle over their preferred wording of texts and legally binding agreements regarding how to address climate change during closed-door sessions.

Windowless Closed-Door Meetings

These closed-door meetings are often also windowless, and negotiators often lose track of time as they work through extensive documentation and diverse national positions to form a final agreement towards the end of the COP summit schedule.

COP 30, Belém, is posting a daily photographic glimpse into the collective effort to build trust, dialogue, and cooperation to accelerate meaningful climate action and deliver its benefits to all. Many hope this message will permeate inside these rooms.

The UN climate summit has now entered its final stages. The Brazilian COP30 Presidency has extended working hours, scheduling late-night meetings for the last two nights—Monday and Tuesday, Nov 17 and 18, 2025.

Tonight might not be any different, as the COP30 Presidency pushes for a rapid compromise and conclusion of a significant part of negotiations to pave the way for a “plenary to gavel the Belém political package.”

After all, the COP is where the science of the Paris Agreement intersects with politics.

The Elusive True Mutirão 

The COP30 Presidency is urging all “negotiators to join in a true mutirão—a collective mobilization of minds, hearts, and hands,” saying this approach helps “accelerate the pace, bridge divides, and focus not on what separates us, but on what unites us in purpose and humanity.”

But this is the point in the negotiations, even in a ‘COP of truth,’ as COP30 was staged to be, where the real claws come out amid accusations of protectionism, trade tensions and geopolitical dynamics as the worlds of business, politics and human survival intersect.

Even as UN officials urge parties to accelerate the pace, warning that “tactical delays and procedural obstructions are no longer tenable” and that deferring challenging issues to overtime results in collective loss, reconciling deep differences among nations is proving easier said than done even within the Global Mutirão—a concept championed by the COP30 presidency.

It calls for worldwide collective action on climate change, inspired by the Brazilian and Indigenous Tupi-Guarani tradition of mutirão, which means “collective effort.” The bone of contention at this juncture is what some parties see as weak climate commitments, insufficient financial pledges from the global North to South, and trade measures.

Protectionism

Trade measures are turning contentious and deeply debatable in Belém because of a difference of perspective—developing countries view them as protectionism, while some developed countries see them as necessary to level the playing field for their climate policies.

For developing countries, protectionism is a deliberate strategy by more developed countries to limit imports to protect their industries from foreign competition and therefore give them an undue advantage.  Developing nations say this is unfair because it restricts their ability to export and gain access to larger markets.

The core of the debate at COP30 is the inclusion of issues like the EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) in climate talks. For some countries, CBAM is a direct part of climate action and belongs at COP. Others say it is an agenda best discussed at the World Trade Organization.

The EU’s Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM) is a tool to put a price on the carbon emissions of certain imported goods, ensuring that the carbon price for imports is equivalent to that for domestic EU production. Its main goals are to prevent “carbon leakage,” or companies moving production to countries with weaker climate policies, encourage cleaner production globally, and protect EU businesses by creating a level playing field.

How to Go About a Just Transition?

The business of climate change is not the only thing that is complex and divisive. There are also small island states calling for rapid emissions cuts vis-à-vis the positions of major emerging economies. G77 and China are an intergovernmental coalition of 134 developing countries that work together to promote their collective economic and developmental interests within the United Nations framework.

China is not an official member and does not pay dues. It has been a partner since 1976, providing significant financial support and political backing to the G77. Developed countries such as the UK, Norway, Japan, and Australia are pushing back against their proposed global just transition, thereby prolonging the negotiations.

Developed nations are refusing the global just transition proposal by the G77 and China because they see it as a new and unnecessary mechanism and a duplication of existing structures. They refuse to accept the financial and technical support these countries are asking for to facilitate this transition. Simply put, they want a less strict framework that allows their own interpretations of existing institutions and funding structures for the just transition.

Where is the Adaptation Financing?

Finance for adaptation is similarly a sticking point. Developed nations are dragging their feet around committing sufficient funds to support developing nations to adapt to climate impacts and transition their energy systems. It is still not clear whether financial commitments will be embedded inside adaptation goals or remain as they are—separate.

Lobbyists and the Fossil Fuel Debate

Amidst growing tensions, it is also not clear whether this COP will phase out or phase down fossil fuels in the final agreement. The large delegation of fossil fuel lobbyists suggests it is too early to call. On the Global Goal on Adaptation (GGA), those who want indicators for measuring adaptation progress directly linked to financial commitments will not budge. The settlement of this matter could potentially take two years (or more).

Disagreements are ongoing about the mandate of the Mitigation Work Program, which seeks to raise ambitions on national emissions reduction. In general, insiders to the negotiations are saying general negotiation tactics are at play.

Some participants are employing delay tactics to buy time and ultimately weasel out of certain commitments; a lack of trust continues, as it has in previous COPs, along with generally slow progress on building consensus around various contentious issues.

This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

 

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

‘No Land Rights, No Climate Justice,’ Say Activists at Peoples’ Summit

Posted on by admin

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, COP30, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Civil Society

Brazilian Indigenous leader and environmentalist Cacique Raoni Metuktire (center) during the closing ceremony of the Peoples’ Summit in Belem on November 16, 2025. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Brazilian Indigenous leader and environmentalist Cacique Raoni Metuktire (center) during the closing ceremony of the Peoples’ Summit in Belem on November 16, 2025. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 17 2025 (IPS) – Brazilian Indigenous leader and environmentalist Cacique Raoni Metuktire appealed for support for Indigenous peoples and their land. From the podium of the Peoples’ Summit, Cacique Raoni warned negotiators at the UN climate conference in Belém that without recognizing Indigenous peoples’ land rights, there will be no climate justice.

“It is getting warmer and warmer. And a big change is going on with the earth. Air is harder to breathe; this is only the beginning,” he said on Sunday while addressing representatives of the global climate justice movement at the Peoples’ Summit. “If we don’t act now, there will be very big consequences for everyone.”

Indigenous people and civil activists from around the world took part in the Peoples’ Summit. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Indigenous people and civil activists from around the world took part in the Peoples’ Summit. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

While Belém city is hosting world leaders, government officials, scientists, policymakers, activists, and more than 1,600 fossil fuel lobbyists to decide the future course of global climate action, the Peoples’ Summit gathered frontline voices.

About nine kilometers from the COP30 venue, at the grounds of the Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA-Federal University of Pará), activists engaged in diverse dialogue for five days and issued the “Declaration of the Peoples’ Summit Towards COP30” in the presence of Indigenous leaders like Raoni, which was handed over to the COP presidency.

The Declaration states that the capitalist mode of production is the main cause of the growing climate crisis. It claims that today’s environmental problems are “a consequence of the relations of production, circulation, and disposal of goods, under the logic and domination of financial capital and large capitalist corporations.” It demands the participation and leadership of people in constructing climate solutions, recognizing ancestral knowledge.

Artists performing indigenous folklore during the closing event of the Peoples’ summit. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Artists performing indigenous folklore during the closing event of the Peoples’ summit. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

Sebastián Ordoñez Muñoz, associated with War on Want, a UK-based organization and part of the political commission of the Peoples’ Summit, said the political declaration constructed through the summit process reflects peoples’ demands and proposals. “It has our solutions, people’s solutions,” he said. He explained that crafting the declaration was a convergence of diverse voices, uniting around clarity on what needs to happen to address the climate crisis.

“It is an expression of the autonomy of people’s movements coming together, converging to develop clear proposals that are based on the real solutions happening on the ground-in the territories, in the forests, in the seas, in the rivers, and so on,” he added. “It’s important to hand it over because we need to make sure that our voices are represented there [at COP]. Any space that we have inside the COP has always been through struggle.”

As a space for community members to come together and deliver the public’s point of view, Peoples’ Summits have been organized as parallel conferences of the COP. It did not take place during the last three COPs. But in Brazil, civil society is actively making its case.

Peoples’ Summit attracted a large number of Indigenous leaders and community members, whereas at COP their access is limited. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

The Peoples’ Summit attracted a large number of Indigenous leaders and community members, whereas at COP their access is limited. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS

“We need to continue making our voices heard there, but also not to beg-to state that we have the solutions and that we must be listened to, because none of these answers, none of these solutions are possible without the communities themselves,” Ordoñez Muñoz told IPS News from the Peoples’ Summit ground. “I think it’s a statement and a road map. Where do we go from here?”

Unlike COP30, the Peoples’ Summit attracted diverse groups of community members and civil society leaders. The COP venue follows the process of negotiations, while the summit emphasizes collaboration to find solutions and celebrate unity. It blends discussion with Indigenous folklore and music to bring stories of community.

“If you go into the COP summit, it’s so stale. It’s so sterile. It’s so monotonous. So homogeneous. So corporate,” Ordoñez Muñoz said. “Over here, what we have is the complete opposite. We have such diversity-differences in voice, vocabulary, language, and struggles.”

He added that the COP process is moving in one direction, unjust in nature, and reproducing many of the dynamics that led to the crisis in the first place.

“Over here, we’re all moving together. We have unity.”

This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

The Top Climate Leaders Are Now in The Global South

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, COP30, Development & Aid, Economy & Trade, Energy, Environment, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Labour, Natural Resources, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion


As climate leaders gather in the Amazon, the world’s green transformation is speaking with a southern accent—powered by markets, technology, and a new economic logic.

Belém—30th Conference of the Parties (COP30). Credit: Antônio Scorza/COP30

Belém—30th Conference of the Parties (COP30). Credit: Antônio Scorza/COP30

OSLO, Norway, Nov 11 2025 (IPS) – When world leaders now gather in Belém, Brazil for the UN climate conference, expectations will be modest. Few believe the meeting will produce any breakthroughs. The United States is retreating from climate engagement. Europe is distracted. The UN is struggling to keep relevant in the 21st century.

But step outside the negotiation tents, and a different story unfolds—one of quiet revolutions, technological leaps, and a new geography of leadership. The green transformation of the world is no longer being designed in Western capitals. It is being built, at scale, in the Global South.

Ten years ago, anyone seeking inspiration on climate policy went to Brussels, Berlin or Paris. Today, you go to Beijing, Delhi or Jakarta. The center of gravity has shifted. China and India are now the twin engines of the global green economy, with Brazil, Vietnam and Indonesia closely behind.

Erik Solheim

This is not about rhetoric; it is about results. China accounts for roughly 60 percent of global capacity in solar, wind, and hydropower manufacturing. It dominates in electric vehicles, batteries, and high-speed rail. China’s 93 GW installation of solar in May 2025 is a historic high and exceeds the monthly or short‐term installation levels of any other country to date.

China has made the green transition its biggest business opportunity, turning green action into jobs, prosperity and global leadership. China is now making more money from exporting green technology than America makes from exporting fossil fuels.

India, too, is reshaping what green development looks like. I was in Andhra Pradesh last month, when I visited a wonderful six-gigawatt integrated energy park—solar, wind, and pumped storage. It delivers round-the-clock clean power. There is nothing like that in the West. In another state, Tamil Nadu, an ecotourism circuit is protecting mangroves and marine ecosystems while creating local jobs in tourism. The western state of Gujarat, long a laboratory for industrial innovation, has committed to 100 gigawatts of renewables by 2030, with the captains of Indian business – Adani and Reliance – driving large-scale solar and wind investments with the state government.

These are not pilot projects. They are national strategies. And they are succeeding because the economics have flipped.

The cost of solar power has fallen by over 90 percent in the last decade, largely thanks to the intense competition between Chinese solar companies. Battery storage is now competitive with fossil fuels. What was once an environmental aspiration has become a financial inevitability. In Indian Gujarat, solar-plus-storage projects are already cheaper than coal. Switching to clean energy is no longer a cost—it is a saving.

That is why climate action today is driven not by diplomacy, but by economics. The question is no longer if countries will go green, but who will own the technologies and industries that make it possible.

Europe, long the moral voice of the climate agenda, now risks losing the industrial race. After years of blocking imports from developing countries on grounds of “inferior” green quality, it now complains that Chinese electric vehicles are too good— too cheap and too efficient. Europe cannot have it both ways. The world cannot build a green transition behind protectionist walls. The markets must open to the best technologies, wherever they are made.

President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil understands this new reality. That is why he chose Belém, deep in the Amazon, as the site for climate talks. The location itself is a statement: the future of climate policy lies in protecting the rainforests and empowering the people who live within them.

Forests are not just carbon sinks; they are living economies. When I was Norway’s environment minister, we partnered with Brazil and Indonesia to reward them for reducing deforestation. Later, Guyana joined our effort—a small South American nation where nearly the entire population is of Indian or African origin.

Guyana has since turned conservation into currency. Under its jurisdictional REDD+ programme, the country now sells verified carbon credits through the global aviation market known as CORSIA. In the third quarter of this year, these credits traded at USD 22.55 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent, with around one million credits sold through a procurement event led by IATA and Mercuria.

The proceeds go directly to forest communities—building schools, improving digital access, and funding small enterprises. It is proof that the carbon market can deliver real value when tied to real lives. You cannot protect nature against the will of local people. You can only protect it with them. Last year in Guyana, I watched children play soccer and cricket beneath the jungle canopy—a glimpse of life thriving in harmony with the forest, not at its expense.

That, ultimately, is what Belém should represent: not another round of procedural debates, but a vision for linking markets, nature and livelihoods.

The Global South has also sidestepped one of the West’s greatest political failures: climate denial. In India, there is no major political party—or public figure, cricket star or Bollywood artist—questioning the reality of climate change. Leaders may differ on ideology, but not on this. Across Asia, from China to Indonesia, climate action unites rather than divides. Because here, ecology and economy move together.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India puts it simply: by going green, we also go prosperous. President Xi Jinping of China and President Lula of Brazil share that same message—a vision that draws people in, instead of lecturing them. It is this integration of growth and sustainability that explains why the Global South is moving faster than most of the developed world.

None of this means diplomacy is irrelevant. The UN still matters. But its institutions must evolve to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The Security Council, frozen in 1945, still excludes India and Africa from permanent membership. Without reform, multilateralism risks losing its meaning.

Yet, while negotiations stall, transformation continues. From solar parks in Gujarat to high-speed rail across China, from mangrove tourism in Tamil Nadu to carbon markets in Guyana—climate leadership is happening in real economies, not in press releases.

Belém will not deliver a grand agreement. But it doesn’t need to. The world is already moving—faster than our diplomats.

The story of Belem will not be written in communiqués, but in kilowatts, credits, and communities.

The real climate leaders are no longer in Washington or Brussels.

They are in Beijing, Delhi, São Paulo, and Georgetown.

The future of climate action is already here.

It just speaks with a southern accent.

The author is the former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and Norway’s Minister for Environment and International Development.

IPS UN Bureau