From Access to Action — Carbon Markets Can Turn Developing Countries’ Ambitions into Realities

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP30, Economy & Trade, Environment, Global, Headlines, Sustainability, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

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)

IPS UN Bureau

 

COP30: Broken Promises, New Hope — A Call to Turn Words into Action

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Conferences, COP30, Economy & Trade, Energy, Environment, Featured, Global, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

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.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Bonn to Belém: Three Decades of Promises, Half-Delivered Justice, and Rights-Based Governance Is Now Inevitable

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP30, Economy & Trade, Energy, Environment, Global, Green Economy, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, Migration & Refugees, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

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).

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

The UN General Assembly, Over Burdened with Repetitive Resolutions, Aims at Revitalization

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Featured, Global, Global Governance, Headlines, International Justice, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, TerraViva United Nations

The UN General Assembly in session. Credit: UN Photo/Manuel Elias

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 21 2025 (IPS) – The 193-member General Assembly (GA), the UN’s highest policy-making body, has long been the repository for scores of long-winded outdated resolutions accumulated over several decades– and lying in cold storage.

As part of the proposed restructuring of the United Nations, which is facing a severe liquidity crisis, there is now a move to streamline and revitalize the General Assembly which has been mired in a bureaucratic backlog.

The President of the General Assembly (PGA), Annalena Baerbock, has called on each Main Committee to review its working methods and propose concrete measures to enhance efficiency, including:

• Merging similar agenda items to avoid repetition;
• Reducing the frequency, length and number of resolutions;
• Using biennial or triennial cycles where appropriate;
• Limiting explanations of vote to five minutes; and
• Simplifying adoption procedures — one gavel, one decision, all texts.

These recommendations, mostly spelled out in a recent resolution, would help re-shape the General Assembly to respond to global challenges with agility and coherence. But unless these reforms are implemented, they remain just words on paper, just another resolution.

“Business as usual will not suffice. We need fewer repetitive resolutions, shorter debates, and smarter scheduling. No more ‘resolutions for resolutions’ sake,” the PGA said.

“We cannot preach on Sunday that we need fewer resolutions, then proceed to submit one for consideration on Monday. And this is, unfortunately, taking place”, she warned.

Dr Palitha Kohona, a former Chief of the UN Treaty Section and one-time Permanent Representative of Sri Lanka to the United Nations, told IPS the UN is burdened under a heavy baggage of resolutions piled up over 80 years.

“Many are no longer relevant, others are superfluous, and some repetitive. Given its current perilous financial situation, it would be appropriate for each department and office to review rigorously the resolutions under their purview and identify those that could be terminated.”

This, he said, may be done through an omnibus resolution. Some might require delicate negotiations with member states which might claim ownership to resolutions that they had proposed. Sensitively, handled, this could deliver considerable financial and staffing dividends.

New resolutions, he pointed out, should be vetted carefully to avoid redundancies. UN staff could proactively assist in this process. Even where resolutions are to be implemented within existing resource allocations, there will be some cost involved, including time.

Where a proposed resolution could not be implemented due to resource constraints, it should be vetoed from the beginning, said Dr Kohona, who until recently, was Sri Lanka’s Ambassador to the People’s Republic of China.

Action officers should be located or moved to an office where a resolution is most likely to be implemented and it would be most effective. For example, the responsibility for implementing UNDP-related resolutions should be allocated to Nairobi, he proposed. Peacekeeping should also be moved to Nairobi as most peacekeeping now happens in Africa, he declared.

Baerbock said: “We have seen the Main Committees put forward resolutions for three-day conferences, with no budget attached, fully aware of the fiscal situation we are debating at the same moment. We have seen over 160 sides events during High-Level Week, despite the call for less, or the call by some, for no side events at all”.

“And we have seen, already, three or four high-level meetings submitted for consideration for the 81st High-Level Week (next year), with four for each of the 82nd and 83rd, despite the decision of this Assembly – so by all of us – to limit this to a maximum of three.”

“While we all want to protect the things we care about, each of us must make concessions in this time of reform”, she declared.

Dr. Purnima Mane, a former Deputy Executive Director (Programme) and UN Assistant-Secretary-General (ASG) at the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), told IPS the major ongoing effort to review the working methods of each of the Committees of the UN GA and enhance their efficiency is certainly laudable.

It is a golden opportunity to challenge some of the so-called ‘givens’ of the ways in which the GA functions and focus on what matters in a streamlined fashion.

The currently proposed solutions however are somewhat peripheral even if they indicate a desire for change. One of the major problems faced by the Committees is the range of issues taken on without clear prioritization including a lack of focus on neglected, key issues. And the absence of a sense of urgency, she pointed out

“The suggestions offered touch on enhancing efficiency of working but avoid tougher issues perhaps due to lack of time and sometimes will on the part of some members to take the risk of proposing solutions which might necessitate dismantling of well-entrenched methods of working”.

Another barrier, she said, might be concerns about potential difficulties that are likely to be experienced in getting agreement on these methods and more so the possibility of limited involvement by member states in their implementation.

“Perhaps starting small and identifying possibly achievable objectives for how the committees are run and managed might be a good beginning, but without the commitment of member States to the issues being prioritized and to implement the resolutions being proposed, all this change and effort is unlikely to achieve any benefits, including saving of resources”, she said.

Reducing agenda items and avoiding repetitive resolutions and endless debates are all a good start but it requires the will of the member states to implement these resolutions, once passed, she added.

And while the will to implement is understood as a given, in reality that is exactly where the problem sometimes lies. How to encourage and ensure implementation is really the true challenge, said Dr Mane, a former President and CEO of Pathfinder International.

Andreas Bummel, co-founder and Executive Director of Democracy Without Borders, told IPS ironically, the issue of revitalizing the General Assembly itself has become a ritualistic item.

“Tackling the number of annual resolutions and avoiding useless repetition year after year is a no-brainer. This should have been implemented long ago. But deeper changes are needed”.

For instance, he said, there needs to be continuity and institutional memory in the office of the President of the General Assembly. It should be a two-year tenure and receive proper funding.

Further, by creating a Parliamentary Assembly, the instrument of Citizens’ Initiative and Citizens’ Assemblies, the General Assembly can become a center of innovation and inclusion for the entire UN system. This should be on the agenda.

Use or not use at your discretion. The final two sentences are the most important as far as I am concerned, declared Bummel.

Meanwhile, revitalization is also being extended to the Office of the President of the General Assembly (OPGA).

The 80th session, Baerbock said, benefited from an early, seamless handover from the 79th — allowing us to hit the ground running. Yet the volume of work remains immense.

“Our High-Level Week featured over seven major meetings in just a few days;
The remainder of the session will see nearly twenty intergovernmental processes and multiple mandated High-Level Meetings; And the total number of resolutions has barely changed — many nearly identical to those of past sessions.”

But this is not sustainable, she said. And it’s contradicting the call from smaller missions that they cannot be in three meetings at the same time.

Transitions matter. Preparation matters. “We must ensure each presidency is set up for success”.

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

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

 

‘Future Shaped by Ocean-Based Innovations Within Reach’

Posted on by admin

Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, COP30, Global, Headlines, Latin America & the Caribbean, Ocean Health, TerraViva United Nations

Ocean Health


Oceans contribute to climate regulation by absorbing over a quarter of human-caused CO₂ emissions and around 90 percent of excess heat but attract only 1.7 percent of everything that’s invested in science.

Moderators Masanori Kobayashi (far right) and Farhana Haque Rahman, Senior Vice President and Executive Director, Inter Press Service (far left), at a COP30 side event titled ‘Innovation and social collaboration for climate change adaptation in the pursuit of sustainable blue economies.’ Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

Moderators Masanori Kobayashi (far right) and Farhana Haque Rahman, Senior Vice President and Executive Director, Inter Press Service (far left), at a COP30 side event titled ‘Innovation and social collaboration for climate change adaptation in the pursuit of sustainable blue economies.’ Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 20 2025 (IPS) – The oceans are a fundamental part of Earth’s climate system, regulating it by absorbing and storing vast amounts of solar heat, redistributing that heat around the globe through currents, and absorbing a significant portion of human-caused carbon dioxide (CO₂) emissions—yet scientific research into them remains underfunded.

Oceans contribute to climate regulation by absorbing over a quarter of human-caused CO₂ emissions and around 90 percent of excess heat. But COP30 participants heard during a side event titled ‘Innovation and social collaboration for climate change adaptation in the pursuit of sustainable blue economies’ that the amount of money invested in ocean science is only about 1.7 percent of everything that’s invested in science.

During the side event, Meredith Morris, Senior Director of Strategic Philanthropy (Planet) at XPRIZE spoke of opportunities to tackle humanity’s toughest challenges with bold, scalable breakthroughs. XPRIZE, she said, does its part by inviting the world’s brightest minds to turn audacious ideas into lasting impact for people and the planet.

Owned by the XPRIZE Foundation,  the nonprofit organization designs and operates large-scale incentive competitions.

It has supported numerous projects across various fields, including space exploration, carbon removal, global health, and education, by using large-scale incentive competitions to drive breakthrough innovations.

“I lead the portfolio around energy, climate, and nature. We are a 30-year-old incentivized prize model that sets a bar for the change we want to see in the world and incentivizes innovators to reach that bar or exceed it. We do not honor and celebrate work that’s already being done.

“At XPRIZE, what we’re trying to do is really catalyze systemic change.” Morris continues, “We believe in philanthropy, but we also believe it has to create value. And at the end of investing in doing something like protecting nature or addressing climate change, there should be viable businesses and industries on the other side of that.”

Moderated by Masanori Kobayashi, Senior Research Fellow of the Sasakawa Peace Foundation and Farhana Haque Rahman, Senior Vice President and Executive Director of Inter Press Service, the side event was an insight into life-transformative scientific projects that can only be born at the intersection between science and funding.

Haque Rahman spoke extensively of the urgent need to communicate science in a manner that helps connect with the places on the frontlines of the climate crisis. Masanori Kobayashi confirmed the need to amplify blue economy solutions, as raising awareness can and does lead to more action.

The XPRIZE Carbon Removal, a USD 100 million competition, incentivized the development of scalable solutions for removing carbon dioxide directly from the atmosphere or oceans. Winning projects included using enhanced rock weathering on farms to lock away CO₂ and technologies that permanently store CO₂ in concrete.

The Shell Ocean Discovery XPRIZE challenged teams to develop autonomous underwater technologies for rapid, high-resolution ocean floor mapping. The winning technology helped dramatically reduce the time estimated to map the entire ocean from centuries to just a decade.

Alexander Turra, Professor at the Oceanographic Institute of the University of São Paulo and head of the UNESCO Chair on Ocean Sustainability, based at the Oceanographic Institute and the Institute of Advanced Studies of the University of São Paulo, spoke about Brazil’s Oceans Without Plastics initiative.

Formally known as the National Strategy for a Plastic-Free Ocean, the initiative is a comprehensive, six-year plan (2025–2030) launched by the federal government to address marine pollution by targeting the entire lifecycle of plastics, from production to disposal.

The primary goal is to prevent, reduce, and ultimately eliminate plastic waste from entering Brazil’s marine and coastal environments. Brazil, with a vast Atlantic coastline, is a top-ten global contributor to marine plastic pollution, an issue that impacts biodiversity, human health, fishing, and tourism.

Also on the panel was Leonardo Valenzuela Perez, who serves as the Director of International Partnerships at Ocean Visions, where he leads the Global Ecosystem for Ocean Solutions. He spoke to participants about carbon removal at scale and the place of science in these efforts. What is needed is an unparalleled level of investment, mobilization of resources, and scale of action.

“We Colombians are the only country in South America with both the Pacific and Caribbean coasts, and we have various ecosystems as well as culturally diverse traditional peoples and communities,” said Laura Catalina Reyes Vargas, Founder and Executive Director of Ocean Hub.

“And, mostly, Afro-descendants and Indigenous communities on both coasts happen to be the poorest people in the country. It’s all about racism sometimes, economic inequality, infrastructure, poverty and lack of sanitation—it’s about almost all of the challenges that are being addressed throughout the 17 SDGs.”

“When it comes to the blue economy,” she continues, “We prioritize not only talking about scientific research. As a scientist myself, of course, I truly believe we will be able to address and understand the major steps needed to achieve not only the SDGs but also national plans with very high standards, as we have in Colombia.”

It was also crucial to address the regional organizational challenges.

COP30 has demonstrated a commitment to placing oceans at the center of global climate initiatives and announced the Task Force on Oceans earlier this week during a high-level ministerial meeting. Led by Brazil and France, the initiative integrates oceans into a global mechanism that accelerates the adoption of marine solutions in national climate plans —encouraging countries to set protection targets for the ocean when updating their NDCs.

IPS UN Bureau Report