From Pledges to Proof: UN Biodiversity Meeting Begins First Global Review of Nature Action

Posted on by admin

Biodiversity, Climate Action, Conferences, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Gender, Global, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Natural Resources, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Biodiversity

The 6th meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Implementation (SBI-6) is in progress in Rome. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB

The 6th meeting of the Subsidiary Body of Implementation (SBI-6) is in progress in Rome. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB |

ROME & DELHI, Feb 17 2026 (IPS) – Governments convened in Rome on Monday (February 16) for a critical round of UN biodiversity negotiations, launching the world’s first global review of how countries are acting to protect nature.

The sixth meeting of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation (SBI-6) of the Convention on Biological Diversity opened at the headquarters of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), drawing government negotiators, technical experts and civil society observers from around the world. It will continue until February 19.

Although considered a technical gathering, the four-day session is expected to play a decisive role in shaping how progress under the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework will be assessed and whether political promises can be translated into measurable, on-the-ground action.

“This is a moment to move from commitments to delivery,” said Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. “The task before us is to help countries accelerate action to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.”

Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB

Clarissa Souza Della Nina of Brazil, Chair of the Subsidiary Body on Implementation. Credit: Mike Muzurakis | IISD/ENB

A Global Stocktake for Nature

The Rome talks come two years after countries completed the first global stocktake under the Paris Agreement, which confirmed the world remains far off track on climate goals.

Now, a parallel exercise begins for biodiversity.

Under the CBD, governments will undertake the first global review of progress in implementing the Kunming–Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (KMGBF), adopted in 2022. The framework includes 23 targets spanning conservation, finance, equity and economic transformation, with the overarching objective of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030.

Biodiversity tracking is more complex than emissions accounting, but, according to CBD leadership, it is urgently needed.

“The time has come to make peace with nature… the implementation of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework and the Paris Agreement in a synergistic fashion will make peace with nature within reach,” said Astrid Schomaker, Executive Secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity.

Why Rome Matters

SBI-6 plays a central role in preparing for the upcoming global biodiversity review by examining implementation progress, highlighting gaps, and proposing ways to accelerate action. Negotiators will submit the outcomes directly to COP17 in Yerevan, Armenia, later this year.

“One year after COP16 concluded here in Rome, we must ensure these meetings deliver real progress. Submitting national reports on time is essential for a strong and credible global review in the race to 2030,” Schomaker said.

A major focus of SBI-6 is the Secretariat’s analysis of national biodiversity strategies and action plans submitted since 2022. But despite growing momentum, significant gaps persist. Many strategies still do not adequately integrate Indigenous Peoples, local communities, women, youth, or the private sector. Crucial targets relating to economic and social transformation — including sustainable consumption, equity and benefit sharing — remain underemphasised.

Inger Andersen, Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP), underscored the stakes at the launch of the State of Finance for Nature 2026 report:

“Whether investments flow into nature’s destruction or into its protection will determine if we live in climate-vulnerable concrete jungles or in climate-resilient green cities,” she warned, stressing that financial and policy decisions made today will shape countries’ ability to meet biodiversity goals.

An indigenous woman and biodiversity defender from the Amazon is pictured holding a forest coconut. Women are asking for better implementation of article 23 of the KMGBF. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

An indigenous woman and biodiversity defender from the Amazon is pictured holding a forest coconut. Women are asking for better implementation of article 23 of the KMGBF. Credit: Stella Paul/IPS

Gender, Finance and Capacity Challenges

Delegates are also reviewing progress under the CBD Gender Plan of Action (2023–2030). Early assessments show that only a quarter of countries involved women’s groups in shaping biodiversity strategies, and just 12 percent plan to do so in the future.

“Ensuring the full, effective and meaningful participation of women and other rights holders is fundamental to accountability, inclusivity and the effectiveness of biodiversity action, and to achieving the full ambition of the global framework,” the CBD Women’s Caucus stated in its official submission.

Finance remains another major point of discussion. While major funding decisions are expected later this year, Rome’s deliberations draw heavily on new research on biodiversity finance, sovereign debt, and the connections between climate and nature funding.

“If we want to mobilise the finance and resources that nature critically needs, business, finance and governments must confront the reality that persistent gaps in reliable data, incentives and institutional capacity are holding back meaningful action — and unless these barriers are addressed, many countries and sectors will continue to struggle to turn agreed goals into results,” said Matt Jones, Co-Chair of the IPBES Business and Biodiversity Assessment 2026.

Countdown to National Reports

The Rome meeting comes just weeks before countries must submit their Seventh National Reports under the CBD, due on 28 February 2026.

These national publications will serve as a principal source of information for the global biodiversity review, alongside national strategies and targets.

However, many countries remain unprepared to submit on time. On day one, Brazil, one of the most influential players in global biodiversity policy, stressed the need for flexibility.

“Ensuring the quality, consistency and internal validation of data and indicators requires additional time. In this context, Brazil suggests that SBI recommendations prioritise technical guidance, operational flexibility and targeted capacity-building support to enable high-quality reporting, rather than focusing solely on reinforcing deadlines,” the country’s delegate said.

A Test of Accountability

While SBI-6 is unlikely to produce headline-grabbing announcements, it will shape how global biodiversity action is evaluated over the next decade.

For Indigenous Peoples and local communities—who steward a significant share of the world’s remaining biodiversity—the meeting represents a critical test of whether rights, participation and lived realities will be meaningfully reflected in the global assessment process.

“This process must lead to accountability, not just documentation,” emphasised Pirawan Wongnithisathaporn, the Environment Program Officer at the Asia Indigenous Peoples Pact (AIPP), calling for tangible action rather than reporting alone.

SBI-6 will conclude on Thursday, February 19. Negotiations will continue at SBI-7 in August 2026 as governments move steadily toward the first global biodiversity review at COP17.

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

My Niece Was Killed Amid Mexico’s Land Conflicts. The World Must Hold Corporations Accountable

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Headlines, Human Rights, Indigenous Rights, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

My Niece was Killed Amid Mexico’s Land Conflicts.

Claudia Ignacio Álvarez in San Lorenzo de Azqueltan, Jalisco, Mexico. Credit : Eber Huitzil

MICHOACÁN, Mexico , Dec 18 2025 (IPS) – My niece Roxana Valentín Cárdenas was 21 years old when she was killed. She was a Purépecha Indigenous woman from San Andrés Tziróndaro, a community on the shores of Lake Pátzcuaro in the Mexican state of Michoacán.

Roxana was killed during a peaceful march organised by another Indigenous community commemorating the recovery of their lands. Forty-six years earlier, three people had been murdered during that same land struggle. This time, the commemoration was once again met with gunfire.

Roxana was not armed and was not participating in the march. She encountered the demonstration and was struck by gunfire. Her death was deeply personal, but it took place within a broader context of long-standing violence linked to land and territory.

That violence has intensified in Michoacán recently, where the assassination of a mayor in November this year underscored how deeply insecurity has penetrated public life and how little protection exists for civilians, community leaders and local authorities alike.

Across Mexico, Indigenous people are being killed for defending land, water and forests. What governments and corporations often describe as “development” is experienced by our communities as dispossession enforced by violence – through land grabbing, water theft and the silencing of those who resist.

A way of life under threat
I come from San Andrés Tziróndaro, a farming, fishing and musical community. For generations, we have cared for the lake and the surrounding forests as collective responsibilities essential to life. That way of life is now under threat.

In Michoacán, extractive pressure takes different forms. In some Indigenous territories, it is mining. In our region, it is agro-industrial production, particularly avocados and berries grown for export. Communal land intended for subsistence is leased for commercial agriculture. Water is extracted from Lake Pátzcuaro through irregularly installed pipes to irrigate agricultural fields, depriving local farmers of access.

Agrochemicals contaminate soil and water, forests are deliberately burned to enable land-use change, and ecosystems are transformed into monocultures that consume vast amounts of water. This is not development. It is extraction.

Violence as a method of enforcement
When Indigenous communities resist these processes, violence follows.

Two cases illustrate this reality and remain unresolved.

José Gabriel Pelayo, a human rights defender and member of our organisation, has been forcibly disappeared for more than a year. Despite an urgent action issued by the United Nations Committee on Enforced Disappearances, progress has been blocked. Authorities have delayed access to the investigation file, and meaningful search efforts have yet to begin. His family continues to wait for answers.

Eustacio Alcalá Díaz, a defender from the Nahua community of San Juan Huitzontla, was murdered after opposing mining operations imposed on his territory without consultation. After his killing, the community was paralysed by fear, and it was no longer possible to continue human rights work safely.

Together, these cases show how violence and impunity are used to suppress community resistance.

Militarisation is not protection
It is against this backdrop of escalating violence and impunity that the Mexican state has once again turned to militarisation. Thousands of soldiers are being deployed to Michoacán, and authorities point to arrests and security operations as indicators of stability.

In practice, militarisation often coincides with areas of high extractive interest. Security forces are deployed in regions targeted for mining, agro-industrial expansion or large infrastructure projects, creating conditions that allow these activities to proceed while community resistance is contained.

Indigenous people experience this not as protection, but as surveillance, intimidation and criminalisation. While companies may claim neutrality, they benefit from these security arrangements and rarely challenge the violence or displacement that accompanies them, raising serious questions about corporate complicity.

A global governance failure
Indigenous territories are opened to extractive industries operating across borders, while accountability remains fragmented. Corporations divide their operations across jurisdictions, making responsibility for environmental harm and human rights abuses difficult to establish.

Voluntary corporate commitments have not prevented violence or environmental degradation. National regulations remain uneven and weakly enforced, particularly in regions affected by corruption and organised crime. This is not only a national failure. It is a failure of global governance.

International responsibility, now
In this context, I have recently spent ten days in the United Kingdom with the support of Peace Brigades International (PBI), meeting with parliamentarians, officials from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, and civil society organisations.

These discussions are part of a broader international effort to ensure that governments whose companies, financial systems or diplomatic relationships are linked to extractive activities take responsibility for preventing harm and protecting those at risk.

While the UK is only one actor, its policies on corporate accountability and support for human rights defenders have consequences far beyond its borders.

Why binding international rules are necessary
For years, Indigenous peoples and civil society organisations have called for a binding United Nations treaty on business and human rights. The urgency of this demand is reflected in the lives lost defending land and water and in the defenders who remain disappeared.

A binding treaty could require mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence across global supply chains, guarantee access to justice beyond national borders, and recognise the protection of human rights defenders as a legal obligation. It could make Free, Prior and Informed Consent enforceable rather than optional.

Such a treaty would not prevent development. It would ensure that development does not depend on violence, dispossession and impunity.

Defending life for everyone
Indigenous peoples are not obstacles to progress. We are defending ecosystems that sustain life far beyond our territories. Indigenous women are often at the forefront of this defence, even as we face extraordinary risks.

When defenders disappear, when others are murdered, and when young women like my niece lose their lives, it is not only our communities that suffer. The world loses those protecting land, water and biodiversity during a deep ecological crisis.

Defending life and land should not come at the cost of human lives.

Claudia Ignacio Álvarez is an Indigenous Purépecha feminist, lesbian, and environmental human rights defender from San Andrés Tziróndaro, Michoacán. Through the Red Solidaria de Derechos Humanos, she supports Indigenous and rural communities defending their territories from extractive industries and organised crime. Her work has been supported by Peace Brigades International (PBI) since 2023.

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Climate Crisis Disrupts Sundarbans Community Festival, Prosperity

Posted on by admin

Asia-Pacific, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, COP30, Environment, Featured, Headlines, Indigenous Rights, Population, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Two years ago, a Karam tree branch brought from another district was being planted in the SAMS office premises along the Shyamnagar-Munshiganj road, but it didn't survive. Credit: Rafiqul Islam Montu/IPS

Two years ago, a Karam tree branch brought from another district was being planted in the SAMS office premises along the Shyamnagar-Munshiganj road, but it didn’t survive. Credit: Rafiqul Islam Montu/IPS

SATKHIRA, Bangladesh, Dec 9 2025 (IPS) – A dried karam tree branch stands on the bank of a pond in a field in Datinakhali village adjacent to the Sundarbans. Despite many efforts, the tree could not be saved.

For two years, the Munda community in Bangladesh’s Sundarbans had been fighting to save the Karam tree so that they could bring back their traditional Karam festival—once the biggest festival in their community. Many trees are unable to survive due to the effects of salinity—this list includes the Karam tree, which is the main ingredient in celebrating the festival.

Bhakta Sardar, a priest from the Munda community, says the festival of the indigenous Munda community would be incomplete without the branches of the Karam tree

“We believe that our prosperity and well-being are hidden in the branches of the Karam tree. We pray to God to achieve our prosperity around this festival. But frequent cyclones and salinity have killed the Karam trees.”

“Now we celebrate this festival in its name only for the prosperity of the community. We cannot leave the festival for the next generation,” added Bhakta Sardar, referring to a smaller festival where the community uses fig tree branches as an alternative.

While the debate about how to integrate non-economic losses and damages due to the impact of climate change continued during the 30th Conference of the Parties to the UNFCCC (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, the Munda community is looking for ways to revive the Karam festival, a symbol of their prosperity. A recent study emphasized that these non-economic losses and damages included the loss of religious and cultural practices.

The study says that climate risks are increasing on the coast of Bangladesh. The risk is even higher in the southwest. If this situation continues in the future, small communities like the indigenous Munda community will be in even greater crisis. The study called for policy and financial reform to assist communities like this to adapt to the impacts of climate change.

In Search of the Karam Tree

The scientific name of the Karam tree is Mitragyna parvifolia. This tree in the Asian region is also known as Kelikadam. It mainly blooms before the monsoon. As the Karam tree has disappeared, the indigenous Munda community of Bangladesh now celebrates a similar festival on a smaller scale, with branches of a fig tree. The scientific name of this tree is Ficus religiosa.

There were once many Karam trees in the villages of southwestern Bangladesh. Datinakhali, adjacent to the Sundarbans in the Shyamnagar upazila (subdistrict) of Satkhira district, is one such village. This village celebrated the Karam festival with a grand event, with people from the Munda community from different areas joining in.

In addition to their time-honored religious tradition, the community in this village on the banks of the Chuna River faces economic difficulties.

The indigenous Munda community lives in several villages adjacent to the Sundarbans in Koyra upazila (sub-district) of Khulna district in southwestern Bangladesh.

Shukkuri Rani Munda used to attend the Karam festival organized in the courtyard of Fulsingh Munda’s house in Uttar Haztakhali village.

“To everyone now, the festival feels like a myth. A storm has swept away the entire festival. The next generation will forget the name of the Karam festival,” she says.

Munda Young Balai Krishna Sardar (38), president of the Sundarban Adivasi Unnayan Sangstha of that village, cannot recall attending the festival. Rangalal Munda’s 60-year-old father, Fulsingh Munda, witnessed a small-scale celebration five years ago. After Fulsingh’s death a year ago, no one in the village now knows how to initiate the Karam festival.

Geeta Rani Munda, 42, lives precariously in Datinakhali village, adjacent to the Sundarbans. She wants the Karam festival to return for her prosperity. Credit: Rafiqul Islam Montu/IPS

Geeta Rani Munda, 42, lives precariously in Datinakhali village, adjacent to the Sundarbans. She wants the Karam festival to return for her prosperity. Credit: Rafiqul Islam Montu/IPS

‘A Symbol of Our Faith’

The Munda community holds the belief that the branches of this tree conceal prosperity and well-being. They believe that the Karam festival ensures their good health and the well-being of future generations. Various tribal communities in Jharkhand, West Bengal, and Bihar, India, celebrate this festival with the same beliefs. Indigenous communities like Munda, Mahato, Kurmi, Matato, Santal, Orao, Baraik, Singh, Pahan, Mahali, Bhumij, etc., all celebrate the Karam festival.

“The Karam festival is our faith. Perhaps our economic condition is gradually deteriorating because we cannot follow our religious instructions,” said Anandini Rani Munda of Datinakhali village, articulating the belief that religious and economic wellbeing are intrinsically interlinked.

Nilkant Pahan, a priest of Burigoalini village in Shyamnagar upazila (sub-district), had been conducting the puja (religious ceremony) of the Munda community for eight years. He has organized the Karam festival several times following the ancestral tradition. But they were small events.

“Celebrating the Karam festival is our religious tradition. Our ancestors observed this tradition. We are trying to maintain its continuity. We are facing a much greater socio-economic and cultural crisis than before. We do not know what this crisis is because we cannot observe religious traditions,” Pahan says.

Impact of salinity

During Cyclone Aila in 2009, the entire area was submerged in the wave of salt water that broke the dam. The land was submerged in salt water for a long time, and the Karam trees could no longer survive. Many elderly Munda citizens believe that not only Aila but also other cyclones, especially a strong cyclone that hit the region in 1988, helped reduce the number of Karam trees.

GM Mostafizur Rahman, Chief Scientific Officer of Khulna Soil Resources Institute, said, “Both the intensity and extent of salinity in soil and water are increasing due to climate change; 81 percent of land in Shyamnagar is affected by varying degrees of salinity.”

Professor Saleh Ahmed Khan, Department of Botany, Jahangirnagar University, said, “The tree that the Munda community calls the ‘Karam’ tree is ‘Kelikadam.’ We did not find it among the 528 species under our research. The tree may not have survived due to the spread of salinity.”

Fight To Bring Back the Karam Festival

The Sundarbans Adivasi Munda Sangstha (SAMS) and leading members of the Munda community are working to bring back the Karam tree. They are trying to bring back the Karam festival by bringing branches of the Karam tree from other districts.

Two years ago, a branch of the Karam tree was planted in the SAMS office premises on the Shyamnagar-Munshiganj road, and another branch was planted in the Munda-dominated Datinakhali village. But it was not possible to save the tree. They will try again next year.

“We celebrate the Karam festival for our prosperity. We are trying to save the Karam trees for the festival. But due to salinity in the soil, the Karam trees cannot be saved. As an alternative, we use the branches of the fig (Ficus religiosa) tree,” said Geeta Rani Munda of Datinakhali village.

Krishnapada Sardar, Executive Director of SAMS, said it wasn’t enough that this festival only survives in the stories of elders.

“It was a major event in the rural culture of this community, which is proud of its identity. Climate change has changed the food habits of the Munda community, and the opportunities for livelihood have narrowed. The families of the community are facing an extreme economic crisis.

“Our lost festivals can be brought back by restoring the Karam tree. We want to return to our lost traditions. We want to return to our roots.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

  Source

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

‘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