Venezuela at a Crossroads

Active Citizens, Civil Society, Crime & Justice, Democracy, Economy & Trade, Energy, Featured, Headlines, Human Rights, International Justice, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

Evelis Cano, mother of political prisoner Jack Tantak Cano, pleads with the police for her son’s release outside a detention centre in Caracas, Venezuela, 20 January 2026. Credit: Gaby Oraa/Reuters via Gallo Images

MONTEVIDEO, Uruguay, Feb 2 2026 (IPS) – When US special forces seized Nicolás Maduro and his wife from the presidential residence in Caracas on 3 January, killing at least 24 Venezuelan security officers and 32 Cuban intelligence operatives in the process, many in the Venezuelan opposition briefly dared hope. They speculated that intervention might finally bring the democratic transition thwarted when Maduro entrenched himself in power after losing the July 2024 election. But within hours, those hopes were crushed. Trump announced the USA would now ‘run’ Venezuela and Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez was sworn in to replace Maduro. Venezuela’s sovereignty had been violated twice: first by an authoritarian regime that usurped the popular will, and then by an external power that deliberately violated international law.


A cynical intervention

Under Trump, the USA has abandoned any pretence of promoting democracy. Trump wrapped the intervention in the rhetoric of anti-narcotics operations while openly salivating over Venezuela’s oil reserves, rare earth deposits and investment opportunities. He repeatedly made clear that US regional hegemony is the number one priority. His contempt for Venezuelans’ right to self-determination was explicit: when asked about opposition leader María Corina Machado, Trump dismissed her as lacking ‘respect’ and ‘capacity to lead’. The message to Venezuela’s democratic movement was clear: your struggle doesn’t matter, only our interests do.

Ironically, the US intervention achieved what years of Maduro’s propaganda failed to do, giving anti-imperialist rhetoric a shot in the arm. For decades, Latin American authoritarian regimes have justified repression by pointing to the threat of US intervention, even though this was a largely historical grievance. Not anymore: Trump has handed every Latin American dictator the perfect justification for continuing authoritarian rule.

The global response has been equally revealing. The loudest defenders of national sovereignty are authoritarian powers such as China, Iran and Russia: states that routinely violate their citizens’ rights expressed their ‘solidarity with the people of Venezuela’ and positioned themselves as champions of international law. By blatantly violating a foundational principle of the post-1945 international order, Trump made the leaders of some of the world’s most repressive regimes look like the adults in the room. And across Latin America, the political conversation has now shifted dramatically: the question is no longer how to restore democracy in Venezuela, but how to prevent the next US military adventure in Latin America.

Authoritarianism continues

Meanwhile, Venezuela’s authoritarian regime remains intact. Maduro may be in a New York courtroom, but the structures that kept him in power – the corrupt military, embedded Cuban intelligence, patronage networks and the repressive apparatus – continue unchanged. Rodríguez will likely try to run down the clock, claiming Maduro could return at any moment to avoid calling elections while quietly negotiating oil deals with US companies and reasserting authoritarian control. For both Rodríguez and Trump, democracy seems like an inconvenient obstacle to resource extraction.

For Venezuelan civil society, this creates real dilemmas. As she was sworn in, Rodríguez denounced the operation that put her in charge and vowed that Venezuela would ‘never again be a colony of any empire’. She has wrapped herself in the flag, framing regime continuity as a patriotic stand against western imperialism, and can now easily paint opposition activists who have long demanded international pressure for democracy as treasonous collaborators with foreign powers. This is despite being an insider of a regime that welcomed Cuban intelligence, Iranian oil traders and Russian military advisers, and is now negotiating oil deals with the USA and crossing its own red line by promising legal changes to enable private investment.

A Venezuelan solution for Venezuela

But there may be some cracks in the regime. With Maduro gone, frictions inside the ruling party have become apparent. For instance, there have been obvious disagreements on how to handle the pressure to free Venezuela’s over 800 political prisoners. These may yield opportunities the democracy movement can exploit.

This is the time for the democratic opposition to reclaim the narrative. In the immediate aftermath of the intervention, families of political prisoners mounted vigils outside detention centres, demanding releases the government has only partially delivered. Civil society must amplify these voices, making clear that any transitional arrangement requires the dismantling of the repressive apparatus, not merely a change of faces at the top.

A broad coalition of civil society organisations has issued 10 demands that chart a path to democratic transition. They call for the immediate and unconditional release of political prisoners, the dismantling of irregular armed groups, unfettered access for human rights monitors and humanitarian aid and, crucially, a free and fair presidential election with international observers. These demands deserve international backing, not as conditions for oil contracts, but as non-negotiable requirements for any government that can claim to represent Venezuela.

Venezuela’s democratic forces can either accept marginalisation as Trump and Rodríguez carve up their country’s resources, or use this chaotic moment to advance a genuinely Venezuelan democratic agenda. That means rejecting both Maduro’s authoritarianism and Trump’s intervention, and insisting that any legitimacy Rodríguez’s government claims must come from Venezuelan voters, not US armed forces or oil contracts. Any window of opportunity may however be closing fast. The question is whether Venezuela’s democratic movement can seize it to build the country they have strived for, or whether they will remain spectators while others decide their fate.

Inés M. Pousadela is CIVICUS Head of Research and Analysis, co-director and writer for CIVICUS Lens and co-author of the State of Civil Society Report. She is also a Professor of Comparative Politics at Universidad ORT Uruguay.

For interviews or more information, please contact research@civicus.org

  Source

Natural Restoration Recovers Lagoon and Environmental Justice in Brazil: VIDEO

Civil Society, Environment, Headlines, Latin America & the Caribbean, Multimedia, TerraViva United Nations, Video

Environment

NITERÓI, Brazil, Jan 9 2026 (IPS) – “We moved from a context of socio-environmental exclusion to one of environmental justice,” said Dionê Castro, coordinator of the Sustainable Oceanic Region Program which led Brazil’s largest nature-based solutions project.


Having won national and global awards, the Orla Piratininga Park (POP) built 35,000 square meters of filtering gardens and improved the water quality of the Piratininga lagoon, in the oceanic south of Niterói, a municipality in metropolitan Rio de Janeiro, across the Guanabara Bay.

The project, named after the late Brazilian environmentalist Alfredo Sirkis, began in 2020, and aims to environmentally restore an area of 680,000 square meters on the lagoon’s shores whose waters cover an area of 2.87 square kilometers.

[embedded content]

At the heart of the project are the treatment systems for the waters of the Cafubá, Arrozal, and Jacaré rivers, which flow into the lagoon. Sedimentation and pollution were deteriorating the water resource and the quality of life in the surrounding area.

A weir, which receives the river flow, a sedimentation pond, which removes solid waste, and the filtering gardens make up the chain that partially cleans the water before releasing it into the lagoon, reducing environmental impacts, in a process called phytoremediation.

The gardens are small reservoirs where aquatic plants called macrophytes are planted, which feed on the nutrients from the pollution, explained Heloisa Osanai, the biologist specialized in environmental management of the Sustainable Oceanic Region Program (PRO Sustainable).

Three polluted water treatment stations are in the neighborhoods crossed by the rivers, based on natural resources, “without the use of electrical energy, chemicals, or concrete,” explained Castro, the coordinator of PRO Sustainable.

Furthermore, some macrophytes produce abundant flowers. Only native Brazilian species are planted, with priority given to biodiversity, added Osanai.

Along with these water treatment systems, 10.8 kilometers of bike paths, 17 recreation centers, a 2,800-square-meter Eco-Cultural Center, and other environmental works with social goals were built.

The bike path, generally along a pedestrian sidewalk, caters to physical and leisure activities but is also a factor in protecting the lagoon shoreline by blocking urban occupation and real estate invasions, explain the officials.

The area where the water system was built at the mouth of the Cafubá river was highly degraded by an open-air dump and flooding. A reformed “belt channel,” in some sections also reinforced by macrophyte islands, corrected the waterlogging.

On the other side of the lagoon, 3.2 kilometers of bioswales improve the drainage of rainwater. They are trenches with pipes, stones, and other materials, plus vegetation, that accelerate drainage and prevent pollutants from reaching the lagoon.

The main result, according to Castro, reconciled the local population with the lagoon. The old houses that “turned their backs on the lagoon” are joined by new buildings facing the water, some with balconies overlooking the new landscape, said Mariah Bessa, the engineer in charge of hydraulic aspects of the project.

The local population was highly involved in the design and construction of the new environmental and social facilities that transformed the lagoon shoreline. This led to new attitudes, such as not littering on the ground or in the water and preventing others from doing so, according to Castro.

The Ecocultural Center promotes permanent environmental education, with films, children’s games, audiovisual resources, and a large space for visits and classes.

“We moved from a context of socio-environmental exclusion to one of environmental justice,” said the coordinator of PRO Sustainable.

  Source

Excluding Food Systems From Climate Deal Is a Recipe for Disaster

Africa, Climate Change, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP30, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Featured, Food and Agriculture, Food Systems, Global, Headlines, Latin America & the Caribbean, Population, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations | Analysis

Food Systems


Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement. —Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert

Agriculture is both a challenge and a solution for climate change. Busani Bafana/IPS

Agriculture is both a challenge and a solution for climate change. Busani Bafana/IPS

BULAWAYO, Jan 9 2026 (IPS) – As they ate catered meals, COP30 negotiators had no appetite for fixing broken food systems, a major source of climate pollution, experts warn.


Food systems are the complete journey food takes—from the farm to fork—which means its growing, processing, distribution, trade and consumption and even the waste.

The International Panel of Experts on Sustainable Food Systems (IPES-Food) warns that the final COP30 agreement risks deepening climate and hunger crises.  It failed  to address global warming emissions from food systems and the escalating damages caused by fossil-fuel-dependent industrial agriculture.

Food appears only once in the negotiated text, as a narrow indicator on ‘climate resilient food production’ under the Global Goal on Adaptation, IPES-Food pointed out.

“There is no mention of food systems, no roadmap to tackle deforestation, and no recognition that industrial agriculture drives nearly 90 percent of forest loss worldwide,” noted the think tank, emphasizing that negotiators also weakened language in the Mitigation Work Programme from addressing the ‘drivers’ of deforestation to vague ‘challenges.’

IPES-Food argued that the omission of food systems in the COP30 agreement was in stark contrast to the summit itself, which was held in the heart of the Amazon. Thirty percent of all food served during COP30 came from agroecological family farmers and traditional communities, and concrete public policy proposals for a just transition of food systems were on full display, IPES-Food said.

By not supporting a transition to environmentally friendly and low-emission agriculture, the agreement has left the global food system—and the billions who depend on it—highly vulnerable to the very climate shocks it helps cause, experts said.

“Food solutions were on display everywhere around COP30—from the 80 tonnes of local and agroecological meals served to concrete proposals for tackling hunger—but none of this made it into the negotiating rooms or the final agreement,” said Elisabetta Recine, IPES-Food panel expert and president of the Brazilian National Food and Nutrition Security Council (Consea), in a statement.

“Despite all the talk, negotiators failed to act, and the lived realities of people most affected by hunger, poverty, and climate shocks went unheard.”

Big Oil and Big Ag, Bigger voice

More than 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists were registered as delegates to COP30. They  are blamed for influencing discussions and promoting false solutions to climate change.

“COP30 was supposed to be the Implementation COP—where words turned into action,” Danielle Nierenberg, an expert on sustainable agriculture and food issues and President of Food Tank, told IPS. “But once again, corporate interests won over people, nature, and the future of our food and agriculture systems as part of the solution to the climate crisis.”

Raj Patel, IPES-Food panel expert and professor at the University of Texas, argues that agribusiness lobbyists captured COP30 to influence outcomes favoring industrial agriculture and big oil interests.

“Food systems are second only to oil and gas as a driver of the climate crisis, and unlike oil wells, they are also the first victim of the chaos they create, Patel noted.

Obstacles and Opportunities

Scientists have warned that carbon emissions, including those from agriculture, must be cut considerably if the world is to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to 2°C or less.

Even if fossil fuel emissions were eliminated immediately, emissions from the global food system alone would make it impossible to limit warming to 1.5°C and difficult even to realize the 2°C target, scientists have said.

Selorm Kugbega, a Research Fellow at the Stockholm Environment Institute, agrees that despite many promises made to tackle agriculture-linked emissions, COP30 turned out to be a damp squib for agrifood systems.

Initiatives such as RAIZ to restore 500 million hectares of degraded agricultural land by 2030 and TERRA to scale out climate solutions for smallholder farmers through blended finance, which were launched at COP30 omitted to highlight the effects of industrial food systems. Over 300 industrial agriculture lobbyists participated in discussions at COP30, leading to accusations of swaying the outcomes.

Analysts warn the final agreement at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, risks deepening climate and hunger crises. Credit: Raimundo Pacco/COP30

Analysts warn the final agreement at COP30 in Belém, Brazil, risks deepening climate and hunger crises. Credit: Raimundo Pacco/COP30

Kugbega observed that after several years of slow progress and momentum in integrating food systems in climate negotiations, COP30 should have been the opportunity to seal agriculture’s centrality in future COPs. However, it ended with no clear agreements on grant-based public finance for adaptation in agriculture or redirection of public funds that subsidize industrial systems.

The climate negotiations demonstrated power inequality in climate negotiations with the implicit protection of industrial agriculture interests, which weakened the credibility of any global efforts at mitigating agriculture-based emissions, Kugbega observed, highlighting that smallholders bear a high burden of climate risks and have little adaptation financing.

Kugbega argued the most powerful countries, which are generally less dependent on agriculture, tend to prioritize sectors such as energy and transport in climate negotiations. However, many least developed countries, particularly in Africa, are highly dependent on agriculture for employment and economic stability and face urgent climate risks.

“Yet these countries often lack the political influence to elevate agriculture and food systems as central issues in COP negotiations,” he said. “COP30 in Brazil presented a major opportunity to shift this imbalance, making the failure to position food systems at the center of the climate agenda particularly troubling.”

Frugal Financing for Food and Farmers

According to the Climate Policy Initiative (CPI) and the UN’s Standing Committee on Finance, agriculture receives a small and insufficient share of total global climate finance.

Of the available approximate total global climate finance of USD 1.3 trillion per year on average, agriculture gets around USD 35 billion per year. This is a huge shortfall given that food systems are estimated to be responsible for roughly one-third of global greenhouse gas emissions and are one of the sectors most vulnerable to climate impacts, according to the CPI. Worse still, smallholder farmers, who produce up to 80 percent of food in developing countries, only receive 0.3 percent—a striking imbalance, yet they feed the world and are more exposed to climate impacts.

Will COP31 Deliver?

While COP30 highlighted the need to tackle climate change impacts through the transformation of food systems, such as highlighted in the Belém Declaration on Hunger, Poverty and Human-Centered Climate Action, it remains to be seen if COP31 will deliver a positive outcome on food systems.

Waiting for COP31 to save the world is surrendering because agribusiness lobbyists do not take holidays, argues IPES-Food panel’s Raj Patel.

“The test is not whether diplomats can craft better language in Antalya, but whether farmers’ movements, indigenous movements, and climate movements can generate enough political pressure to make governments fear inaction more than they fear confronting corporate power,” he said.

COP31, to be  hosted by Turkey with Australia as negotiations president in 2026 , is expected to prioritize an action agenda centered on adaptation finance, fossil fuel phase-out, adaptation in Small Island Developing States, and oceans.

While this agenda aligns with broader climate justice goals, it means food systems risk becoming indirectly addressed rather than explicitly championed, Kugbega said.

Given the stalled negotiations on financing sustainable agriculture transitions and the postponement of the Sharm el-Sheikh Joint Work on Agriculture, Kugbega said COP31 will likely focus more on developing new roadmaps and agreements than on full-scale implementation.

COP32 could be a greater opportunity for the implementation of the work program under Ethiopia’s COP32 presidency, given the country’s direct exposure to climate risks in agriculture, he noted.

“COP31 will likely shape whether the world arrives at COP32 ready to implement and operationalize sustainable food systems or once again be forced to renegotiate what is already known.”

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

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

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

COP30 Fails the Caribbean’s Most Vulnerable, Leaders Say: ‘Our Lived Reality Isn’t Reflected’

Climate Change Finance, Climate Change Justice, Conferences, COP30, Development & Aid, Editors’ Choice, Environment, Featured, Headlines, International Justice, Latin America & the Caribbean, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

COP30


Regional leaders say the outcome of the ‘mixed bag’ climate talks once again overlooks the real and mounting threats faced by Caribbean countries.

A coastal community in the Eastern Caribbean. Small island states say their extreme climate vulnerability is still not reflected in global finance decisions made at COP30. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

A coastal community in the Eastern Caribbean. Small island states say their extreme climate vulnerability is still not reflected in global finance decisions made at COP30. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

CASTRIES, St Lucia, Dec 1 2025 (IPS) – Caribbean small island states say this year’s UN climate conference has once again failed to deliver the urgency and ambition needed to tackle escalating climate devastation across the region. From slow-moving climate finance to frustrating political gridlock, leaders say COP30 did not reflect the realities that small islands are living through every day.


Jamaica is recovering from Hurricane Melissa, which left over 30 percent of the country’s GDP in losses and billions of dollars in damage. While the country has been able to respond rapidly thanks to a suite of innovative developmental finance tools, including a USD 150 million catastrophe bond, parametric insurance and a disaster savings fund, its Minister for Water, Environment and Climate Change, Matthew Samuda, warns that the vast majority of Caribbean islands do not have similar mechanisms.

Speaking at a press conference organized by Island Innovation and themed “Islands, the Climate Finance Gap, and COP30 Reflections,” Samuda said this is precisely why global negotiations must center the lived experiences of SIDS.

“I think I perhaps may be a little more disappointed than I am usually at the end of a COP because seeing what Jamaica is going through, seeing what Vietnam is going through, seeing extreme weather events pop up all around the world over the last 10 days, you would think that the urgency and the facts staring us in the face would have brought about greater ambition,” he said, adding that “unfortunately, the global geopolitical landscape didn’t allow for us to go much further.”

A Struggle Just to be Heard?

For many small islands and territories, simply participating meaningfully at COP30 was an uphill battle. The British Virgin Islands, like other Caribbean territories, had to rely on partners, including the Organisation of Eastern Caribbean States and the Caribbean Community Climate Change Centre for accreditation and access to the negotiations.

“We try to split up and cover as much as we can,” said Dr. Ronald Berkeley, Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Environment, Natural Resources and Climate Change. “Our reliance on partners shows how limited our reach still is.”

Berkeley said that despite the Caribbean’s visible and worsening climate impacts, it remains difficult to get major emitters to understand the region’s urgency.

“For small islands, this is real. I’m not sure a lot of the big players believe us,” he said. “Until you live through being almost blown to smithereens by a Category Five hurricane, you will never understand.”

The BVI recently established its own climate trust fund, currently funded with about US$5.5 million, to address some financing shortfalls, but Berkeley emphasized that this cannot make up for reliable, large-scale climate funding.

Barriers to Pledges

Caribbean officials are echoing the same concern—that climate finance exists on paper but rarely reaches small, vulnerable nations at the speed or scale required.

“At COP there were positive commitments, about US$1.3 trillion annually by 2035 for climate action, the tripling of adaptation finance and operationalizing the Loss and Damage Fund,” said Dr. Mohammad Rafik Nagdee, Executive Director of the Caribbean Centre for Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency (CCREEE).

“But the elephant in the room is the global finance gap,” he said. “Even where access exists, it’s not accessible at the speed the climate crisis demands. Processes are lengthy, requirements heavy and small governments simply don’t have the technical capacity.”

Nagdee said the region needs “greater predictability, simpler pathways and finance that is actually ready to disburse.”

Living Through it—Not Debating it

For Jamaica, which is emerging from one of the most devastating storms in its history, the mismatch between climate impacts and climate action is glaring.

“In the past four years, Jamaica has had its hottest day on record, its wettest day on record, its worst droughts, two tropical storms, a Category 4 hurricane and now what could be classified as a Category 6,” Samuda said. “That’s climate change in reality. That’s not an academic debate for us.”

Caribbean leaders widely described COP30 as a ‘mixed bag,’ with negotiations with incremental progress overshadowed by inadequate urgency.

“We cannot talk about building back better if the resources arrive slowly,” Nagdee said.

For small island states living on the frontlines of warming seas, rising temperatures and record-breaking storms, the message from COP30 is clear and becoming all-too familiar—that  climate change is accelerating and the price of delay is already being paid.

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

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

‘Future Shaped by Ocean-Based Innovations Within Reach’

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