Caribbean Leaders and Civil Society Prepare for Global Push on Fossil Fuel Phase-Out

Posted on by admin

Aid, Caribbean Climate Wire, Civil Society, Climate Action, Climate Change, Conferences, Development & Aid, Environment, Headlines, Humanitarian Emergencies, Latin America & the Caribbean, Small Island Developing States, Sustainable Development Goals, TerraViva United Nations

Climate Change

Civil society representatives in discussion during the first day of the Caribbean convening organised by the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

Civil society representatives in discussion during the first day of the Caribbean convening organised by the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. Credit: Alison Kentish/IPS

SAINT LUCIA, Mar 27 2026 (IPS) – As the world edges closer to breaching key climate thresholds, Caribbean policymakers, scientists and civil society leaders gathered in Saint Lucia this month to coordinate the region’s position ahead of a landmark global meeting on transitioning away from fossil fuels.

The two-day convening, held on 2–3 March, brought together civil society representatives and government officials under the umbrella of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative to discuss the Caribbean’s priorities for the upcoming First International Conference on the Phase-Out of Fossil Fuels in Colombia.

The conference, scheduled for late April in Santa Marta and co-hosted by Colombia, The Netherlands, and Tuvalu, is expected to examine strategies for a unified global transition away from fossil fuels, including financing, governance, and legal structures.

For Caribbean nations reeling from climate impacts, the discussions are far from theoretical.

“Our exposure to climate impacts is acute,” said Dr James Fletcher, climate envoy for CARICOM, in opening remarks to the gathering. “The transition is both an existential necessity and a structural transformation challenge.”

Preparing the Region’s voice

The Saint Lucia meeting was structured across two days: the first dedicated to civil society organisations and the second to government technical officials.

Organisers said the goal was to ensure both groups enter the Santa Marta conference with clear priorities and a coordinated regional position.

The Caribbean has historically played an outsized role in global climate diplomacy. Small island states were instrumental in securing the 1.5°C temperature target within the landmark Paris Agreement, despite contributing only a fraction of global greenhouse gas emissions.

Yet that goal now appears increasingly fragile.

“We will overshoot 1.5 degrees Celsius — at least temporarily,” Fletcher told participants. “The question we now have to grapple with is for how long and by how much.”

Scientists warn that without deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions, global warming could approach or exceed 2°C by the end of the century. For low-lying island states, that difference could mean the loss of ecosystems, infrastructure and territory.

A Push for Global Coordination

A key focus of the discussions was the proposal for a global fossil fuel treaty. It is an idea that is gaining traction among a coalition of countries and civil society organisations.

The treaty proposal seeks to create an international framework that would manage the decline of fossil fuel production in a coordinated and equitable way.

“The proposal came into the world because many civil society organisations realised that simply saying ‘end fossil fuels’ was not enough,” said Alex Rafalowicz, executive director of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative.

“If we are truly going to address the question of fossil fuels, we have to move beyond rhetoric and get into the details,” he said. “Those details require coordination and cooperation between countries.”

Eighteen countries are currently participating in discussions on the idea, including several small island states such as Antigua and Barbuda, The Bahamas and Saint Kitts and Nevis.

The Science Behind the Urgency

Scientific evidence presented at the Saint Lucia meeting reinforced the sense of urgency.

Professor Tannecia Stephenson, a climate scientist at the University of the West Indies, warned that the world is already experiencing “widespread, unprecedented, rapid and intensified climate change”.

Unless there are “immediate, rapid and sustained large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions”, she told the convening, the goal of limiting warming to 1.5°C will slip out of reach.

The Caribbean, she noted, faces a convergence of climate hazards, stronger hurricanes, rising sea levels and more severe droughts that threaten key sectors such as tourism, agriculture, and water security.

“How does a small island really prepare for a Category 5 storm of the strength and magnitude that we are now seeing?” she asked.

The answer, many participants argued, lies partly in addressing the root cause of climate change, that is, the continued expansion and use of fossil fuels.

Balancing Transition and Reality

Despite the urgency, the transition away from fossil fuels presents complex challenges for the Caribbean.

Many countries remain heavily dependent on imported oil and gas for electricity generation, transport and industry. Others rely on fossil-fuel-related revenues.

At the same time, the region faces chronic fiscal constraints and rising debt levels, often exacerbated by repeated climate disasters.

“Many of our countries are carrying high debt burdens,” Fletcher said. “Why? Because they continuously have to borrow money to recover from the last extreme weather event.”

This financial pressure complicates the transition to renewable energy and climate-resilient infrastructure.

To address this, discussions during the government officials’ session explored potential financing mechanisms linked to a fossil fuel treaty, including proposals for a climate-related debt resolution facility and international transition funds.

Advocates argue that such mechanisms could help ensure that poorer and more vulnerable countries are not left behind as the world shifts toward cleaner energy systems.

Civil Society Demands

The first day of the Saint Lucia convening focused on civil society perspectives, including community organisations and environmental groups from across the Caribbean.

Participants worked in groups to identify priorities and “red lines” for the region ahead of the Santa Marta meeting.

Among the themes raised were the need for stronger international commitments to phase out fossil fuel production, greater financial support for climate-vulnerable countries and protections for workers and communities affected by the energy transition.

Organisers also discussed plans for civil society mobilisation around the Santa Marta conference, including a people’s summit intended to amplify grassroots voices.

A Diplomatic Opening

While the Santa Marta conference is not formally part of the United Nations climate negotiations, many observers see it as an important diplomatic opportunity.

Fletcher described it as a “space outside the formal structure” of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change to explore new governance options and political alignments.

Its significance was underscored when it was referenced during the closing plenary of the COP30 climate summit in Belém, Brazil.

For the Caribbean, preparing a coordinated position is essential, Fletcher said.

“Caribbean leadership is most effective when it is coordinated — when we move as a bloc,” he told participants.

Punching Above Their Weight

Small island states have long leveraged their moral authority in climate negotiations, drawing attention to the disproportionate impacts they face despite contributing little to global emissions.

Fletcher reminded the audience that Caribbean countries helped secure the 1.5°C target in the Paris Agreement and have been at the forefront of campaigns on climate justice, loss and damage financing and reform of the global financial system.

“We do not lead because we are powerful,” he said. “We lead because we are principled. We lead because we are credible.”

But leadership, he added, must be matched with strategy and unity.

As delegates left the Saint Lucia meeting, the message was clear: the Santa Marta conference could represent an important step toward building global momentum for a managed phase-out of fossil fuels.

For the Caribbean, however, the stakes could hardly be higher.

“The Caribbean has often been the moral compass of global climate diplomacy,” Fletcher said. “We must continue to lead strategically, coherently and decisively.”

 

VENEZUELA: ‘An Economically Stable Authoritarian Model Could Become Entrenched’

Posted on by admin

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

Mar 11 2026 (IPS) –  
CIVICUS discusses the situation in Venezuela following US intervention and the ousting of President Nicolás Maduro with Verónica Zubillaga, a Venezuelan sociologist who specialises in urban violence, state repression and community responses to armed violence.

Verónica Zubillaga

In late January, the interim government led by Delcy Rodríguez announced an amnesty for political prisoners, coinciding with a rapprochement with the USA driven by oil interests. It is unclear whether this represents the beginning of a genuine opening or is an attempt by the government to gain international legitimacy without relinquishing power. In a country with millions of migrants and exiles, a historically fragmented opposition and a civil society that has faced brutal repression for years, it remains to be seen whether recent changes will create space for democracy or lead to the consolidation of economically stable authoritarianism.

Is the recently announced amnesty a real opening or a strategic manoeuvre?

We are at an unprecedented crossroads. Venezuela and its Chavista regime, under US tutelage and despite two decades of anti-imperialist rhetoric, are reconfiguring themselves in such a way that some opening could result. However, there is still a risk that an authoritarian model will be consolidated, with economic and humanitarian concessions, but without real democratisation.

The release of political prisoners — a constant demand in all negotiations with international support, and a low-cost form of early opening for the interim government that has taken over from Maduro — could function as a stepping stone towards democratisation. The restoration of civil, political and social rights will be a difficult and lengthy struggle in this context of such deprivation, in which our rights have been violated for so long.

In the first half of February, there were partial and gradual releases, but hundreds of people remained in detention. The enactment of the Amnesty Law on 19 February has accelerated the releases.

The announcement was presented as a political concession, not as a recognition of the extensive human rights violations committed by Maduro’s government. There has been no mention yet of initiating processes to seek the truth, hold those responsible accountable, provide reparations or dismantle the repressive apparatus, which are urgent.

We therefore need to react with caution. The release of people deprived of their liberty for political reasons is essential, but it cannot replace a broader agenda of justice, reparation and institutional transformation.

How has civil society worked to keep this issue at the centre of the debate?

The cause of political prisoners is cross-cutting. There are detained people of different ages, social classes and political backgrounds. In a society as polarised as ours, this is one of the few causes around which there is broad consensus.

After the results of the presidential election of 28 July 2024, which the opposition clearly won, were disregarded, it was mainly people from the working classes who took to the streets to protest. Many young people, including teenagers, were arrested and imprisoned. This situation significantly deepened the social dimension of the problem, highlighted the break between the ruling party and its traditional base and consolidated the brutally authoritarian nature and illegitimacy of Maduro’s government.

There is also an important gender dimension. While many young men are in prison, it is women – mothers, sisters and other relatives – who have organised committees, vigils and public actions demanding their release. Symbolically, the figure of the grieving mother demanding the release of her children is particularly powerful. It is a symbol that appeals to the Latin American imagination about women and their cries for democratisation, justice and reparation in the context of crumbling authoritarian regimes.

Recently, the demand for the release of political prisoners has also been raised by the student movement in its call for a rally at the Central University of Venezuela. After a year and a half of brutal repression following the 2024 election, which emptied the streets and created a climate of widespread fear, any public demonstration is a significant sign that could trigger a chain of progressive demands and the vindication of civil, political and social rights.

What has been the impact of the USA’s renewed interest in Venezuelan oil?

It is clear that the Trump administration is fixated on oil and investment opportunities and completely disregards democracy and human rights. The part of the opposition represented by María Corina Machado has been stunned by its exclusion from key decision-making despite its efforts to gain Donald Trump’s attention. This exclusion has altered the internal political balance.

Historically, there has been tension within the Venezuelan opposition between those who favour resorting to external pressure and those who prioritise internal negotiation strategies. Since 2014, two main strategies have coexisted: one that is more confrontational, demanding the immediate end of the government, and another favouring negotiation or elections. Civil society mirrors these same divisions. One of the difficulties of the Venezuelan process is this constant fragmentation and internal disagreements within the opposition. As the government has become more authoritarian, these divisions have prevented more powerful coordinated political action. It is important for the opposition to coordinate strategies and, instead of wearing itself down in these disagreements, coordinate efforts to move strategically between confrontation and negotiation.

Whenever the opposition has managed to coordinate, as in the 2015 legislative and 2024 presidential elections, it made significant gains. During the 2024 campaign led by Machado, the opposition achieved an unprecedented level of coordination, generating enormous collective hope, particularly with regard to the prospect of family reunification in a country with over eight million migrants. This situation affects people of all social classes and political ideologies. But in response, the government redoubled its repression and consolidated the dictatorship. This led to frustration, demobilisation and further fragmentation. The opposition lacked a long-term strategy to sustain its gains and withstand setbacks. This is still one of the biggest challenges today.

What should the international community do to contribute to real democratisation?

The international community, and Latin American states in particular, could have taken a firmer stance after the 2024 electoral fraud. Silence and a lukewarm approach weakened the defence of democracy. Now it should not repeat that mistake. Beyond Maduro’s profound delegitimisation, the US military operation in Venezuela is a sign of what could happen to any Latin American country under the US government’s new national security strategy.

With the USA as an imperial power primarily concerned with its geostrategic interests and oil resources, demands for democratisation may take a back seat. An authoritarian model that is economically stable but without real democratisation could become entrenched.

In this context, the USA’s prioritisation of energy interests is worrying. It is an unprecedented scenario in which external intervention and the permanence of the ruling party in power coexist. The situation is highly volatile, and this has only just begun. A period of instability and political violence could follow if the civil-military coalition in power breaks down, which may happen given the tradition of anti-imperialist discourse rooted in the armed forces during the two and a half decades of Chavista rule.

Ironically, the USA’s focus on energy interests could result in the defence of sovereignty becoming a new unifying cause for the Venezuelan opposition, potentially leading to basic agreements between the ruling party post-Maduro and the opposition to defend Venezuelan oil interests. What’s at stake is recovering politics as an exercise involving conflict and struggle, as well as recognition and exchange for democratic coexistence — something we have lost, particularly over the past decade.

CIVICUS interviews a wide range of civil society activists, experts and leaders to gather diverse perspectives on civil society action and current issues for publication on its CIVICUS Lens platform. The views expressed in interviews are the interviewees’ and do not necessarily reflect those of CIVICUS. Publication does not imply endorsement of interviewees or the organisations they represent

GET IN TOUCH
LinkedIn
Twitter

SEE ALSO
‘Although the repressive architecture remains intact, a small window of hope has opened’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Luz Mely Reyes 05.Feb.2026
Venezuela: democracy no closer CIVICUS Lens 29.Jan.2026
‘We are seeing an economic transition, but no democratic transition’ CIVICUS Lens | Interview with Guillermo Miguelena 26.Jan.2026

  Source

Cuba Has its Back Against the Wall

Posted on by admin

Civil Society, Featured, Global Governance, Headlines, IPS UN: Inside the Glasshouse, Latin America & the Caribbean, TerraViva United Nations

Opinion

BERLIN, Germany, Mar 2 2026 (IPS) – The crisis could scarcely be more dramatic. The US is blocking practically all oil deliveries to Cuba. The island depends on imports for all diesel, petrol and kerosine. Without diesel trucks cannot move, food cannot reach Cuban towns and hospitals will not get any oxygen.

The airports are already without kerosine and several airlines have already suspended flights to and from Havana. The strategy is clear: strangulation. The US extreme right is jubilant; at last, they have found the ‘choking point’ that may finally bring Havana to its knees, 67 years after Fidel Castro’s revolution.

Trump says that negotiations are already under way, outside of declaring that Cuba is a ‘failed state’ and the government there needs to make a deal. But Trump says a lot of things. Even a sober look at the alternatives, however, is fairly terrifying. There are basically four scenarios:

Scenario 1: Cuba continues to be denied oil deliveries. The government can impose austerity measures and commit itself to heroic resistance. But without new petrol or diesel the current crisis will become a humanitarian catastrophe within weeks. Havana could pin the blame for this on the US and with complete justification. For all its own faults, no other Caribbean island could withstand such an oil embargo, whatever its political system. But what good would playing the blame game do in the end? The social and human costs would be horrendous. Without diesel even international humanitarian aid deliveries couldn’t get from the ports to the towns that need them.

Moscow says that it is willing to supply Cuba with oil, but so far it hasn’t followed through.

Scenario 2: Some oil tankers reach the island, perhaps from Moscow, from spot market purchases or from other sources. This could relieve the worst of it, no doubt. But the question remains, to what degree? And for the foreseeable future? Trump’s threats of punitive tariffs and the seizure of proscribed tankers are already sufficient deterrent.

Even Mexico had to pull its support under pressure from Washington. But who else is up for incurring America’s wrath? Moscow says that it is willing to supply Cuba with oil, but so far it hasn’t followed through.

On top of that, Russian airlines are bringing their passengers home and suspending flights. Up until the US military strikes on Maduro on 3 January Venezuela had provided 70 per cent of Cuba’s oil imports. Instead of demanding hard currency payments, it settled for Cuban medical personnel. Who will take over this role?

Scenario 3: The desperate situation intensifies, leading to protests, unrest and the fall of the government. This is what the hardliners in Miami have been dreaming of. But for all the pent-up frustration Washington’s own policy is stymying mobilisation. Already in Venezuela Trump and Rubio ignored the opposition and made deals only with the post-Maduro elite.

If Trump is now saying that negotiations with Havana are already going on and the regime will fall of its own accord, who on the island will be inclined to put themselves on the line in demonstrations or protests? No doubt there’ll be outbreaks of desperation, windows may be smashed and sporadic looting.

But if the message is that only the power struggle between Washington and Havana really counts it makes more sense for the populace to see how things develop, waiting until things have been decided by those at the top.

Scenario 4: The US oil blockade could be lifted in the course of negotiations. But even though Havana has resumed communications with Washington dialogue remains a distant prospect. Some possible steps seem realistic. The Cuba government could order the release of hundreds of prisoners, held in the protests of 11 July 2021.

It could also remove particularly controversial sections of the penal code, push ahead with market reforms or improve investment possibilities for Cuban emigrees. And all without undermining the foundations of the system. This would not only serve US interests, but also many of the civilian population. In return, Washington could permit a resumption of oil deliveries to Cuba from Mexico and elsewhere. Restrictions on remittances from US Cuban expats could be lifted. A first milestone would be reached.

Never been weaker

Nevertheless, it is difficult to imagine what kind of common denominator could be found that would ease the tension and usher in some kind of new normal. Cuba has been a worldwide symbol for the left since the revolution in 1959. But the same could be said for the right in the US.

Indeed, the latter would like nothing better than to see it fall. Trump won’t say what kind of deal he wants. But rest assured it will involve Cuba once more within the US sphere of influence and a US-friendly government in Havana.

Cuba really has its back against the wall. Its negotiating position has never been weaker. Venezuela has shown, however, that the US wants more than political alignment and access to resources. It also desires stability. The government in Caracas may have changed, but the military and the police, the state apparatus and even para-military forces remain intact.

Cuba isn’t a complete match in this respect, but if the US doesn’t want to put boots on the ground it will continue to need the state’s existing forces of order: police, military and administration. This gives the Cuban side at least something to bring to the negotiating table.

Nevertheless, Havana will have to cross a lot of red lines to reach an agreement with this US administration. And what’s more, under the constant shadow of the latent threat that Washington will again turn off the oil tap. The US government would be well advised to be pragmatic enough to allow the other side to save face.

But this is unlikely given the intoxicating fantasy of omnipotence by which Washington is currently spellbound. Cuban-born hardliners in the US Congress are already demanding that the Department of Justice bring the 94-year-old Raúl Castro to trial.

Or perhaps everything will be resolved very quickly. The power bloc around Raúl Castro’s family and its associated network controls not just the military and the security apparatus, but also by far the biggest business entity in the country, the military holding GAESA. The profound crisis of recent years has enabled them to invest with grim determination in the expansion of luxury hotels, transferring state-run restaurants into private management and acquiring stakes in lucrative online supermarkets that emigrants in Miami and elsewhere use to support their families on the island.

Could the upshot be a form of capitalism that maintains their economic privileges, with American partners in the hotels, while the old networks retain control?

None of the four scenarios seem entirely credible, but surely one of them, or some combination, will be realised in the not-too-distant future. But maybe not, if all those who are currently mute in fear of falling victim to Trump’s random impulses actually come together. Not out of nostalgia for the Cuban revolution, but to stand up and be counted as the Washington regime calls into question the basic norms of coexistence between peoples and states, whether in Cuba or Greenland.

Professor Dr Bert Hoffmann is Lead Research Fellow at the GIGA German Institute for Global and Area Studies in Hamburg and Honorary Professor at Freie Universität Berlin.

Source: International Politics and Society, Brussels

IPS UN Bureau

  Source

Venezuela at a Crossroads

Posted on by admin

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

Posted on by admin

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

Posted on by admin

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