The new head of the Global Center on Adaptation (GCA) faces a formidable task: raise urgent funding to get the organisation back on track following damaging revelations about its former management, just as tight budgets prompt many donors to rethink their climate spending.
Rindra Rabarinirinarison, who served as Madagascar’s economy and finance minister from 2021-2025, said the change of leadership at the Rotterdam-based GCA was “an opportunity to reset things”, pledging to repair the centre’s reputation after its founding CEO left under a cloud.
“I plan to strengthen partnerships and rebuild this trust. Why? Because people only give you money if they trust you – and they only trust you if they know you well,” she told Climate Home News in her first interview since taking over at the GCA’s floating office in the Netherlands this month.
During her first weeks in the job, she plans “to meet with all our partners to correct the communication challenges that have emerged” – a reference to the revelations about the centre’s workplace culture that emerged in a series of investigative articles published by Dutch broadcaster NOS last year.
-
COP30 fails to land deal on fossil fuel transition but triples finance for climate adaptation
Instead of a global agreement to create roadmaps to shift away from fossil fuels and end deforestation, Brazil announces voluntary initiatives -
Business-as-usual: Donors pour climate adaptation finance into big infrastructure, neglecting local needs
A deep-sea port project in Bangladesh highlights how some major donor nations are labelling funds for industry-friendly transport and energy projects as adaptation finance, reporting by Climate Home News shows -
Tripling adaptation finance is just the start – delivery is what matters
The COP30 decision on adaptation finance was a rare moment of hope. We must build on it by prioritising grants, streamlining access and ensuring funding meets country needs
When the GCA was launched to considerable fanfare in 2018, climate adaptation was largely neglected by politicians, development banks and investors, who were more focused on efforts to cut planet-heating emissions than on helping people cope with their effects. The GCA’s plan, together with the high-powered Global Commission on Adaptation which it co-hosted, was to correct that imbalance.
Former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, who served as founding chair of the GCA and is now its emeritus chair, said back then that the commission, of which he was a member, would “play a vital role in elevating the political importance of adaptation, and also in making the case that greater resilience is achievable”.
Today, most experts agree that adaptation – and the increasingly urgent need to invest in it – have won far more prominence on the international agenda, even if dollars have yet to flow on the scale required.
Richard Klein, director of science and innovation at the GCA between September 2018 and December 2019, said the centre had helped propel that progress, alongside other organisations like the United Nations Development Programme and the World Bank.
But Klein, now an independent adaptation expert, told Climate Home News the GCA had squandered the opportunity to generate innovative research and had become “a mid-sized consultancy … that lives way beyond its means”.
“High-pressure” environment
The reporting by NOS portrayed a toxic workplace culture in which staff were expected to put furthering the high-profile advocacy of the GCA’s dynamic ex-boss Patrick Verkooijen ahead of their research to help vulnerable communities adapt to worsening extreme weather and rising seas.
Verkooijen recently stepped down from the GCA after two four-year terms during which he was appointed as chancellor of the University of Nairobi, where the centre planned to set up a dual headquarters.
Asked about the criticism of his leadership, Verkooijen said the GCA had been created as a startup organisation at a time when there was “a very great sense of urgency that adaptation needed to be scaled up – all leading to a huge amount of pressure for delivery”.
“I believe managers and staff did their best, though certainly not every system was perfect – there could be tense and high-pressure moments,” he told Climate Home News in emailed responses.
Conversations with ex-GCA employees, as well as an unpublished editorial authored by several former staffers and shared with Climate Home News, supported the NOS reports about an atmosphere of conflict in which operations were focused on advancing Verkooijen’s efforts to promote adaptation and the centre’s work to leaders, especially in Africa.
“It was painful, how, in the end, just everything was about visibility around him,” Klein said.
Verkooijen said that while he would not discount employees’ personal experiences, the GCA had not received official complaints about its leadership and “did not recognise the environment as it was characterised in media”. The GCA has invested in building up staff systems and safeguards, especially in the last three years, he added.
“Significant” downsizing underway
Rabarinirinarison takes over as the organisation faces tough decisions about its size and capacity going forward. It is being forced to downsize from 60-plus employees because of financial uncertainty following an end to funding from the British government and a question-mark over whether other countries – including the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway – will renew their support.
Other key funders, including France and the Gates Foundation, have agreed to provide continued backing, the GCA said. It denied a report by NOS that it is facing imminent bankruptcy, which Climate Home News understands was based on a confidential internal document outlining a range of scenarios in line with different funding outcomes.
Rabarinirinarison said she could not comment on potential layoffs, which are being discussed as part of a “significant resizing to adjust the head count with the contracted resources available to us”.
But she conceded that the centre’s current financial situation is “very serious right now”. Funding from the Dutch government – which was instrumental in setting up the GCA – is due to run out in May, and earlier efforts to win a new commitment must now be revived after a minority centrist government took office in February. Prime Minister Rob Jetten is a former climate minister and supports the clean energy transition.
“We are hopeful the new government’s approaches to our work will be favourable – and this is the advantages to have a new management, new face, new hope and new explanations,” said Rabarinirinarison, adding that the Netherlands will be her first port of call, followed by other key partners that have backed the GCA up to now.
She is also planning to seek potential new sources of funding in the Middle East and Asia, where the GCA has offices in Bangladesh and China.
The centre’s work so far has been heavily focused on supporting large adaptation projects carried out by the African Development Bank (AfDB) and the World Bank across Africa, to which it has provided consulting services and technical advice.
Flagship Africa investment programme
The GCA threw its weight behind the Africa Adaptation Acceleration Program (AAAP), which launched its second phase last September at the Africa Climate Summit in Ethiopia and the United Nations General Assembly.
The AAAP investment initiative for climate adaptation on the continent began in 2021 and was implemented through a partnership involving the African Union Commission, the AfDB and the GCA.
According to the GCA’s website, its first phase embedded “climate adaptation solutions” into more than $20 billion of development investments across some 40 African nations.
Global South’s climate adaptation bill to top $300 billion a year by 2035: UN
An article by NOS, published last October, accused the centre of misleading donors by overstating its role in the AAAP and other projects, saying documentation examined by NOS did not back up the extent of GCA’s claimed contributions to the work.
The GCA, for its part, put out a statement rejecting the NOS findings, which it said “provide an inaccurate representation of the Center’s work and achievements, as well as our relationships with partners”.
A GCA spokesperson told Climate Home News that, after sharing information with NOS and requesting corrections from the outlet which were not made, it recently filed a complaint about the coverage with the Dutch ombudsman.
In emailed comments, Verkooijen defended the achievements of the centre under his stewardship, saying it had made a “substantial contribution” to developing knowledge including through its co-management of the Global Commission on Adaptation and its “State and Trends on Adaptation series” of reports. He said that, at the advocacy level, GCA had made “clear-cut contributions to elevating the level of political priority for adaptation” and had participated in embedding climate considerations into around 100 large development projects delivered by international financial institutions.
In most cases, he wrote, “these projects … would not have factored in climate risks and adaptation without the GCA’s contribution – or not to the same degree”.
Pitching adaptation as a “driver for growth”
In the future, Rabarinirinarison thinks the GCA can continue to act as a “solutions broker” on adaptation, while facilitating access to international climate finance for Global South governments and communities which have limited capacity to develop bankable adaptation projects and navigate complex processes.
The GCA can use its expertise to help countries understand the significant risks of failing to protect their economies from extreme weather and serve as a strong proponent of adaptation as a “driver for growth”, she said.
The centre still has “room to grow”, she added, by delivering more “technical expertise reports” and “technical advocacy”, ensuring that adaptation is “effectively included in large-scale financial institutional lending” and bridging the gap between discussions and implementation at scale.
Climate adaptation can’t be just for the rich, COP30 president says
Some in the sector question the need for a Global North-based organisation to be doing such work for the benefit of Global South countries, despite its shift to African leadership. The GCA board also has a new chair, with Mauritius President Ameenah Gurib-Fakim this month taking over the role from Senegal’s former leader, Macky Sall, who is bidding to become the next UN chief.
Finding a USP in a maturing sector
Sander Chan, who was a senior researcher at the GCA from 2020 to 2022, criticised the organisation for focusing too heavily on building the business case for adaptation, mobilising money and seeking private-sector involvement, while doing too little to include or strengthen the perspectives and voices of local and Indigenous communities.
The centre has, however, developed a training and advocacy network for some 35,000 youth supporters of adaptation across the Global South, as well as hosting an online platform for locally led adaptation intended to showcase and connect community groups and practitioners.
Klein and Chan, now an associate professor at Radboud University in the Netherlands, also questioned the value added by the centre beyond its awareness-raising and brokering roles, which they argue are now less important and can be fulfilled by other better-established institutions.
Klein said it will be tough for the GCA’s new leadership to develop a unique selling point unless it goes beyond its current activities, given that more organisations today are offering similar services and looking for a larger share of the pie.
“I think it’s more than just a matter of rebuilding trust in how [the centre] used to operate,” he said. “It’s also: is there still a need for what they’re doing?”
Rabarinirinarison’s strategy, if the GCA can procure funding to get itself back on course, is to expand its work and knowledge base to pitch adaptation as key to economic growth and “selling this product as our main asset”.
“I do believe that GCA is able to perform essential services, and its partners are able to notice its value and continue to support us if we communicate well,” she said.
The post Can new CEO steer Global Center on Adaptation back on course? appeared first on Climate Home News.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/03/25/can-new-ceo-steer-global-center-on-adaptation-back-on-course/
Scientists have vowed to keep working on the next flagship set of reports for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), after a political row over the timeline for their release saw its latest session suspended on Friday evening without agreement.
During the weekend, government officials and scientists alike expressed disappointment over the inability to reach a compromise before some delegates from developing countries and small island states had to leave the week-long meeting in Ethiopia to catch flights home.
The disagreement – which has persisted since early 2024 – turns on whether the three key parts of the AR7 assessment should all be published before the conclusion of the UN’s next Global Stocktake of global climate action, which is due to be completed in late 2028.
The IPCC issued a statement after the close of the session, saying that “key agenda items” – the timelines for the three AR7 reports, as well as the IPCC budget – remain open and under discussion. It said the IPCC’s plenary session and its deliberations on the pending agenda “will resume at the earliest opportunity”, giving no further details of when.
IPCC Chair Jim Skea told delegates in closing remarks that recent months had been some of the most turbulent for the climate science panel and that, if there were stronger words than “profound disappointment” he would use them, according to a summary published by the Earth Negotiators Bulletin (ENB). IPCC discussions happen behind closed doors.
IPCC scientists remained committed
In an open letter, issued on Monday, a group of nearly 120 scientists – from a total of 664 AR7 authors – said they “stand committed to continue working to deliver the AR7 reports in a manner that is rigorous, timely and inclusive, in line with our mandate to be policy-relevant”.
“An assessment that arrives after the decisions it is meant to inform cannot serve its purpose,” they emphasised. “The second Global Stocktake in 2028 is such a decision point, and the world should not have to face it without the IPCCʼs latest assessment.”
Europe, small islands and the least developed countries, plus many Latin American and developed nations, want the IPCC to meet this deadline, arguing that the findings from the UN climate science body are irreplaceable in the UN climate policy-making process.
However, around a dozen developing countries plus Russia have argued that the reports should come later in order to allow for greater research input from the Global South – something that, in their view, would make the findings fairer. They also claim that a shorter timeline would put excessive pressure on experts.
-
Who shapes climate science? The equity question facing the IPCC
Early completion of the next global climate science assessment reports risks excluding research from the Global South, which is key to ensuring the findings are fair -
Governments that support climate science must stand firm against naysayers
The IPCC is meeting to decide the timing of its next major report, as some countries try to delay it and weaken the case for faster emissions cuts
The most vocal of this group at last week’s meeting were India and Saudi Arabia, according to the ENB summary and a developed country diplomat. Critics see this push for a longer timeline as an excuse to deprive government decision-makers of the latest science and ease pressure on emerging economies to raise their ambition, particularly on cutting emissions.
Commenting on last week’s meeting, France’s ambassador for climate negotiations Benoît Faraco said a broad coalition of developed and developing countries from all five continents, “united in their support for science and the timeline proposed by scientists”, had withstood pressure “from a few countries” seeking to slow down the process of adopting the IPCC reports.
He added that France would not back down and would “continue to fight tirelessly for science, protect the integrity of information, and convince our partners that without the best available scientific data, we will be less effective in tackling climate change and protecting our populations”.
Inclusivity proposal stalled
In a bid to unlock a solution for the AR7 timeline, countries discussed ways to improve the inclusivity of the IPCC’s work. One option put on the table was for the IPCC to expand its funding for delegates from developing countries to attend some or all of its sessions from one to two participants, according to the ENB summary and a delegate speaking to Climate Home News.
That would increase the costs for the IPCC to complete AR7 by up to a quarter, according to an assessment shared by the secretariat. The panel’s budget is under severe strain and its officials have warned that, without additional voluntary contributions, it risks running out of money before it can deliver on this assessment cycle.
Climate Home News understands that some of the IPCC’s traditional donors – which mainly include European countries, Japan and Australia – indicated a willingness to support funding for an additional developing country participant. But without an agreement over the budget or the timeline for the reports, that option was ultimately not adopted.
‘Disappointed and worried’
The three reports are managed by working groups that collate and draw overall findings from the latest scientific studies and data on the physical effects of global warming around the world, how to adapt to it, and pathways for cutting planet-heating emissions in order to meet the temperature goals of the Paris Agreement.
Winston Chow, an urban climate professor at Singapore Management University who co-chairs Working Group II on adaptation, wrote in a LinkedIn post that he was “disappointed and worried” for the IPCC authors who have worked “extraordinarily hard” to assess the relevant climate science over the past two years.
He said he shared their concern that “the rigour, time and goodwill they’ve invested are now being put at risk by the Panel’s stalemate”.
As science comes under attack at UN talks, climate movement splits over how to respond
For Working Group II, a meeting for 250 experts writing that report is scheduled for January 2027, followed by the approval of a special report on cities and climate change in Singapore next March.
But because the IPCC’s budget has not been confirmed due to uncertainty about the AR7 schedule, travel support for those researchers is at risk, wrote Chow. “If they cannot participate, our assessments will lose vital expertise, perspectives and scientific breadth, and the collective effort of our authors will be undermined,” he warned.
Scientific work continues
Despite the political holdups, he – together with French climate scientist Robert Vautard, co-chair of Working Group 1 – agreed with IPCC head Skea who told the IPCC’s closing session on Friday: “The engine room of the IPCC is working, and it’s healthy.”
Vautard commented in a separate post on LinkedIn after it ended: “The boat is at full steam.” Working groups I and II are due to start revising the first drafts of their reports, while Working Group III on reducing emissions is finalising its first draft which will be out soon, he wrote.
“The most exciting two years of the cycle are ahead, for the authors. The momentum in the engine room is here and now. Trust the engine room!” he added.
The IPCC and some scientists report that progress has been made towards achieving an equitable balance of authors from the Global North and the Global South.
The group of researchers who signed the open letter on Monday noted that “inclusivity is at the heart of how we work”, with author teams bringing together experts from developed and developing countries with diverse backgrounds and at different stages of their careers.
Plea to overcome political differences
The signatories include several scientists from some of the countries opposed to the alignment of all IPCC reports with the Global Stocktake.
“We are committed to an assessment in which the knowledge, experience and priorities of every region are fully reflected, a commitment we share with the leadership of the IPCC.
Equity is built into how our assessment is being drafted,” they added.
They appealed to governments that make up the IPCC “to overcome their political differences and work together as we do as a global scientific community, so that we can deliver the IPCC reports the world needs to hear”.
In a statement published on Monday, IPCC chair Skea said reaching consensus on the schedule for the reports is “vital”. He added that the assessments provide authoritative scientific evidence to inform national climate policies, strengthen adaptation and resilience and support access to climate finance, as well as helping communicate the scale of the climate crisis and the urgency of efforts to tackle it.
The post IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock appeared first on Climate Home News.
IPCC scientists vow to press on with climate reports despite political deadlock
An Lambrechts is a biodiversity politics expert at Greenpeace International with extensive experience in biodiversity-related multilateral negotiations. She is the head of the Greenpeace delegation at the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) COP17 happening in Yerevan, Armenia.
In 2022, COP15 delivered the landmark Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030. With COP17 starting in Yerevan, we are now halfway to the deadline, and according to the first Global Review of progress, countries are not on track to meet the biodiversity targets, and implementation must accelerate fast.
One of the main findings of the Global Review is that funding falls far short of the scale needed to halt and reverse nature loss. But the crisis facing the world’s biodiversity is not an absolute scarcity of capital – it is a profound public policy distortion.
The global economy currently spends roughly $30 destroying nature for every single dollar invested in its protection. According to a report from the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, a staggering $2.4 trillion is spent in public subsidies for fossil fuels, agriculture and water use, while global investment in biodiversity conservation and restoration stands at a mere $220 billion.
Countries urged to ramp up “insufficient” nature policies at COP17
Yet, discussions about how to close the biodiversity finance gap continue to claim that salvation lies in mobilising private capital, scaling offsets and “derisking” investments in nature. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of both the nature of ecological stewardship and of the global financial architecture.
Biodiversity conservation is not a speculative investment portfolio – it is the foundation of human survival. The health of our planet is a non-monetisable, non-excludable public good. Expecting profit-seeking private capital to protect nature perpetuates the structural drivers of ecosystem destruction in the first place.
But if private market mechanisms cannot save biodiversity, where will the necessary public resources come from?
Money going to the wrong places
The answer lies in recovering the vast public wealth currently drained by cross-border tax abuse, financial secrecy and corporate impunity. Finance and environment ministers meeting in Yerevan must give a strong political signal that, to avert ecological breakdown, countries need to take swift action to reform global tax rules, eliminate harmful public subsidies and cancel unsustainable sovereign debts for the public revenues to end up where they belong.
Extractive sectors such as industrial agriculture, fishing, timber and mining continue business-as-usual, often heavily subsidised by public treasuries, while voluntary carbon and biodiversity offset markets pose a serious risk to nature conservation. Offset schemes have delivered only a