- What timeline options were delegates debating?
- How did the timeline discussions unfold?
- What were the main points of disagreement?
- Why is the IPCC in a ‘serious funding crisis’?
- How have scientists reacted?
- What other issues remain unresolved?
- How are the IPCC AR7 reports progressing?
- How might the IPCC use AI and enhance gender inclusivity?
Juliana Arciniegas is a former negotiator of climate and environmental treaties from Colombia. She currently leads the Nature agenda at the Latin American Think-Tank Transforma.
With Brazil – a global leader in addressing hunger and home to the largest share of the Amazon rainforest – hosting COP30, hopes have been running high that food system transformation will finally be central to the UN climate negotiations.
Held in the city of Belém, gateway to the Amazon, the summit places the climate-nature nexus in the spotlight, as leaders make decisions that will shape the future of the rainforest and communities they are guests of.
Yet food systems, the biggest driver of deforestation and responsible for around one-third of global emissions, have once again been sidelined. Despite being highly vulnerable to climate change, they also hold immense potential for keeping climate change in check. Overlooking them is not just a missed opportunity for Brazil to reinforce its leadership, it risks undermining critical initiatives like forest protection.
Why, then, has one of the most powerful climate solutions been left off the agenda for COP30, recently set out by president-designate André Aranha Corrêa do Lago?
“Not silver bullets”: COP30 CEO downplays impact of yearly climate summits
Broken food system
Worldwide, countries are facing the consequences of a broken food system which is fuelling the climate crisis threatening food production. Our current system feeds the profits of food giants while leaving family farmers struggling, consumers facing rising food costs and governments having to answer to it. This will continue unabated under business as usual.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is unambiguous. Its Sixth Assessment Report stated that climate change has already reduced food security, and will increasingly put pressure on food production and access, especially in vulnerable regions.
The world’s agricultural sector is a climate culprit, as well as a casualty. Not only does it produce 30% of anthropogenic emissions, agriculture is also responsible for up to 80% of tropical deforestation around the world. There is simply no way to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement without dramatic reductions in emissions from agriculture, forestry and other land use (AFOLU).
The good news is the sector also holds vast potential. Practices like agroforestry, biochar, crop diversification, reduced tillage, and sustainable fertiliser use could reduce some 10-12 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide per year and shave 0.3°C off peak warming.
Support for family farmers
Brazil is acting on some of these challenges. During its G20 presidency, it launched the Global Alliance Against Hunger and Poverty. At COP28, it co-founded the Alliance of Champions for Food Systems Transformation. This year, it is set to establish the Tropical Forests Forever Facility, which promises to generate transformative funding to tackle deforestation. Nonetheless, if COP30 does not address the role of food and farming in driving this deforestation, it risks treating the symptom, not the disease.
COP president do Lago has, rightfully, emphasised the need to elevate adaptation as a priority at the climate talks. Family farmers are key to this: they are critical to global supply chains and hold the solutions to ensuring food security in a changing climate.
However, within the current system, they often lack the finance and political backing to do so. In 2021-22, just 14% ($1.3 billion) of international public climate finance for agriculture and land use was targeted at small-scale farmers.
UN biodiversity talks agree finance roadmap, postponing decision on a new fund
This is another area where Brazil is taking action. Last year, President Lula da Silva launched a National Plan for Agroecology and Organic Production which, among other things, helps family farmers become more climate-resilient.
Do Lago is clear on the need for COP30 to deliver. “Words and text must be translated into actual practice and transformations on the ground,” he writes. What does this mean for food and farming?
Financing for sustainable agriculture
First, Andrea do Lago has rightly highlighted the importance of the Global Stocktake (GST) to shift gear from agreements to action. Building on food system transformation goals from the first GST in 2023, Belem should see countries and non-state actors decide on a roadmap, with guiding options and economic incentives, to support national efforts to transition to sustainable agricultural practices.
Second, COP30 must define concrete measures for countries to achieve the GST goal to halt and reverse forest degradation by 2030, in line with the UN biodiversity targets. This must include support for countries to tackle specific causes of deforestation including agriculture, mining and infrastructure.
Third, with countries due to submit their new action plans – NDCs – by September 2025, these need to include targets, timetables and funds to transform their national food systems. They aren’t starting from scratch – at COP28 over 150 countries signed up to the Emirates Food Systems Declaration with measures such as reducing AFOLU emissions, access to healthy and sustainable diets, and putting farmers at the heart of implementation.
Fourth, COP30 is a pivotal moment to bridge the climate finance gap. Brazil has consistently urged wealthier nations to fund developing countries’ adaptation and transition to sustainable agriculture. The Baku-to-Belém roadmap from COP29 must show progress in mobilising at least $1.3 trillion a year by 2035 and allocating specific funds for nature and sustainable food systems. The financial policies discussed at the climate talks must align with fair trade, tariffs, and subsidies that incentivise ecosystem protection and support farmers and local communities.
COP30 chief calls for global unity on climate action as cooperation falters
Against a backdrop of tense geopolitics and international aid spending being slashed, it’s more important than ever that leaders recognise the importance of investing in a global sustainable food system to safeguard national priorities.
A transformed system that addresses malnutrition, properly compensates farmers, improves productivity, and protects the environment could deliver net economic benefits of US$5-10 trillion annually. With deep expertise in addressing hunger, supporting family farmers and stewardship of the Amazon, Brazil is uniquely positioned to seize the opportunity for COP30 to inspire a food system revolution – an ecological imperative and economic necessity for us all.
The post Food systems are the missing ingredient from the COP30 menu appeared first on Climate Home News.
Continue Reading
Climate Change
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Three countries have been named by the Paris Agreement’s compliance committee for failing to submit a nationally determined contribution (NDC) and repeatedly snubbing offers of help with their climate plans.
After months of internal debate over whether to identify serial non-responders, the Paris Agreement’s Implementation and Compliance Committee (PAICC) named the three countries which have failed to engage with it over their NDCs on Friday.
It named Democratic Republic of Congo, Senegal and North Korea in a footnote of its annual report, adding that it decided to name them “with a view to facilitating engagement”, adding that representatives of the three nations had been invited to its meeting in early 2027 “with the purpose of identifying any challenges and constraints”.
“The Committee noted the importance of Parties engaging with the Committee in a timely manner, while noting that some delays may be due to the national capabilities and circumstances of the Parties”, the report said.
In July, PAICC said 12 countries had ignored its repeated attempts to discuss why they had not published an NDC as required every five years under the 2015 Paris accord.
Members of the committee had been divided over whether to name them, but at a September meeting decided to do so in their annual report to the annual climate COP summit.
By the time the report was published on Friday, only Congo, Senegal and North Korea “had not communicated an NDC or submitted a [Biennial Transparency Report] and had not yet responded to any of the Committee’s notifications, despite several reminders issued by the Committee in this regard”.
Rainforest and renewable energy ambitions
The silence from Congo and Senegal is notable because the former is home to much of the Congo Basin rainforest while the latter has sought billions of dollars in climate finance to support its renewable energy ambitions.
After Brazil, Congo has more rainforest than any country in the world. This forest, and the country’s peatlands, absorb huge amounts of greenhouse gas but are fast being lost to expanding farmland, charcoal production, logging and mining.
Senegal signed a Just Energy Transition Partnership with Canada and wealthy European nations in 2023, to help it meet its renewable energy targets under the-then government of Macky Sall. It was chair of the Least Developed Countries group between January 2022 and December 2023.

Tejas Rao, who is researching the PAICC as part of a doctoral thesis at Cambridge University, said the governments of the three countries should engage with the committee.
“Engagement costs these governments very little and the committee has shown it will listen,” he said.
“Silence leaves the committee with no basis to help, and it leaves the [governments] exposed to the narrative that they are simply disengaged,” he told Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement requirement
The 2015 Paris Agreement requires all parties to publish an NDC every five years outlining their emissions reduction targets, with each plan meant to be more ambitious than the country’s last NDC.
The latest set – the third round of plans, with new targets for 2035 – was due in February 2025. While most countries missed this deadline, all but around 30 – mostly small emitters but including Egypt, Vietnam and Argentina – have now submitted them.
Over the year, the PAICC – which is made up of government climate officials from developed and developing countries – has been communicating with governments that have not submitted NDCs and trying to overcome barriers to them doing so.
Some nations have cited exceptional circumstances as the reason for not submitting an NDC, a process that requires a significant amount of work in tracking emissions and consulting on how to curb them across the economy. For example, a letter from a Sudanese official to the PAICC, seen by Climate Home News, said that the country’s civil war had led to the suspension of its NDC preparation.
The US and Iran are not signed up to the Paris Agreement and so do not have active NDCs, nor does Taiwan, which is not a UN member state.
Rao said that because the PAICC is “facilitative and non-punitive”, naming the countries “is meant to open a door, not close one – the invited consultation is the point”.
“In recent months, governments that explained their constraints, whether capacity, finance or domestic process, have been met with follow-up and support rather than sanction, and the number of silent governments has fallen sharply,” Rao said.
The post Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs appeared first on Climate Home News.
Paris Agreement committee names three countries snubbing it over NDCs
Climate Change
Q&A: Why a pivotal IPCC meeting in Ethiopia ended in ‘profound disappointment’
Countries have failed – for the sixth time running – to agree on the timeline for publishing the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) next set of influential reports.
The IPCC’s 65th session (IPCC-65) was seen by many to be the final opportunity for countries to agree on a schedule where its seventh assessment report (AR7) would be published in time for the UN’s second “global stocktake” of climate action.
Before last week’s meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, IPCC chair Prof Sir Jim Skea had warned that releasing the reports in time for the stocktake in 2028 would depend on a timelines being agreed by the end of 2026.
But the week-long meeting descended into fraught disagreements between governments, resulting in Skea “suspending” the talks on Friday evening with no decision made.
Countries were also unable to agree on the IPCC’s budget for the rest of the AR7 cycle, leaving the body with a “serious funding crisis”.
The IPCC has pledged to reconvene the meeting at the “earliest opportunity”; however, it has not yet given an indication of when this will be.
In his concluding remarks, Skea described the Addis Ababa summit as a “profound disappointment” and “among the most difficult IPCC meetings”, according to reporting from the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB).
Some countries have reacted with dismay to the breakdown of negotiations, warning that a failure to have the IPCC’s latest assessments on climate adaptation and mitigation ready for the UN stocktaking exercise would undermine global climate action.
A climate envoy from a Pacific island state said it was a “travesty that a handful of countries continue to delay the IPCC’s reports – the science we need back home to help us save lives and livelihoods”.
Below, Carbon Brief explores the key developmen


