A lack of money is hampering the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and a substantial funding boost is needed to ensure its scientists can complete their next set of flagship reports, the chair of the UN body has warned.
Funding from governments fell in 2024 and 2025 and the organisation could run out of money by 2028 unless it receives fresh funds or implements spending cuts, chair Jim Skea told an official meeting of IPCC scientists in Bangkok last week, according to the Earth Negotiations Bulletin (ENB), which provides coverage of UN negotiations.
Skea told the IPCC’s 64th session that without a substantial increase in contributions, the completion of the next set of reports, known as AR7, would be jeopardised.
To deal with this crisis, the IPCC is now considering cutting costs by holding meetings virtually, reducing staff travel, media training, recruitment, pay and website upgrades and cutting down on the editing, translating and printing of its reports, according to scenarios prepared by the IPCC secretariat.
Nepal’s representative Manjeet Dhakal told Climate Home News he was concerned about the situation, while the ENB report said Japan’s government had called the funding crunch alarming.
While South Korea and Sweden announced increased funding, the European Union – a major funder – cautioned against assuming past contributors will continue to give the same amounts, ENB reported.
No end to row over reports’ timing
The five AR7 reports, which will assess how the climate is changing, how to adapt, how to cut emissions, a synthesis report and a special report on climate change and cities – are further threatened by a long-running disagreement over when they should be completed.
While some countries want them finished by 2028, so they can feed into the UN climate process’s five-yearly global stocktake, others say this is too rushed and want to stick to the IPCC’s usual seven-year cycle, meaning reports would be finished by 2030.
Despite not being on the initial agenda, this issue dominated much of the scientists’ time in Bangkok. With time running out as delegates flew home, the meeting was unable to agree even on a plan to reach agreement by the next meeting in October 2026, ENB said.
Delegates also failed to agree to approve reports of previous meetings, after arguing over transparency, and were divided on how to respond to a scientific conference on climate tipping points.
Funding cuts
To fund its work, the IPCC relies on voluntary funding from governments. Most of the money is spent funding the participation of scientists from developing countries, the IPCC says.
But a report prepared by the IPCC secretariat for the Bangkok meeting said that “in recent years, the IPCC’s financial situation has come under strain, including amid current geopolitical challenges”.
It did not mention any governments, but reduced US funding has had a major impact, the IPCC’s financial documents show.
During Joe Biden’s presidency, the US gave the IPCC an average of $1.7 million a year, but President Donald Trump announced he would end US support and the latest data shows the US contributed no money in the first half of 2025.
The IPCC spent more money than it received in 2024 and the shortfall grew in 2025, prompting the raft of cost-cutting proposals – from switching to online meetings to cutting budgets for translating reports.
Further cost savings could be achieved, the IPCC said, by suspending IPCC travel to outreach events, freezing non-essential updates to the IPCC’s website, not creating any new staff positions until at least 2029 and no longer providing media training for the IPCC’s scientists.
Richard Klein, a scientist who has been involved in the IPCC since 1994, told Climate Home News there was “a growing discrepancy between the ambition of the IPCC and what is feasible given the budget”.
“In the end it means more pressure on authors who are already volunteering their time, and quite possibly less inclusivity of experts from developing countries,” he said.
Nepal’s Dhakal, who advises the Least Developed Countries group, called on governments to give more money to the IPCC and for the IPCC secretariat to “explore options to reduce costs without compromising inclusivity, particularly for small delegations and those with limited capacity to engage”.
Bitter divides on timeline
Since January 2024, delegates to IPCC meetings have been arguing over when the deadline for the AR7 reports should be. Delegations including Saudi Arabia and India have opposed attempts to ensure that the reports are published by 2028, in time to inform the second global stocktake.
The issue was not included on the Bangkok meeting’s formal draft agenda, with ENB reporting that Skea said this was because he did not think delegations had shown enough flexibility to be able to resolve it.
After pressure from Saudi Arabia, India and several others, the issue was added to the agenda despite delegations complaining that their governments had not authorised them to discuss it and that many countries were not represented at the meeting.
But, after four days, delegates were unable to even agree on a plan on how to reach agreement by the next meeting in October. Nepal’s Dhakal said he was “concerned with the lack of agreement on delivering the full AR7 package by 2028 to inform the second global stocktake”.

France’s Environment Ministry said in a statement that it had “deep concern at attempts to slow down and arbitrarily delay the publication schedule for the reports”.
Klein said that, while scientists are continuing their work on these reports, the likelihood of them being finalised before the second global stocktake “diminishes with every delay in making a decision”.
Transparency and tipping points
Delegates were also divided on the usually-routine issue of approving the summaries, prepared by the IPCC secretariat, of previous meetings.
According to ENB, France, Germany and Belgium wanted reports to specify speakers’ names. While France said reports should include everything that has been said by all delegates, Saudi Arabia responded that this would be unacceptable. The issue was deferred to the next meeting in October.
Saudi Arabia and India also objected to a reference in a report to a workshop that took place at Paris’s Sorbonne University in November on “tipping points and their consequences”. They argued that the concept of tipping points, which are thresholds beyond which the Earth’s climate changes suddenly, was contentious at the IPCC, ENB reported.
While journalists are not allowed to observe IPCC sessions, staff from ENB – which is an arm of the IISD think tank – are allowed to watch sessions and report on what is said.
The post Funding gap threatens next round of IPCC climate science reports, chair warns appeared first on Climate Home News.
Funding gap threatens next round of IPCC climate science reports, chair warns
Climate Change
This week’s IMO green shipping talks are a test for multilateralism
Em Fenton is Senior Director of Climate Diplomacy at Opportunity Green, supporting climate-vulnerable countries in multilateral negotiations, such as the International Maritime Organization.
Governments are gathering in London over the next two weeks to advance the International Maritime Organization’s (IMO) Net-Zero Framework (NZF) in a global effort to reduce emissions from international shipping. The meeting may not make headlines outside climate circles, but what happens there matters far beyond shipping.
The international shipping sector underpins around 80% of global trade and contributes roughly 3% of global annual emissions.
The NZF represents the best, most equitable solution currently viable to address this issue and, last April, a large majority of countries voted to put it forward for formal adoption through the IMO’s process.
The framework is a compromise from the most ambitious possible design, but it still represents a hard-fought victory for multilateralism, with countries coming together to create a solution aimed at the global best interest and providing a solid foundation for a just and equitable transition.
It combines a technical fuel standard (setting emissions limits on the fuels used in ships) and an economic element that puts a price on emissions from international shipping.
A system under attack
With a global swing towards nationalism in recent years, some countries are increasingly placing domestic priorities over global climate action, despite legal obligations to act. And in doing so, they are overlooking the reality that abandoning multilateral decarbonisation efforts will ultimately exacerbate domestic challenges.
This trend is most notable the US’s withdrawal or removal of support from the Paris Agreement, the WHO and the UN Human Rights Council, but is also playing out in other areas, such as India’s decision to withdraw its bid to host COP33. All this begs the question: just how resilient is multilateralism in a period of intense geopolitical tension?
The system was built on two assumptions that now appear increasingly fragile: that countries would act through multilateral efforts in the collective interest; and that agreed action would be implemented at a scale and pace commensurate with need.
Coupled with this drift from its central purpose is an observable decline in its effectiveness across all five domains in which it operates – but most notably in climate action.
Because international shipping is inherently global and cannot be meaningfully regulated through unilateral or regional action, the IMO is one of the few institutions capable of delivering effective decarbonisation at scale. Failure to make progress at the IMO therefore sends a powerful signal about the limits of international cooperation more broadly, particularly on climate action.
IEA slashes pre-war oil demand forecast by nearly a million barrels per day
Within this context, progress has faced three distinct forms of resistance: rejection of the need for action, procedural delay or obstruction, and efforts to weaken outcomes to the point where ‘success is effectively meaningless.
At recent IMO meetings, these dynamics have become more pronounced, culminating in a successful move by the US and Saudi Arabia last October to delay the formal decision to adopt the NZF by a year.
The matter now sits in procedural limbo. This was further complicated by abstentions from two European Union countries (Greece and Cyprus), despite the broader EU’s support for adoption. Greece has subsequently affirmed their support for the US and Saudi position.
These procedural delays were accompanied by threats from the US administration of retaliatory measures, including tariffs, withdrawal of visa rights, or imposing fees on nationals visiting US ports.
Making the case for multilateralism
The stakes here extend well beyond shipping.
For multilateralism to remain meaningful, it must be able to produce binding outcomes – even when powerful states object. The IMO process is one of the few remaining forums where every country’s voice carries equal weight and no single state can exercise a veto.
If that process can be undermined through procedural delay and coercive pressure, it sets a precedent for other multilateral negotiations, particularly in climate governance.
This week in London, countries have a concrete opportunity to demonstrate that multilateralism still works – by being present in the room and actively supporting climate ambition.
This remains the most effective way to achieve climate goals, create the economic conditions for investment in the maritime transition, move away from an overreliance on fossil fuels, and protect the very foundations of multilateralism.
The alternative is not just a failure for shipping; it is a signal to every difficult negotiation that follows that obstruction works.
The post This week’s IMO green shipping talks are a test for multilateralism appeared first on Climate Home News.
This week’s IMO green shipping talks are a test for multilateralism
Climate Change
Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition
Around 60 governments are due to gather in the Colombian city of Santa Marta this week for what is being billed as the first global summit on phasing out coal, oil and gas, where experts say new coalitions could help speed up the energy transition beyond the slower pace of UN climate talks.
At last year’s COP30 UN conference, a group of some 80 countries backed the idea of a global roadmap away from fossil fuels, but it was blocked by fossil fuel-producing nations. To move past these obstructions, Colombia and the Netherlands decided to convene the fossil fuel phase-out summit, which will host ministers for high-level discussions on April 28 and 29.
The group of countries headed to Santa Marta includes COP31 hosts Australia and Türkiye, as well as European, Latin American, Asian, African and Pacific nations. Some large fossil-fuel producers are on the list, including Canada, Norway, Brazil and Nigeria, but the US, China, India and Russia will not attend.
At this week’s Petersberg Climate Dialogue, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz told governments that “when multilateral processes move slowly, concrete alliances of the willing can take us a long way”, in a hint at the voluntary initiatives expected to emerge from the Santa Marta discussions.
Brazil’s COP30 CEO Ana Toni told journalists this week that UN negotiations can “take a long time”, adding that the Santa Marta summit can start a complementary process to “keep the debate about transitioning away at the highest political level”. Brazil is working on a separate roadmap for a global fossil fuel transition due to be presented ahead of COP31, which will draw on the Santa Marta conclusions as well as submissions from countries and other interested parties.
At a webinar hosted by Climate Home News, Colombia’s environment minister Irene Vélez Torres said the Santa Marta summit is winning “global attention” in part because countries have reached a “breaking point” at UN climate talks, which have been gridlocked by fossil fuel-producing countries.
“There is a natural blockade of those themes in the multilateral agendas,” the Colombian minister said. The recent conflict in the Middle East has added renewed importance to the debate by “showing us that we cannot be dependent on fossil fuels anymore”, she emphasised.
Toni also noted that, in the context of the war in Iran, “if anybody had a doubt, I think now it’s absolutely clear we need to take those very hard steps.”
Several climate ministers at the Petersberg Dialogue – including Türkiye’s COP31 president Murat Kurum – urged countries to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels by boosting renewable energy deployment not only for climate reasons but also for energy security.
The effects of the oil and gas crisis driven by the Iran war, which has cut off exports from the Middle East, are already showing in the real economy. Countries in Africa and Asia are importing record amounts of solar power components from China, in an effort to reduce their reliance on fossil fuels.
Opportunity for “inflection point”
While the Santa Marta conference will not deliver a major negotiated agreement, observers said it could spur new coalitions and contribute to speeding up the energy transition by exploring the concrete policies and finance needed to drive an equitable shift away from fossil fuels. A summary report of the proceedings is due to be published by June.
WWF’s global climate lead, Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, who served as COP president for Peru in 2014, said in a statement that reducing the world’s dependence on fossil fuels requires “a rapid, global shift to renewable power, smarter grids and efficiency”.
“We need a ‘coalition of the willing’ to show us the way. Santa Marta is an inflection point and an opportunity that we should not miss,” he said.
Natalie Jones, senior policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development (IISD), said countries have the opportunity to form a “coalition of doers” that sends the message that “the transition is happening, and the countries that are here are the ones making it happen”.
To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”
In the lead-up to the conference, a group of Pacific island nations – which have historically championed a 1.5C limit to global warming and a phase-out of fossil fuels – launched a declaration for a “fossil fuel-free Pacific” and urged countries to “support the ongoing development of a comprehensive, robust, actionable global roadmap” away from fossil fuels. Many island economies are still highly dependent on expensive fossil fuel imports, though most are already adding solar, geothermal and other renewables.
Toni noted that several coalitions on fossil fuels already exist – such as the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance (BOGA) in which members commit to phasing out oil and gas domestically or a Dutch-led coalition to phase out fossil fuel subsidies – but these must be strengthened.
Beginning of a process
Aside from governments, the Santa Marta conference will also host Indigenous people and local communities, scientists, cities, unions, green groups and the private sector to share research and recommendations on how to best phase out fossil fuels.
These civil society actors will meet from April 24 to 27 for preliminary discussions that will inform the debate among ministers.
On Friday, scientists are expected to launch a new high-level panel that will provide advice for policy-makers to support the international transition away from fossil fuels, as well as a scientific report laying out key recommendations for governments. According to a draft seen by Carbon Brief, these range from halting fossil fuel expansion to cutting methane emissions from the energy sector and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies.
Another barrier to the clean energy transition that will be on the agenda in Santa Marta is an international system formally known as “investor-state dispute settlement” (ISDS), which enables companies to use trade agreements to sue governments that block private-sector projects like coal mines or oil exploration.
Ahead of the conference, more than 340 civil society organisations signed an open statement saying that ISDS “threatens a just transition from fossil fuels and the urgent need for a social and ecological transformation for people and the planet”. They called on governments to start building a coalition of countries committed to freeing themselves from ISDS, after Colombia announced recently it would withdraw from the system. Doing so will be complicated in practice and require coordinated action among states, experts told Climate Home News.
Colombia pledges to exit investment protection system after fossil fuel lawsuits
Colombian minister Vélez explained that one of the key outcomes from Santa Marta will be to kickstart a longer process that continues next year with a second fossil fuel phase-out conference in the Pacific island state of Tuvalu. Jones of IISD said “this is only the start of a process” in which more nations can decide to participate later.
“Other countries that wish to join this space in good faith would be welcome, so it’s a question of whether fossil fuel producers are ready to have these conversations in all their complexity,” she added.
The post Sixty countries head to Santa Marta to cement coalition for fossil fuel transition appeared first on Climate Home News.
https://www.climatechangenews.com/2026/04/23/sixty-countries-head-to-santa-marta-to-cement-coalition-for-fossil-fuel-transition/
Climate Change
To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”
High levels of national debt in parts of the Global South could hinder efforts to move away from fossil fuels, a new report warns, as more than 50 countries gather this week in Colombia for the First Conference on Transitioning Away from Fossil Fuels.
The report, published by the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative in the lead-up to the flagship conference, argues that the current debt architecture is trapping developing countries in a “feedback loop” in which fossil fuel revenues are needed to service debt, while fossil fuel expansion locks countries into borrowing even more.
The cycle, according to the report, leaves very little fiscal space for highly indebted countries to end their reliance on coal, oil and gas revenues, even when their leaders want to phase out fossil fuels. This is the case for some first-mover countries such as Colombia, which is hosting the conference in Santa Marta.
Amiera Sawas, one of the report’s authors and head of research and policy at the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, said the conflict in the Middle East is making this “debt injustice and fossil fuel entrapment” even more evident.
“What we have to start understanding is that both fossil fuels and debt are actually extractions from the Global South,” Sawas told the report’s launch during the World Bank and International Monetary Fund (IMF) Spring Meetings in Washington DC this month. “Many countries are paying more in debt servicing than they are getting in climate finance.”
Since 2010, low and middle-income countries (LIMCs) have more than doubled their external debt, reaching an all-time high of $8.9 trillion two years ago. They paid about $415 billion in interest on that debt in 2024 – 2.4 times higher than a decade earlier.
At the same time, in some cases like Colombia, Egypt and Jordan, austerity measures agreed as part of IMF and World Bank loan programmes restrict governments from investing in cleaner sources of revenue like renewable energy, the report says.
Leading countries constrained by debt
Colombia – one of the countries leading the global call for a transition away from fossil fuels – is facing precisely such financial barriers to achieving its transition, said Camilo Rodríguez, another of the report’s authors and a research analyst with Oil Change International.
The country has halted all new oil and gas licences and published an energy transition plan estimating transition costs at about 7-10% of its GDP. Yet the government depends on fossil fuel revenues to service its $265-billion public debt, meaning it must find an alternative source of income to cover debt payments.
Rodríguez said debt “is the main barrier nowadays to promote the energy transition and the industrialisation of the economy”.

The South American country has only grown more dependent on fossil fuels over time, as they represented 36% of exports in 2001 and now account for about 52%. Austerity policies still in place after IMF loans have left very little room for investing in Colombia’s energy transition plan, the report says.
Other countries have shown similar patterns. Jordan – despite its staggering public debt equivalent to 90% of GDP – became one of the fastest-growing markets for wind, solar and electric vehicles in the Middle East region. From 2014 to 2021, Jordan went from less than 1% of its electricity generation coming from renewables to 26%, benefiting from the significantly cheaper costs of installing wind and solar power compared with adding fossil fuel capacity.
But Jordan’s high reliance on fossil fuel revenues created an incentive for policymakers to opt for expanding gas projects over renewables, and the country ended up suspending new licences for many solar and wind projects. In 2024, about 40% of government revenues were used to service debt.
“This is not marginal – it is central to the fiscal system. It creates what I would describe as structural fiscal addiction,” said Ali Nasrallah, a policy and research manager at the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. “The state depends on revenues from consumption that is economically, environmentally and socially harmful.”
Gas flaring soars in Niger Delta post-Shell, afflicting communities
Another report by the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative, published in March, argues that debt entrapment in Africa also exacerbates gender injustice. Social consequences from fossil fuel extraction and use – such as displacement of communities or health harm from pollution – can have a substantial effect on local women while, at the same time, states face constraints to increasing social spending to support them.
“African women are facing disproportionate impacts of the fossil fuel industry’s long-running legacy of violence and dispossession,” the report says. “But they are also leading the resistance to it,” it adds, with women-led coalitions in places like Uganda or the Niger Delta challenging major oil and gas projects.
Policy recommendations
As governments head to Santa Marta – where “gaps in the financial and investment system” are on the agenda – the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative recommends building international coalitions to address debt, reforming multilateral financial institutions and increasing funding commitments from donor nations.
The proposed policies include debt cancellation as a way of creating fiscal space in the Global South, ending all international finance for fossil fuel expansion, establishing a binding mechanism on debt resolution at the UN, and advancing green industrialisation to replace fossil fuel revenues.
“To dismantle carbon lock-in and debt at source, we need to recognise collectively that the escalating debt in the Global South is actually an injustice,” said Sawas of the Fossil Fuel Treaty Initiative. “We have to name the problem and be honest with ourselves – and that’s where the recommendation of debt cancellation is so critical.”
Comment: Broken debt system must be fixed to confront future climate shocks
As part of the new climate finance goal adopted at the COP29 climate summit in Baku, governments have already agreed to “remove barriers and address dis-enablers” faced by developing countries, including “limited fiscal space” and “unsustainable debt levels”.
Building on this, any plan for a global roadmap for transitioning away from fossil fuels, such as the initiative proposed at COP30 by more than 80 governments, should address the debt crisis in the Global South, Sawas said. One alternative could be financing the rollout of renewables with more public grants rather than loans, she added.
“We need to start properly funding renewable energy and diversification,” she said. “Currently it’s almost impossible for a lot of countries in the Global South to actually make the energy transition, because there’s no support structure.”
The post To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap” appeared first on Climate Home News.
To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”
-
Greenhouse Gases8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Climate Change8 months ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Climate Change2 years ago嘉宾来稿:满足中国增长的用电需求 光伏加储能“比新建煤电更实惠”
-
Climate Change Videos2 years ago
The toxic gas flares fuelling Nigeria’s climate change – BBC News
-
Renewable Energy6 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits









