- 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?
RAROTONGA, Wednesday 22 October 2025 — Cook Islanders holding a banner reading “Don’t Mine the Moana” have confronted an exploration vessel as it returned to Rarotonga port today, protesting the emerging threat of seabed mining.

The research being conducted on the Nautilus is funded by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Ocean Exploration Cooperation Institute and comes just six months after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order tasking NOAA to fast track the licensing process for deep sea mining.
Four activists in kayaks paddled alongside the Nautilus, which has spent the last three weeks on a U.S. funded research expedition surveying mineral nodule fields around the Cook Islands in partnership with the Cook Islands Government.
The Nautilus expedition comes just six months after President Donald Trump signed an Executive Order to expedite deep sea mining, tasking the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to fast track the licensing process. The research conducted on the Nautilus expedition was funded by NOAA’s Ocean Exploration Cooperation Institute. [1]
Campaigners against seabed mining are calling the expedition one of the first steps in the Cook Island – U.S. partnership on their critical minerals deal which was announced in August, and say it demonstrates the political motive behind the expedition is to advance seabed mining.
Louisa Castledine, Cook Island activist and spokesperson for the Ocean Ancestors collective, says the Pacific movement against seabed mining is strong and mining enablers are not welcome.
“Right now, global superpowers like the U.S. are vying for control of deep sea minerals throughout the Pacific, in an attempt to assert their military might. Seabed mining will lead to the destruction of our home environments and put our Indigenous rights, cultural ways of living, and wellbeing at risk. Any government or corporate looking to exploit us in this way is no true partner of ours,” says Castledine.
“We need to open our eyes to the threats imposed on us by the seabed mining industry and stop the corporate takeover of our ocean. We have long endured environmental and political injustices, brought about by colonialism, that forcefully displace and compromise our way of living and survival. We are taking a stand against the exploitation of our people and resources. As Indigenous Peoples and custodians of the ocean we say NO to seabed mining.”
In August, the U.S. and Cook Islands governments announced their official partnership on developing seabed mineral resources. A senior official at the Cook Islands Seabed Minerals Authority described this research vessel expedition as “a first step in our collaboration”. [2] [3]
Two of the three deep sea mining exploration licences in the Cook Islands’ EEZ waters are held by U.S. companies. [4]
Seabed mining is an emerging destructive industry that has not started anywhere at commercial scale. If it goes ahead, seabed mining within Cook Islands waters could pave the way for mining throughout the Pacific.
Greenpeace Aotearoa Campaigner Juressa Lee says:
“We’re here today, standing alongside our allies in the Cook Islands, who like many across the region want a Pacific blue line drawn against this destructive industry.
“Just like Greenpeace stood with Pacific Peoples in the fight against nuclear testing, we will continue to ally with them against this reckless industry that is gambling with our future.
“The Nautilus, which was confronted today, is doing exploration for the U.S. Pacific People will not be sidelined by corporations and powerful countries that try to impose this new form of extractive colonialism on the region.”
More than 940 leading marine science and policy experts from over 70 countries have voiced their concerns about deep sea mining, and are calling for a precautionary pause on the start of deep sea mining to allow time to gather more scientific information on deep-sea biodiversity and ecosystems [5]
Resistance to deep sea mining across the Pacific is strong and growing. 40 countries have now joined the call for a pause or moratorium on deep-sea mining, including Pacific states such as Palau, Samoa, Vanuatu and Tuvalu. Antigua and Barbuda and Romania added their support today.
—ENDS—
Notes
[1] Donald Trump Executive Order
[2]https://www.state.gov/releases/office-of-the-spokesperson/2025/08/joint-statement-on-u-s-cook-islands-cooperation-on-seabed-mineral-resourceshttps://www.pmoffice.gov.ck/2025/08/05/joint-statement-on-u-s-cook-islands-cooperation-on-seabed-mineral-resources/
[3] Senior official from the Cook Islands Seabed Mineral Authority (source: 1:40) https://www.abc.net.au/pacific/programs/pacificbeat/cook-islands-us-seabed-collaboration/105640744)
[4] The companies that do own licenses in the Cook Islands EEZ are: Moana Minerals (who are a subsidiary of a US company Ocean Minerals LLC (OML).), Cobalt (CIC) Limited and CIIC Seabed resources, which is a joint venture between Belgian GSR and the Cook Islands Investment Corp.
[5]https://deep-sea-conservation.org/solutions/no-deep-sea-mining/momentum-for-a-moratorium/
Pacific activists protest deep sea mining as U.S exploration vessel enters port
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 developments, debates and disagreements at the IPCC meeting.


