More than half of countries have not committed to protecting 30% of their land and sea for nature by 2030 in plans submitted to the UN – despite signing a global agreement to do so less than three years ago, a Carbon Brief and Guardian investigation can reveal.
In December 2022, nearly all nations agreed to protect “30% of Earth’s land and sea for nature” by the end of the decade. This commitment – referred to as “30 by 30” – is the flagship target of the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework (GBF), often likened to the “Paris Agreement for nature”.
But, 70 out of the 137 (51%) countries that have submitted UN plans outlining how they will meet the targets of the GBF do not commit to “30 by 30” within their borders, according to analysis of these documents by Carbon Brief and the Guardian.
Instead, these countries either pledge to protect a lower percentage of their territory for nature or fail to explicitly commit to a numerical target at all.
Countries failing to commit to “30 by 30” in UN plans represent just over one-third of Earth’s land surface, the analysis shows.
The list includes some of the most nature-rich nations on Earth, such as Indonesia, Peru and South Africa, along with developed countries such as Finland, Norway and Switzerland.
Speaking to Carbon Brief and the Guardian, one nation said that meeting “30 by 30” within its borders would be “extremely challenging” to achieve, while another said that developing countries in particular should not face an “unnecessarily heavy burden” in reaching the global goal.
The investigation shows that “many countries have not been ambitious enough with their domestic conservation commitments and, as a result, we are collectively not currently on track to meet the global 30 by 30 target”, one expert said.
A third of Earth
At the COP15 nature summit in 2022, countries agreed to the GBF, a broad set of targets and goals with an overall aim to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by 2030.
Target 3 of the GBF – which says countries should ensure “at least” 30% of Earth is in protected areas or governed by other conservation measures by 2030 (“30 by 30”) – is considered by many to be the flagship aim of the agreement and has been likened to the 1.5C temperature goal of the Paris Agreement in articles and speeches stressing its importance.
All countries were asked to submit plans to the UN Convention on Biological Diversity outlining how they will meet the targets of the GBF within their territories ahead of the COP16 nature summit in 2024. These are called national biodiversity strategies and action plans, or “NBSAPs”.
A separate Carbon Brief and Guardian investigation last October found that 85% of countries missed the deadline to submit their NBSAPs, with some arguing that the deadline was too challenging or that they were not able to access funds to help prepare their documents.
Countries unable to produce their NBSAPs were asked to instead submit national targets to the UN. These are simple lists of targets that countries will aim for without an accompanying plan of action.
As of 24 February 2025, 44 countries and the EU had submitted NBSAPs to the UN, while 124 parties had submitted national targets. (As some countries submitted both national targets and NBSAPs, it means that, overall, 137 countries have put forward a plan of some kind.)
To investigate whether countries have committed to the “30 by 30” pledge within their borders in these plans, Carbon Brief and the Guardian analysed the full text of each NBSAP, as well as any target that had been tagged as relating to target 3 of the GBF.
The analysis finds that, of 137 countries that have submitted plans to the CBD, more than half – 70 countries, or 51% – do not commit to protecting 30% of their land and sea by 2030.
Of these, 21 countries did not supply a numerical target for protecting their land area, 26 set targets for land protection that were less than 30% and eight set land targets of or greater than 30%, but sea-protection targets less than 30%.
Of the remaining countries, 13 did not submit any targets relating to coverage of protected areas. Two others set goals further in the future than 2030.
A further 10 countries, or 7%, do not make it clear from the plans that they submitted whether or not they have a pledge that meets the conditions of 30 by 30. This includes: countries that specify that they will protect 30% of “areas of particular importance”; countries that gave a target for improvement, but did not provide a baseline; and countries that submitted only one or two targets.
Just 42% of countries – 57 in total – commit to protecting 30% of both land and sea by 2030.
The chart below shows the countries that have submitted NBSAPs and/or national targets to the UN. On the chart, countries are clustered by the percentage of land they have pledged to protect and the size of each bubble represents their land area. (Countries clustered around the 30% line and outlined in grey all have pledges to protect 30% of land area.)
Countries clustered below “no target” are those that have not pledged a numerical target for protecting their land or those who have produced a plan, but have not included a protected area target.
The analysis shows that, collectively, more than one-third of the Earth’s land area is covered by a pledge that does not fulfil the “30 by 30” target, while around half is covered by a “30 by 30” pledge.
Seven of the 17 “megadiverse” countries – which together provide a home to 70% of the world’s biodiversity – have not committed to 30 by 30, the analysis finds. This includes Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the Philippines, South Africa and Venezuela.
A further 61 countries have not submitted an NBSAP or national targets and so have not been assessed in the analysis. This includes the world’s most biodiverse nation, Brazil.
The figures also do not include the US, which – although a megadiverse country – is not party to the CBD and, therefore, is not subject to the goals and targets of the GBF.
Former US president Joe Biden committed the country to the “30 by 30” pledge. However, the “Project 2025” policy blueprint – which Donald Trump is largely following – calls for the target to be scrapped.
The EU submitted an NBSAP that covers its 27 member states and commits to 30 by 30.
However, individual countries are also party to the CBD and are expected to submit their own national plans. For the purposes of this analysis, EU member states were only considered to be meeting “30 by 30” if they submitted their own NBSAP or national target that did so.
‘Extremely challenging’
Carbon Brief and the Guardian reached out to megadiverse countries and developed nations to ask why they had chosen not to commit to “30 by 30” in their UN plans.
Indonesia, a megadiverse country that is home to the world’s third-largest rainforest, did not give a numerical target for how much of its territory it is able to protect for nature in its NBSAP.
A government spokesperson says that it is Indonesia’s view that “it is not essential to explicitly state that the 30% protection target is for terrestrial and marine areas” in its territory, explaining:
“Indonesia is of the view that all of us need to understand that the GBF is indeed global. And, by being global, it is natural that this framework should be implemented globally and collectively, without putting an unnecessarily heavy burden on some of us.
“Indonesia is committed to ambitious yet practical targets for the GBF, with an emphasis on the fact that not all parties are at the same level if targets are assessed numerically.”
The spokesperson adds that “managing biodiversity is not an easy task” and that the “balance of economic, social and environmental aspects must be maintained, particularly for developing countries like Indonesia”.
In its NBSAP, megadiverse nation Mexico commits to protecting 30% of its oceans, but only 22% of its land.
Dr Andrea Cruz Angón, coordinator of biodiversity strategies and policies at Conabio, the federal government’s biodiversity commission, says that the targets are still “being reviewed and adjusted” by the appropriate federal agencies.
She adds that the targets were produced after workshops were held “with subnational governments, youth, Indigenous peoples and Afro-Mexican communities” to identify “barriers and opportunities for these actors to make voluntary commitments to the targets”.
Finland, one of the EU’s member states, has not yet released an NBSAP, but submitted its national targets for meeting the goals of the GBF to the UN in August 2024. In these plans, Finland does not commit to “30 by 30”.
A spokesperson for the Finnish government says it was still preparing its NBSAP and, as a result, none of its targets are final, but adds:
“Achieving a 30% increase in protected area by 2030 would be extremely challenging, as to reach this target, for example, the protected area in land areas would have to increase by about over 700,000 hectares per year.”
In its NBSAP, Norway committed to protecting 30% of its land for nature by 2030 – but says it was still assessing its ocean protection target and “will come back with a plan for how a future goal can be achieved in a way that also facilitates the sustainable use of Norwegian marine areas”.
A spokesperson for Norway says the nation is “committed to contribute towards the 30 by 30 target”, adding:
“A national conservation target for Norwegian sea areas has not yet been concluded. This is due to an ongoing national process to assess which marine areas that can be recognised as protected through ‘other effective area-based conservation measures’ (OECM), in accordance with [UN biodiversity] criteria.
“The conclusion of this process will clarify the current conservation status of Norwegian waters, and consequently enable us to set a national target.”
‘Go back to the drawing board’
Inger Andersen, executive director of the UN Environment Programme, tells Carbon Brief and the Guardian that “30 by 30” is a “global target and how countries take that on board at the national level will be different across the world, depending on national circumstances”.
She points to the Protected Planet Report 2024, which shows that only 17.6% of land and 8.4% of the ocean is currently being conserved for nature – with just five years to go until the “30 by 30” deadline, adding:
“As the world faces a nature and biodiversity loss crisis, it is clear we must go much further, much faster. This will not be possible without financial, technical and capacity support for many countries.”
Responding to Carbon Brief and the Guardian’s investigation, Brian O’Donnell, director of the Campaign for Nature, a group advocating for the 30 by 30 target, says:
“Many countries have not been ambitious enough with their domestic conservation commitments and, as a result, we are collectively not currently on track to meet the global ‘30 by 30’ target. This is troubling and action must be taken to put the world on track.”
To get on track for “30 by 30”, developed nations must “directly fund” the target to enable developing countries to protect more of their territories for nature, he says, adding that the “30 by 30” pledge also needs to be championed at a higher level by global leaders and the UN.
He adds that countries not committing to “30 by 30” in their UN plans “should go back to the drawing board and update their plans with ones in which conservation is commensurate with the challenge of biodiversity loss and the needs of communities”.
The full Carbon Brief and Guardian analysis can be found here.
The post Revealed: More than half of nations fail to protect 30% of land and sea in UN nature plans appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Revealed: More than half of nations fail to protect 30% of land and sea in UN nature plans
After last week’s catastrophic flash flooding caused hundreds of deaths and an estimated $5 billion of destruction in Nepal, some board members of the UN’s new loss and damage fund board have called for an extraordinary meeting to allocate money to help the Himalayan country.
Following a direct appeal for funding from Nepal’s government on Monday, developing-country board members gathered online and eight signed a letter, seen by Climate Home News, asking the fund’s board to hold a meeting to respond to the request.
The letter, signed by eight African, Asian and Least Developed Country board members, said the debris-laden torrent – which scientists believe was unleashed by a glacial slope collapsing after unusually hot weather – constitutes “precisely the kind of climate-related extreme weather events the fund was established to address”.
“The scale of loss of life, displacement, and destruction of energy, transport, and economic infrastructure warrants the board’s urgent consideration of how the fund’s existing instruments should be mobilised to support Nepal’s government and affected communities,” the letter said.
-
UN sets out narrow path back to 1.5C warming after inevitable overshoot
Leading scientists say warming must peak at 1.8C to be able to reverse course this century, but current government climate policies are way off track -
Keeping to 1.5C of warming is no longer possible – but we must still limit the overshoot
We need a strategy for navigating the huge risks to ecosystems and societies
The rules of the fund’s initial phase, which it is now in, allow for it to support “rapid response”, the letter noted. The fund’s governing instrument says it can provide funds “complementary to humanitarian actions taken immediately after an extreme weather event” as well as funds for “immediate or long-term, reconstruction or rehabilitation”, the letter added.
Governments agreed at UN climate talks to set up the fund in 2022 and it launched its first call for proposals at the end of last year. It received 180 submissions, mainly for long-term projects to help countries reduce the risks from climate threats, like improving water infrastructure in Jamaica or flood response in Bangladesh.
After delaying decisions at its last board meeting as it continued to work out processes, it has yet to approve any funding requests. Despite being set up on the back of the 2022 floods in Pakistan, the board has not yet given out any money in response to climate disasters nor expressed a clear willingness to do so.
The secretariat of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage (FRLD) had not responded to a request for comment at the time of publication. A few days ago, it expressed solidarity for those affected by the disaster in a social media post.
Rapid response precedent
The board members signing the letter on Nepal want to set a precedent, with the letter saying the board should consider “any procedural lessons” the response to the flooding “offer for strengthening the Fund’s rapid-response modalities and operational protocols for sudden-onset extreme weather events”.
Harjeet Singh, global convenor of the Fill the Fund campaign, told Climate Home News civil society has pushed “really hard” for the FRLD to be a rapid response fund rather than just inviting requests for project funding and reviewing them at regular board meetings as other UN climate funds do.
“Climate disasters like the one unfolding in Nepal cannot wait for scheduled committee cycles,” he said. “The Loss and Damage Fund was built for moments exactly like this.”
Nepal has received multi-million dollar humanitarian pledges from several governments already and the United Nations’ Central Emergency Response Fund is designed to rapidly disburse aid cash for disasters.
But Singh – also founding director of India’s Satat Sampada Climate Foundation – said that, with disasters becoming more frequent and severe, the humanitarian system cannot support all countries in their recovery efforts and the fund should bridge the gap.
“The Board Co-Chairs must heed the call of developing nations, convene an emergency session immediately, and prove that this Fund is ready to deliver real support when frontline communities need it most,” he told Climate Home News.
While the FRLD’s response to Nepal’s recent disaster could set an important precedent, it is only likely to be of limited practical help. The fund’s rules mean it can only give out a maximum of $20 million to each project in its current initial phase. With only $820 million pledged by rich countries and not all of that yet delivered, it has allocated a total of $350 million to spend so far and without further contributions could run of money next year.
Nepalese climate negotiator Manjeet Dhakal, who visited the affected area just days before the flood, told The Nation magazine that while $20 million “may only be a symbolic gesture”, it “could set an important precedent for how the fund responds when such disasters strike vulnerable countries in the future”.
The government’s preliminary estimate of the damage is $5 billion, with many homes and critical infrastructure destroyed, as well as over 1,000 people dead.
A letter to the FRLD board from Nepal’s finance and environment ministers said that Nepal had only contributed “negligibly to global greenhouse gas emissions yet continues to bear disproportionate and escalating climate impacts”.
Requesting the fund’s board take a special decision to allocate funding to Nepal, the ministers emphasised that “time is of the essence”. “A prompt response would help protect affected populations, restore essential services, prevent further suffering and demonstrate that the fund can translate international solidarity into timely support for vulnerable countries and communities when it is most urgently needed,” they wrote.
Glaciers ‘melt like butter’
Despite initial reports of an earthquake, the US Geological Survey has said the floods were caused by a glacier collapsing and the resulting landslide hitting the bottom of the valley causing “subsequent catastrophic impacts downstream”.
Alton Byers, a scientist at the University of Colorado Boulder’s Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research, told journalists this week that global warming has seen glaciers recede, glacial lakes forming and glacial lake outburst floods increasing.
He said that a heating glacier is like butter taken out of the refrigerator. “It becomes mushy. It no longer has the ability to hold together. What that means is that masses of rock and glaciers no longer are as resistant to gravity as they once were,” he explained. “Add to that melting water at altitude, which lubricates the interface between the rock and the glacier and you get an increased likelihood of slippage.”
He added that a trigger – like gravity or an earth tremor – can then set off the sudden release of masses of bedrock and glacial ice, “which is what happened last week”.
As well as reducing emissions to rein in climate change, Byers said that authorities can adapt to climate change by not building in flood plains. Many of the destroyed buildings in Nepal were located in places that have flooded before, he noted.
Flood deaths in West African cities raise fraught issue of slum evictions
The disaster took place on the Himalayan border of Nepal and Tibet, which is governed by China. Chinese state media are reporting at least 16 people dead and hundreds missing. China’s government has made no appeal to the loss and damage fund and the board’s letter does not mention China or Tibet.
The FRLD board’s co-chairs are now expected to respond to the letter, with any extraordinary board meeting likely to be held online, so that members from around the world can attend at short notice.
The post Loss and damage fund urged to hold crisis meeting on Nepal appeared first on Climate Home News.
Climate Change
From Belém to Antalya – gains, gaps and challenges for a new Just Transition Mechanism
Could a new mechanism to help countries transition to a cleaner, safer and fairer world be one of the main deliverables from the COP31 climate summit in Türkiye this November? Civil society groups – which played a key role in winning last year’s agreement in Brazil to set up a mechanism – want to see it come to life in Antalya and take shape in 2027.
The concept of a “just transition” has gained momentum and widespread support in recent years. It recognises that countries have varying levels of responsibility for planet-heating emissions and unequal resources to adapt to the impacts of global warming and move away from fossil fuels.
In July, UN Secretary General António Guterres told the High-Level Political Forum in New York: “We need to support the countries, communities and workers that depend on fossil fuels throughout the transition.” While few would dispute that need, governments at the UN climate talks are still working out how to respond to it with concrete action.
With discussions set to produce a decision making the mechanism a reality at COP31, observers want to ensure the new mechanism is more than just a talking shop.
Here’s what’s at stake in the just transition negotiations before and at COP31:
What has been agreed on the mechanism so far?
At the mid-year climate negotiations in Bonn, just transition was one of the few key issues on which governments reached a consensus, including on how to review the progress of the Just Transition Work Programme (JTWP) – a process that led to agreement on a mechanism last year at COP30 in Belém, Brazil.
Set up in 2022 and launched a year later, the aim of the JTWP is to discuss how to achieve a green economic and social shift that is fair, from the global down to the local level. Its accompanying mechanism will be tasked with strengthening international cooperation, technical support, capacity-building and knowledge-sharing to enable societies to become low-carbon and climate-resilient in a way that does not harm people and shares the benefits.
To phase out fossil fuels, developing countries need exit route from “debt trap”
Anabella Rosemberg, senior advisor on just transition with Climate Action Network (CAN) International, told Climate Home News that the most important outcome in Bonn was an informal document laying out various options for establishing the new mechanism.
However, this leaves a lot still to be worked out and the preliminary discussions at Bonn were not enough on their own to ensure the operationalisation of the mechanism at COP31, as planned.
“In the months ahead of COP31, this issue should be a priority for the COP31 presidencies – both Türkiye and Australia,” said Camila Mercure, climate policy coordinator at the Environment and Natural Resources Foundation (FARN), an Argentinian NGO, adding this would help secure more space for debate in the lead-up to and during the annual summit.
So far, an informal workshop for governments and NGOs to exchange views on the JTWP and the mechanism, and to push things forward has been organised from September 30 to October 2 in Sydney.
How will the review of the Just Transition Work Programme affect the mechanism?
One task for COP31 is to review the efficiency and effectiveness of the JTWP so far and to decide whether and how it will continue.
For Laura Restrepo Alameda, advocacy officer at Climate Action Network Latin America (CANLA), the main positive aspect is that it will include a mapping of instruments, initiatives and processes relevant to just transitions under the UN climate convention, the Paris Agreement and among other UN entities. “It’s a resource that will enable us to assess the complementarity and coherence of the various tools available to support the implementation of a [just transition] mechanism,” she told Climate Home News.
Not everyone wants the JTWP review and the work to launch a mechanism to feed into one another. Russia, Arab nations and a group of large emerging nations pushed for them to be separate – which they believe would make it easier to limit the scope of the mechanism – while the African Group defended joint work between the two processes.
According to Anthony Dane of Southern Transitions, a South Africa-based “think and do-tank”, governments also have varying concerns around the mapping exercise, which is being carried out by the UN climate change secretariat.
He noted in a recent webinar that some want to use it as a basis to argue that a lot is already being done on just transition and so the new mechanism does not need to offer much more, while others are preparing to argue the opposite, highlighting a lack of international cooperation and support.
For Dane, the mapping exercise also raises the bigger question of how to define the scope of “just transition” within the UN climate talks.
So far, richer countries have favoured a narrower view that focuses on phasing out fossil fuels, while developing countries have pushed for a broader “whole of economy, whole of society” approach that encompasses issues like green industrialisation and sustainable development.
Russia and some other high-emitting nations do not want the JTWP or its mechanism to become a tool for imposing new green trade restrictions, while the European Union has rejected attempts to use it as a forum to dispute its new carbon levy on imports. These debates are set to rumble on.
What will the mechanism do and when will it start?
In Bonn, countries discussed the design features of the mechanism – that is, the elements, governance arrangements, structures and functions it should have. The outcome was an informal preliminary note compiling a range of views and possible options.
While most country negotiating groups welcomed the document as a basis for further talks, Arab countries said it did not reflect their priorities, with Saudi Arabia insisting it had no formal status.
“The mechanism must contribute to international cooperation between countries, serve as a guide, support countries so that they can develop just transition strategies, and act as a channel for accessing funding to implement projects within their territories,” said Mercure of FARN.
But exactly what the mechanism should cover, and what it should not, remain a contentious subject for governments.
For example, the Like-Minded Developing Countries – a bloc of more than 20 low- and middle-income nations including China and India – and the Arab Group appear keen to avoid any targets, requirements or conditionalities being imposed on them with regard to transitioning away from fossil fuels (TAFF).
That contrasts with some Latin American and small island states that would like to see the mechanism used as a way of furthering global commitments already made in 2023 on TAFF and tripling renewable energy by 2030.
Developed countries, for their part, do not want the mechanism to put too much responsibility on them to provide finance and other forms of cooperation.
Some experts Climate Home News spoke to, meanwhile, called for the mechanism to lay out actions for different sectors – not just energy but also others like agriculture and heavy industries.
Sandeep Pai, senior lead for international energy transitions at Duke University, said the mechanism should focus on at least eight to ten high-emitting sectors, addressing how to support workers through the transition to cleaner ways of operating. But, he noted “talking about sectors was always an issue at the negotiations”.
Another issue important to civil society groups is that justice should be embedded in the process to operationalise what they have informally dubbed the BAM (short for the Belém Action Mechanism or, more recently, the Belém Antalya Mechanism).
“The key milestone between now and COP31 must be to define a structure for the BAM with clear governance, coordination and the inclusion of civil society,” said CANLA’s Restrepo Alameda. The network, which represents hundreds of NGOs, is calling for groups that are likely to be hit hard by the transition, such as workers and Indigenous peoples, to have a seat at the table.
Given the short time-frame until a decision to operationalise the mechanism is due to be agreed and adopted at COP31, experts say all these thorny issues are unlikely to be ironed out by then and further discussions may be needed to refine the form and functions of the new body.
CAN’s Rosemberg told Climate Home News that “an ambitious outcome” at COP31 would be to establish the mechanism with its key functions and modalities in Antalya, while setting up a transitional committee to speed up technical work and ensure the BAM is fully operational by COP32 in Ethiopia in 2027.
What is needed on the ground for a just transition?
The top-down nature of decisions taken at COPs generally do not reflect the specific situations of individual countries and communities on the ground – and this is particularly so when it comes to just transition.
Pai of Duke University contrasted India – where much of the transition will be about moving away from coal mining and coal-fired power stations – with countries that use relatively few fossil fuels like Costa Rica and will need to implement a very different set of changes.
He added that each country must define what a “just transition” means to them, according to their contexts and needs: is it about using less oil and gas, promoting green steel-making and lower-emitting buildings, or transforming some other high-carbon activity? The next step is to establish government bodies and policies to plan and drive the transition.
COP30: Spain’s unions say just transition means renewing communities beyond jobs
“Global and broad declarations on a [just transition] mechanism are a good signal,” said Pai. “But we would be fooling ourselves if we think that just because something is getting declared, it will be implemented.”
When it comes to tackling dependence on coal, for example, Pai noted the difficulty of shutting down coal mines and replacing their role in local economies that tend to be heavily reliant on the industry for both jobs and revenues. According to the International Energy Agency, 3.1 million of the 7.8 million people working in coal-related activities in 2022 were employed in coal mining.
Why is finance the elephant in the room?
Finance – and finding more of it for climate action – has always been a bone of contention between developed and developing countries in the UN climate process, cropping up time and time again across negotiating streams, whether it’s the new goal for tripling resources for adaptation or filling the loss and damage fund.
In the corridors at Bonn, observers told Climate Home News that, for just transition, the discussions on the topic did not centre on setting up a new dedicated fund, but rather touched on how the mechanism could better connect available financial resources with just transition initiatives in countries.
The informal note on the new mechanism includes mobilising and facilitating “grant-based and non-debt-inducing finance” and channelling finance through North-South and other multilateral partnerships. It is unclear whether finance will be included in the final COP31 decision on the BAM. CAN’s Rosemberg has suggested a resource mobilisation taskforce could be set up to start identifying sources of funding.
An analysis by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows that, during the first year after mass layoffs, workers losing their jobs in energy-intensive industries – such as power supply, heavy manufacturing and transport – lose an average of 58% of their income, compared with 52% experienced in other sectors.
Pai flagged two challenges when it comes to funding just transitions: many large financial institutions don’t want to invest in low and middle-income countries because of their high-risk profile; and developing countries often lack a well-prepared pipeline of investable projects.
The Just Energy Transition Partnerships (JETPs) launched earlier this decade were an effort to overcome these barriers. The donor-backed initiatives, outside the UN climate process, mobilised billions of dollars from the public and private sectors to help several emerging economies, including South Africa and Indonesia, finance the transition to clean energy in an economically and socially fair manner.
But the JETPs have run up against some difficulties, such as Jakarta abandoning its plan to shut down a major coal plant early, which was a key part of the original deal.
Indonesia’s failing Just Energy Transition Partnership is a cautionary tale
With UN climate negotiations on finance seeing positions harden between developed and developing nations as donor governments struggle to meet existing targets, some observers believe talks on funding for just transition are unlikely to produce quick results in the form of hard dollars any time soon.
“Many of those who are asking for money don’t know what they’re asking for, and those who have the money don’t want to give. You can write a paragraph about finance [in the negotiations] but this fundamental reality will not change,” said Pai.
The post From Belém to Antalya – gains, gaps and challenges for a new Just Transition Mechanism appeared first on Climate Home News.
From Belém to Antalya – gains, gaps and challenges for a new Just Transition Mechanism
KOROR, PALAU, Wednesday 2 September 2026 — The new global heating projection by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) has laid bare the dire realities of inevitable climate disaster, loss and damage for the Pacific and Australia in a 1.8°C world, with Greenpeace warning ‘we are now in bloody dangerous territory’, and must do everything possible to return warming to 1.5°C.
The report, Limiting Overshoot – Navigating exceedance of 1.5°C and pathways towards return, released as world leaders meet at this year’s Pacific Islands Forum in Palau, highlights the urgency of the climate crisis, the greatest security threat facing the Pacific. It comes as fracked gas from the Beetaloo Basin, one of Australia’s biggest climate bombs, began flowing for the first time.
Australia is the biggest polluter of all Pacific Islands Forum member states, far exceeding all other forum members combined. Greenpeace is calling on Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to centre Pacific priorities at the Forum, and walk the talk on climate solutions as a genuine family member of the Pacific.
Speaking from Palau, Shiva Gounden, Head of Pacific at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The latest UNEP report has printed in black and white that fossil fuel-hungry nations have overstepped, overshot and overindulged at the expense of Pacific lives, livelihoods, cultures and communities. This year’s Pacific Islands Forum has made it more apparent than ever that climate change is the region’s greatest security threat, and we cannot waste time on geopolitical power games when our world is sinking beneath our feet.
“As a person from the Pacific, I know our communities will not quietly accept these dire warnings of climate overshoot as our fate; we are already living and fiercely resisting this reality every single day. With every increment of warming, our lands, our livelihoods, and our island homes are threatened, but the Pacific’s resolve only grows stronger. We draw strength from our ocean and those who walked before us; our people are the protectors of the frontlines of climate change and the beacons of climate justice.
“By harnessing the natural power of our sun, winds, and seas through a rapid transition to renewable energy, and uniting in true global collaboration, we can steer back to 1.5°C – this is our moral, legal, and scientific imperative. A Fossil Fuel Free Pacific can breathe life back into the lungs of our islands.”
Also in Palau, Dr Simon Bradshaw, COP31 Lead and climate expert at Greenpeace Australia Pacific, said: “The UN report is warning that we are now in bloody dangerous territory. It lays bare the deadly consequences of reckless fossil fuel expansion, and a failure to listen to Pacific voices and to the decades of emphatic scientific warnings.
“It is a damning indictment of government climate inaction and negligence, coming just days after fracked gas from the Beetaloo Basin started flowing and Woodside’s disastrous Browse gas mega project undergoes Federal decision — two carbon bombs that would lock in decades of dangerous climate pollution and push us past the point of no return.
“Every new fossil fuel project pushes us closer to dangerous and irreversible tipping points in the climate system, with almost unimaginable consequences for the safety and security of communities in the Pacific, Australia and around the world.
“The task now is to minimise the magnitude, duration and consequences of any temperature overshoot. A pathway back to 1.5°C is possible but this pathway cannot be paved by fossil fuels.
“Accelerating the shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy, and working with our big energy partners across Asia to decarbonise together, is not only the path back from the climate brink, but also the key to our energy security and our future prosperity.”
Also in Palau, Vishal Prasad, Director of Pacific Islands Students Fighting Climate Change, said: “This report is terrifying for the young people of the Pacific. We know what 1.5, and what anything beyond it, means for our future, our families, our culture and our environment. 1.5 to stay alive has never been just slogan. It is our reality.
“The International Court of Justice has made it clear: keeping to 1.5 is not a choice, it is a legal obligation. Every new fossil fuel project drives us further from it. So we are not asking for your goodwill. We are not begging you. We are telling you what international law requires of you: end fossil fuel expansion. No new coal, no new oil, no new gas. Your corporate profits cannot be allowed to extinguish our future.”
—ENDS—
Greenpeace Australia Pacific has delegates from the Pacific and Australia at the PIFLM in Palau available for interview
Headshots can be found here
Media contact: Kimberley Bernard in Palau on +61407 581 404 or kbernard@greenpeace.org
‘Bloody dangerous territory’: UN report an indictment of govt climate inaction
-
Climate Change1 year ago
Guest post: Why China is still building new coal – and when it might stop
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year 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”
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Greenhouse Gases1 year ago
嘉宾来稿：探究火山喷发如何影响气候预测
-
Carbon Footprint2 years agoUS SEC’s Climate Disclosure Rules Spur Renewed Interest in Carbon Credits