Astrid Schomaker is the new executive secretary of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD).
Schomaker, who is German, was previously the director for green diplomacy and multilateralism with the European Commission.
She took over as the UN’s biodiversity chief in July this year, just months out from the major UN biodiversity summit, COP16, which will take place in Cali, Colombia from 21 October to 1 November.
Carbon Brief spoke to Schomaker ahead of the Cali talks to discuss progress on nature targets, key negotiation sticking points and boosting the profile of biodiversity COPs.
- On COP16: “We had an ambitious framework put in place just two years ago and now we need to look at whether this has actually been the game-changer that people think it has been.”
- On low national biodiversity plan submissions: “The start was never going to be fast. I think the important thing we’re looking at is the work is underway.”
- On combining the efforts of the biodiversity, climate and desertification COPs: “What one would hope is that these three COPs now can actually give a push to countries committing to bringing this together.”
- On biodiversity finance: “There is movement across the world and, therefore, I think the outlook is broadly positive. Is it enough? No. Does it have to be scaled up? Absolutely.”
- On Colombia as host: “They’ve made a lot of efforts to make this COP a success. And, in Susana Muhamad, we have a very knowledgeable and a very charismatic and very dedicated COP host.”
- On security: “We are reassured that good security arrangements are in place, both in the city of Cali and for the COP specifically as well.”
- On world leaders at COP16: “The nature crisis has to be understood as being at the same level of seriousness as the climate crisis and, therefore, also requiring the same level of political attention.”
- On the US and the CBD: “Whatever the outcome of the next elections will be, ratification has not been a subject that was actively discussed in the US recently.”
- On Indigenous input: “This is actually a big issue on our agenda and also one that’s very important for Colombia.”
- On COP17 hosts: “We have two offers on the table at the moment – Azerbaijan and Armenia.”
- On genetic resources: “We think this could actually generate considerable finance streams for biodiversity-rich countries and, therefore, it’s important that we move ahead with it and put in place a mechanism that is workable.”
Carbon Brief: We are less than two weeks out from the start of COP16. There are thousands of people all around the world getting ready to head to Cali in Colombia to discuss implementation of the 2030 targets, sharing of genetic resources, biodiversity finance, all of this range of other issues. I assume this is going to be a huge moment for you in your role, especially as you only took it up in July. How are you feeling ahead of the talks? Are you excited, intimidated?
Astrid Schomaker: Well, mostly excited, and quite optimistic. I think for us in the convention, it’s a big moment. We had an ambitious framework put in place just two years ago [at COP15] and now we need to look at whether this has actually been the game-changer that people think it has been. And that, of course, means we need to look [to see if] these commitments[are being] actually implemented, and COP will give us a good chance.
For us, it’s important to see also the huge mobilisation. We have the biggest COP ever. We have the biggest green zone. We have more media, more business, more stakeholders [and] more delegates than we ever had before.
So we think that, in a way, when people say it’s nature’s moment, now really is nature’s moment. People [have] come to realise that we need to have a different relationship with nature. Take better care of nature. Look at nature together with climate change and see that we cannot solve the climate crisis without looking at the nature crisis. So it’s mostly a moment of anticipation and excitement.
CB: Broadly speaking, what are the main outcomes you want to see from COP16?
AS: The first thing is to have a look at how implementation is actually progressing. We said at COP15 [that] countries should prioritise national targets. So far, we have 79 countries that have put national targets in place. We expect more by COP, and maybe also some to be announced at COP. So that’s quite a good number.
What is important in particular, and then compared to what happened previously under the Aichi process, is that most of these national targets actually reflect the global targets, so they make direct linkages. And also, it’s not just a kind of pick-and-choose approach. But it’s in the majority, actually, [that] all targets of the GBF [Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework] are reflected in the national targets. Or at least, I think more than 75% of those targets are reflected in national targets. So that’s a good number.
On the national biodiversity strategies and action plans [NBSAPs], the number does not look quite so good. We are at 20 so far. Again, we know lots of countries are now finalising their plans, stepping up action. One may think it’s a low number – and certainly this has been pointed out by some NGOs.
On the other hand, we have been holding workshops around the world, and we’ve seen that countries literally around the world are working on these action plans and, in a way, they take longer because countries have taken to heart this call for a whole of government approach.
So it’s not an environment ministry which sits somewhere, drafts a plan, adopts it and submits it. It’s really an exercise where governments come together across the board, where stakeholders are being consulted and then often also where these action plans are then adopted at a higher political level.
So at the COP, we will have an opportunity to look at these first action plans and targets. We have a pre-meeting, our subsidiary body on implementation, that’s basically entirely dedicated to looking at these plans and then to discussing where are the bottlenecks, where are the difficulties, where are the good practices that can be shared.
CB: Back on the NBSAPs then. As you say, there has been criticism from NGOs like WWF and other places about this figure of 20-odd countries at the moment out of 196 – about 10% – that have submitted these national biodiversity plans. That seems like a very low number, especially if you think about the climate COP. If only that number of nationally determined contributions were submitted, there would be uproar, let’s say. Were you surprised by this low level of submissions so far? And also, are you worried that it could indicate that countries are not taking global nature pledges seriously and even that they could not be met by 2030 as a result?
AS: I think if we look at the deadline, it was very short. I mean, COP15 took place in December 2022, so it’s less than two years. Many countries had to put new processes in place, had to get funding. So I mean, the start was never going to be fast. I think the important thing we’re looking at is the work is underway. And there, I’m confident to say, it’s literally underway around the world in countries. So whether the deadline itself is met on the dot is not what I think we’re really looking at. We’re looking at how far countries advance, how are they talking to their stakeholders, how are they managing to also have these new processes that would involve better reflecting traditional knowledge, for example, involving Indigenous people, where that’s relevant.
Bringing the business sector on board was, as you know, in the Global Biodiversity Framework. There are also targets for business. So all of that takes time. Since we’ve done these workshops, and we understand that countries are working on that, I think our assessment is globally positive. This is not to say that more than 20 would [not] have been better, but I think the important thing is to look that progress is there. And I’m confident that by the end of the year, the number will be significantly higher.
CB: Do you have any estimate of what that number could be?
AS: No, I don’t.
CB: Will CBD analysis on the plans and targets put forward by countries still be done this year, in light of the low number of NBSAP submissions?
AS: The full analysis is basically for COP17. That’s when we have our stocktake. So what we’ve done now, and you can see that in the documents that have been published, we’ve been just looking basically at how the targets are reflected. We haven’t got an in-depth analysis and also, at this point in time, countries were asked to submit their targets. They were not asked to report to us how they are implementing those targets. So we’re basically still at this level of really demonstrating that the commitments were taken seriously and looking at how they’re being translated into targets, but we’re not at the stage of analysing implementation.
CB: Do you think that the NBSAP issue indicates that there needs to be a wider, more UN COP-level reform? Susana Muhamad this week was talking about unifying these targets that are put forward to the climate change, biodiversity and desertification COPs. What is your take on that opinion?
AS: I don’t think that’s a call for UN reform or necessarily unifying targets. I think what everybody is looking at is, first of all, the opportunity that we have this year with these three Rio Conventions having their COPs in rapid succession. And, of course, with basically planning processes going on under land degradation neutrality for desertification, and then national adaptation plans and the enhancement of the NDCs [nationally determined contributions] under the climate convention, then our NBSAPs.
What we have all been saying – specifically two weeks ago in New York when the Rio Trio initiative was launched – [is] that it makes sense to bring this planning process together, especially at the national level. We very often have different focal points for climate change, desertification and biodiversity. They don’t necessarily talk to each other. They are often in different ministries.
These planning processes are often subject to different funding streams and support, so it’s actually difficult to bring them together at a national level. But it would make a lot more sense and we’ve seen the potential is big [as] the numbers, the percentages, where the plans refer to each other are not high. So there’s scope for improvement.
What one would hope is that these three COPs now can actually give a push to countries committing to bringing this together and, ideally, also to us as convention secretariats to get a mandate to support this better coordination of processes at national level.
CB: I wanted to ask about finance, because that is obviously going to be a huge talking point as well at this COP. How would you like to see developed countries showing leadership at COP16 in meeting the nature finance target in particular of hitting at least $20 billion per year by 2025 for developing countries? Are you optimistic that this goal will be achieved?
AS: Well, that’s a difficult question. First of all, the goal on ODA [official development assistance] is part of a broader financing goal, of course. But since you asked specifically about ODA, we don’t have figures beyond 2022. The figures that the OECD [Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development] has published, which you may have seen, indicate a very positive trend on nature finance up to 2022. We have no reason to believe that this trend would have changed and if the trend persists, we are probably on a good way towards the $20 billion by 2025.
From the perspective of many developing countries, I think the expectation was that more funds would have been put into the newly created Global Biodiversity Framework Fund at the GEF [Global Environment Facility]. So we hope that at the COP, indeed, new pledges will be made so that this fund will see more funding.
But I think we have to realise that most biodiversity finance streams are bilateral streams and don’t go through the funds. We also have to see that in addition to the framework fund, there is the Kunming Biodiversity Fund that China put in place that has also been capitalised with $200 million.
So there is movement across the world and, therefore, I think the outlook is broadly positive. Is it enough? No. Does it have to be scaled up? Absolutely. I think we will have good discussions at COP [on] how that can be done. And, of course, we also need to continue in the same vein as we discussed before, how the climate and biodiversity crises overlap and how also these funding streams, to an extent, overlap.
CB: Looking then at Colombia’s role as host country for this COP and Susana Muhamad’s role as summit president. Do you think that the profile of both the country and her as president will have a positive impact on the outcome of the talks? Especially compared to COP15, which didn’t end up taking place in the host country of China.
AS: At COP15, we had a very active presidency and then supported by an active host. So there was almost a beautiful coming together of China and Canada and we had an excellent outcome.
For COP16, yes, I think the fact, first of all, that the COP is taking place in a biodiversity-rich country is already positive. We have seen Colombia take leadership on biodiversity issues for many years. Including, for example, at COP15, when they led with Germany on the accelerator initiative.
There’s a lot that this country can bring to the debate including, incidentally, in terms of a very lively Indigenous community and a lot of traditional knowledge and discussion around that which will, in any case, take place at our COP.
So I think Colombia is an excellent host. They’ve made a lot of efforts to make this COP a success. And in Susana Muhamad, we have a very knowledgeable and a very charismatic and very dedicated COP host. So I think the ingredients are in place for this to be a very good, successful COP.
CB: Also, though, their role as host has not been without a couple of difficulties along the way. There were reports during the summer that there was a dissident rebel group threatening to disrupt the COP, although the threat has since been withdrawn. Also there are peace talks ongoing between the government and the ELN [National Liberation Army]. Are you, and the CBD in general, reassured about the security of the summit?
AS: Yes, we are. Of course, we know that Colombia is a country with an ongoing internal conflict. We know that there is an ongoing peace process to which the government is dedicating a lot of attention. We have worked very closely with the government, both at country level, then also at sub-national level with the Valle del Cauca and with the city to look at the security plans. We have seen the government come together, ministries across the board working on that. So, yes, I think, we are reassured that good security arrangements are in place both in the city of Cali and for the COP specifically as well.
CB: There are going to be several world leaders there that you were announcing a couple of weeks ago – Lula, the president of Brazil, the newly inaugurated President Sheinbaum in Mexico, alongside other world leaders. This is definitely a change of pace from COP15 and previous biodiversity COPs, where there was not this same politicking around it, especially compared to climate COPs. Do you think that this will help to bring more attention to the biodiversity COP, given that it generally receives a fraction of the coverage and the interest compared to the climate COP in particular? Was it the aim of inviting world leaders to amp up the profile?
AS: Yes to both. I think the presence of world leaders amplifies the profile of the convention. I think the intention of Colombia as a host – and, of course, we very much support that – is to demonstrate that the nature crisis has to be understood as being at the same level of seriousness as the climate crisis and therefore also requiring the same level of political attention.
That’s why they have invited heads of state and government to come to the COP. We think that’s a very good signal, especially because, as I think Susana Muhamad always indicates, and I mentioned earlier, we will not be able to look at climate change in isolation from the nature and biodiversity crisis.
So if we want the climate targets of 1.5C to be within reach, we really also need to look at how nature can contribute. And by bringing heads of state and government that are talking about this a lot to our COP, I think we will succeed more to get this message heard by a wider audience.
CB: My next question is slightly off topic but, out of curiosity, has the CBD engaged in any talks with the US in recent years about them ratifying the convention? And also, could the upcoming presidential election have any impact on this prospect?
AS: I mean, we always have contacts with the United States. We’re just across the border [at the CBD headquarters in Montreal], so we regularly talk to the government. The United States are always participating at the COPs with reasonably big delegations. They are engaged in all our meetings. I’m not aware that we have had specific discussions about ratification and, at the same level, whatever the outcome of the next elections will be, ratification has not been a subject that was actively discussed in the US recently. As well as I know, inter alia, because it needs a congressional majority that has not been available in the past years.
CB: Looking at your own background in the European Commission, you must be well versed in figuring out how to make policies work for both developed and developing countries. Particularly around policies like the anti-deforestation regulation, which was recently postponed for a year. How do you plan to ensure that the input of biodiverse, developing countries and also Indigenous peoples and local communities, these other key stakeholders, remain at the front and centre of COP16 talks?
AS: Well, especially on this latter issue, on the Indigenous peoples and local communities, this is actually a big issue on our agenda and also one that’s very important for Colombia. [It’s] where a lot of mobilisation has taken place over the past weeks, of Indigenous groups coming together and formulating their policies.
So what we think will happen at the COP is that we will adopt a new work programme for Indigenous people, but possibly also look at the upgrading of what we currently have as a working group to a proper subsidiary body. So that would elevate, in a way, the voice of Indigenous people and all the traditional knowledge they bring to the debate.
For developing countries, I mean more broadly, I think everybody realises that, like climate change, biodiversity may be a localised issue, but it is a global challenge. So we need action at all levels and the biodiversity-rich countries are, notably, [largely] in the global south.
So that’s why we have such a big discussion on resource mobilisation, why we have a big discussion on sharing of expertise, of knowledge and technology. This will have to continue at COP. There’s a lot of south-south cooperation that we also like to support and there’s a lot of, let’s say, willingness and mobilisation across the global south that will also come with big delegations that we hope to support through the COP discussions and also through the decisions that are being taken and through the various support programmes that UN agencies like UNEP [UN Environment Programme] and UNDP [UN Development Programme] run, for example, in supporting NBSAP processes and others.
CB: Looking far ahead into the future, it was recently confirmed that Azerbaijan has put its name forward to host COP17, the next UN biodiversity summit. Firstly, what is your reaction to that, especially given some of the controversies around their hosting of the climate COP – given that they are a petrostate – and also their human rights issues? Also, when will the next host be decided? Will the announcement be made at the end of COP16?
AS: The way that works for the biodiversity convention, we adopted a decision I think at COP13 that looks at a regional rotation. And, indeed, COP17 should be hosted by the eastern European group. We have two offers on the table at the moment – Azerbaijan and Armenia. If there would be no consensus in the eastern European group, that they would sort of put forward one or the other, the way this works for us is that this is a procedural decision. Such procedural decisions could be taken by vote at the end of the COP.
CB: What is your reaction then to both Azerbaijan and Armenia having put their names forward for it? Are you excited about either option?
AS: Well, hosting a COP is a huge responsibility and I think Azerbaijan experiences this now as they’re getting ready to host the climate COP. If a country puts itself forward, it puts its national policies under a global spotlight. So I think it takes courage to do it and we’re grateful that we have two candidates that want to host us in 2026.
CB: Thank you for taking the time to speak, I really appreciate it. Is there anything else you wanted to add, or anything else you think would be good to mention just two weeks out from the start of COP?
AS: As you mentioned yourself in the beginning, there are important decisions to be taken. You might think it’s just an implementation COP, but it is an implementation COP. And implementation, in many ways, is just as important or more important than making new commitments.
Maybe one area I would highlight in addition to the ones we discussed, and that’s that of digital sequencing information [DSI]. At COP15, we already put in place a decision to say that we wanted a multilateral mechanism that looks at how this digital sequence information from genetic information, [how] the benefits of it could be shared more equitably.
So we are looking forward to this complex issue now being resolved at COP16 with such a mechanism being instituted. Because we think this could actually generate considerable finance streams for biodiversity-rich countries and, therefore, it’s important that we move ahead with it and put in place a mechanism that is workable for all countries and that allows us, in a way, to move ahead with this mindset shift that we see in the business world. With more and more businesses coming to the discussion, but also the businesses realising that you cannot build your business model and your business success on nature for free.
So there is a price to be paid and the sequencing information discussion sort of exemplifies this very well. As, in general, the fact that business is now coming to the table in greater numbers and is asking a lot of questions about how they can measure their impacts, how they can disclose what are the right metrics.
All these discussions that will take place at COP16, I think, are very important given that business is not only very dependent on nature, but also has important impacts on nature. They just need to be part of the discussion along with everybody else.
CB: On that, on both DSI and also businesses showing up in greater numbers at COP, are you worried about a potential impact of lobbying weakening the text around DSI, in particular now that the talks that have been ongoing for so long are reaching their end stage and everything is going to hit the fan, essentially, with businesses and countries needing to start taking these things into account? Are you worried that there could be a ramping up of this lobbying at this COP?
AS: Well, I think there are different groups of businesses that will be involved at COP, and there’s only a certain subset of businesses that might be concerned in the first place by the DSI.
So yes, of course, if you are a company, you are worried about how this mechanism will work and I think they will come to the table expressing their concerns and arguing for a workable mechanism.
But we have heard lots of companies from sectors that are most concerned, of pharmaceuticals, biotech, etc, that have actually already done this what I call the ‘mindset shift’ and that have said ‘we realise this is something we need to do, we want to do, but we also want it to be workable’. And I think that’s an important consideration and they will bring that to the table for sure.
CB: Great, thanks again.
AS: Thank you and see you in Cali.
The post The Carbon Brief Interview: UN biodiversity chief Astrid Schomaker appeared first on Carbon Brief.
The Carbon Brief Interview: UN biodiversity chief Astrid Schomaker
The African continent’s hopes for a legally binding agreement to combat drought have been dashed again, as UN land restoration talks in Mongolia passed the issue onto the next set of talks in Egypt in two years’ time.
For over a decade, Africa has pushed for a UN protocol on drought risk management that would acknowledge drought as an issue requiring a regional and global – not just a national – response, potentially paving the way for more finance to help ensure water is available when drought hits.
A formal protocol would enable countries to transition from reacting to drought once it hits to “a proactive enabling mechanism to address drought and its effects such as migration”, said a Tunisian negotiator on behalf of the African Group of countries last week. Once land is regularly too dry and infertile to grow crops or graze animals, people often leave to seek a living elsewhere.
But this effort to adopt a protocol, led by Africa, has been resisted at successive land restoration COPs under the UN Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), mainly by developed countries, which argue that a legally weaker alternative – a framework – would be faster and cheaper to set up.
Governments at the previous COP in Saudi Arabia in 2024 failed to reach agreement despite talks running past midnight, while this year’s saw African officials coordinate a walkout from negotiating rooms on Wednesday morning, according to two sources at the talks.
Drought deal delayed until 2028
The IISD’s Earth Negotiations Bulletin, a non-governmental organisation which unlike the media is allowed to watch and report on closed-door talks, said a call to suspend negotiations on Wednesday showed negotiations had reached “boiling point” and “made some jaws drop”.
Negotiations resumed after a lunchtime meeting with the Mongolian COP presidency although governments were only eventually able to agree that they could not find consensus in Ulaanbaatar and should resume talks on an instrument to deal with drought in 2028.
Christine Colvin, WWF’s head of freshwater policy, told Climate Home News that, with droughts hitting from Honduras to the English region of Hampshire, something concrete – whether a protocol or a framework – is needed urgently “rather than the can being kicked down the road for another two years as will now happen with the protocol procrastination”.
But, in a closing press conference on Friday, the Mongolian minister presiding over talks celebrated that governments had reached consensus on several “contentious” issues and that agenda items blocked at this year’s COP17 would be put on the agenda for COP18 in Egypt.
US blocks agenda items
Other agenda items that divided countries were on measuring land degradation’s effects on women, enhancing the involvement of civil society and women in land COPs, and the UNCCD working more closely and effectively with the UN’s climate and nature conventions.
On the COP’s opening day two weeks ago, the US representative said the Trump government objects to these agenda items “on their premise and no amount of negotiation will allow us to join consensus on these items. As such we request that they be struck from the agenda at which time we will then be able to approve it, saving us valuable negotiating time.”
A US State Department spokesperson later told Climate Home News that the US wants the UN “to get back to basics by refocusing on its core mandate, eliminating overlap, and reducing competition for scarce resources”.
The spokesperson added, “that means prioritising the concrete work member states created [the UN] to do – rather than diverting limited time, attention, and resources toward social and political agendas, including gender-related initiatives.”
On COP’s first day, the European Union and Brazil pushed back against the blocking of these agenda items, with a Brazilian negotiator saying his country attaches “great importance” to them. But the Mongolian presidency directed governments to adopt the rest of the agenda without the controversial items, which were discussed privately with countries throughout the two weeks.
An EU statement, read out later by Irish minister Timmy Dooley, accused “some parties” (meaning national governments) of having adopted a “less constructive approach” and preventing “discussions on important matters from even commencing”.
The agenda items the US refused to engage with were never discussed and were only placed onto the agenda for the next COP on the last day. Those talks will take place in Egypt in two years’ time, with Donald Trump due then to be in his last year as US president.
No restoration without women
The blocking of the gender agenda item has stymied attempts, agreed on by governments at the last COP, to develop gender-specific indicators for the UNCCD’s next overall framework and to facilitate more women delegates at COPs. Women made up only about a quarter of delegates to COP15 in 2022, UNCCD analysis with the latest data shows
Criticising the move to keep gender off the agenda, the EU said in a statement that it welcomes “the attention being given at COP17 to women pastoralists and herders, recognising their contribution to sustainable land management and resilient rural livelihoods”.
The head of the UNCCD, former Egyptian environment minister Yasmine Fouad, said on Friday that “regardless that the agenda item was blocked”, she was proud that she and COP17 President Batmunkh Battsetseg had led the COP as women and attended the gender caucus (a meeting of groups supporting women at the talks).
“Without the women,” she told the closing press conference on Friday, “we will not be able to restore land, restore hope, restore life or restore even our children and grandchildren. And we will keep on pushing that agenda.”
The civil society agenda item aimed to allow NGOs to attend land COP negotiations, as they do at climate COPs, and included terms of reference for an Indigenous Peoples Caucus.
A representative of Indigenous Peoples told the COP’s closing plenary meeting that the group had “deep disappointment that the agenda of this COP has removed the dedicated space for indigenous peoples”. “We cannot restore the land while removing the voices of those who care for it,” she said.
On Tuesday, the UNCCD’s deputy head Andrea Meza was asked about Indigenous Peoples’ participation. She said that the blocking of “one agenda item” is “generating uncertainty in the progress” towards creating caucuses for Indigenous Peoples and for Local Communities within the talks.
Because of the “complex geopolitical situation” making it hard to obtain consensus, coalitions of the willing have become more important, she added.
Mining out, money in
Outside the formal negotiations, the summit was marked by a focus on the strongly Mongolian issues of the role played by pastoralists and rangelands like grasslands, as well as mining, in both degrading and restoring land.
Part of the conference was sponsored by Australian mining company Rio Tinto and its local partner Oyu Tolgoi. Their presence was protested by campaigners wearing T-shirts calling on the companies to “stop wasting drinking water” and to “get out of Mongolia”.
The UNCDD and others praised the success of the summit in raising more finance for land restoration. The COP saw institutions like the Asian Development Bank and Global Environment Facility pledge money to combat land degradation, with the UNCCD estimating that $645 million of new commitments were made.
An estimated $355 billion a year is needed through 2030 to meet global land restoration commitments, compared with around $77 billion currently invested. Private finance accounts for only around 6% of global investment, according to the UNCCD.
UNCCD chief scientist Baron Orr told a press conference that many of the announcements were public-private partnerships that use government money to “even the playing field” for companies that want to protect land, in a bid to ensure they are not disadvantaged compared with those that do not.
Such partnerships are a “huge opportunity”, he said, especially as “we’re not in a moment of public finance – public finance is tight in every country.”
The post Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal appeared first on Climate Home News.
Despite African walkout, fractious land COP ends without drought deal
Burdened by rising fuel import costs and an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking heat, Pacific island nations are seeking to build support for a new regional fund ahead of COP31, intended to channel investment into renewable energy, community resilience and ocean protection, experts said.
Leaders from the 18-member Pacific Islands Forum (PIF), including Australia and New Zealand, are expected to issue a call for global pledges to the Pacific Resilience Facility (PRF) at a high-level meeting this coming week in Palau, seeking to build a new model for financing climate action.
The new regional fund was formally launched in May this year and is meant to “serve communities at a community level”, swiftly channelling investments for their projects on the ground, according to Fiji’s assistant minister for foreign affairs, Lenora Qereqeretabua.
“We are expecting pledges for the PRF, and these funds will go to communities that apply,” she told journalists at an online briefing. “We have organised it in such a way that it makes our application processes much, much easier than applying for global funding.”
Qereqeretabua added that she expects that PRF funds will be “utilised by communities to protect themselves from climate change and the effects of climate change.”
The Pacific Islands Forum meeting is expected to shape the region’s priorities ahead of this year’s pre-COP, hosted by Fiji and Tuvalu, and COP31, which will be co-led by Australia and Türkiye.
At COP31, a dedicated session on the climate finance needs of small island states will seek to drive pledges into the PRF. The fund has so far received about $172 million in capital – with about $67 million coming from Australia – and aims to close the year with $500 million.
-
Battle over cleaning up shipping set to resume at London talks
The US and Saudi Arabia want to scrap shipping’s Net-Zero Framework and have swung behind a far less ambitious alternative -
As marine heat breaks records, countries seek ocean roadmap at COP31
Africa and the EU are leading a push for COP31 to deliver a roadmap that lays out measures to protect fast-warming oceans -
Indonesia’s nickel production cuts are not enough to create a sustainable industry
The government is restricting nickel production to push up prices but producing more sustainable nickel for a premium requires addressing the industry’s coal issue
Ocean heat and fossil fuel shocks
Leaders from the Pacific will meet in Palau from Sunday amid an “ocean crisis” of record-breaking ocean heat caused by this year’s “super El Niño”, according to Kevin Chand, Pacific ocean policy director at National Geographic’s Pristine Seas conservation project.
Leaders at the PIF are expected to put forward commitments towards new marine protected areas, which will be key for shielding ecosystems from future climate extremes, Chand said. The forum is expected to issue a statement on the need for ocean action at COP31, and announce commitments towards reaching the global goal of protecting 30% of the planet’s land and sea ecosystems by 2030.
Rising ocean heat could lead to food insecurity and lost government earnings in the region, as key fish stocks like tuna start migrating away from their coastline in search of colder waters, said Coral Pasisi, director of climate change and sustainability at the Pacific Community (SPC).
Climate shocks are deepening existing economic pressures, as Pacific nations have spent up to a quarter of their GDP on fossil fuel imports due to the war in Iran, according to a recent report by the University of New South Wales (UNSW) in Australia.
Wesley Morgan, one of the study’s authors, told journalists that partner nations “ought to be putting their money where their mouth is”, and should support the energy transition in the Pacific by covering the upfront costs of switching from polluting diesel to solar power, batteries and electricity grid upgrades.
China keeps Indonesia’s battery dream afloat but future less certain
Given the increase in climate-related shocks and sea-level rise, the PIF should also mention the need to phase out fossil fuel extraction and consumption, said Sindra Sharma, international policy lead at the Pacific Islands Climate Action Network (PICAN).
Last year’s COP30 failed to deliver a global roadmap on transitioning away from fossil fuels, which led to a group of countries – including several Pacific island nations – pursuing their own fossil fuel phase-out summit in Santa Marta, Colombia. Next year’s conference will be hosted by Tuvalu and co-chaired by Ireland, which should also receive backing from the PIF, Sharma said.
Both the chairs of the Santa Marta coalition and the Australian COP31 co-presidency have vowed to continue a push for this topic to be discussed at COP31.
New fund to test allies
As local communities in the Pacific struggle to access global climate funds, the PRF’s planned model for quick, direct disbursements has “very solid and good” intentions, Sharma said, but it will need political and financial backing from donor countries.
“The proof is going to be when the fund actually starts operating and delivering to communities,” she added. “If there is too much bureaucracy in being able to access the funds, for example. These things will have to be scrutinised.”
The facility aims to deliver funds in two categories: one for climate adaptation and “disaster resilience”, and another for social and community resilience that includes areas like community capacity-building, education, data analytics and financial management, among others. It will launch its first call for proposals at the PIF.
Morgan added that Australia will need to “leverage global interests” so that funding is directed to the Pacific Resilience Facility “or else the Pacific won’t be able to trust Australia as a partner”. The country ratified the PRF treaty in May, triggering its entry into force.
“The perception [of Australia] in the region is genuinely divided, and it’s worth being honest about it,” Sharma said, adding that the pre-COP31 in Fiji, which is usually limited to a technical space for negotiations, will determine how meaningful Australia’s advocacy for the Pacific can be.
This time, Pacific nations want to use the pre-COP in early October as an opportunity to demonstrate the challenges their largely low-lying islands face and to advocate for their political priorities, including a renewed global effort to limit global warming to 1.5C by cutting emissions faster and deeper. World leaders are due to visit Tuvalu to experience the frontline of rising sea levels, although Australia and Fiji have yet to confirm who will attend.
“In Bonn, Australia was largely missing on the negotiated outcomes that we so urgently need to see. It’s not enough to get Pacific priorities on the agenda. Agenda placement is not delivery,” Sharma added.
The post Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31 appeared first on Climate Home News.
Pacific islands seek backing for new regional fund ahead of COP31
Climate Change
Climate change exposes 580 million children to 20 extra ‘heat-stress days’ every year
More than 40% of children under the age of 10 globally are already experiencing at least 20 additional “heat-stress days” due to climate change.
This is according to a new attribution study, published in Science Advances, which combines climate models with demographic data to assess the age groups and regions that are exposed to the most hot, humid days.
The study finds that children up to the age of nine already face more additional heat-stress days globally as a result of climate change than any other age group.
It adds that south Asia and west Africa are recording the greatest childhood exposure to dangerous levels of humid heat – largely because these regions have a rapidly growing population with the highest proportion of young children.
As the climate warms, children will continue to be more exposed to heat stress than any other age group, the paper warns.
The lead author of the study tells Carbon Brief that the findings should inform discussions about climate justice, noting that children in developing countries “have contributed the least to historical greenhouse gas emissions”.
Humid heat
High temperatures can be deadly. For example, the heatwaves that swept across Europe in the summer of 2026 have been linked to tens of thousands of “excess deaths”.
A prominent 2021 study found that children born in the 21st century will be exposed to more extreme weather events in their lifetimes than their parents and grandparents.
Four years later, a study conducted by scientists from the same team found that more than half of children born in 2020 – around 62 million people – will experience “unprecedented lifetime exposure” to heatwaves, even if warming is limited to 1.5C.
Now, the latest research from the same team finds that children already face greater exposure to dangerous levels of humid heat than adults as a result of human-caused climate change.
Extreme heat is particularly dangerous when combined with high humidity. In hot weather, the human body produces sweat to cool itself down. However, as humidity increases, sweating becomes less effective.
The study uses wet-bulb globe temperature – a measure of temperature that takes humidity and wind into account – to calculate heat stress. It defines a “heat-stress day” as any day with a wet-bulb globe temperature above 28C, as this is considered the threshold for “moderate heat stress”
The authors then use climate models to simulate global temperature patterns in the present-day climate. (The authors use the climate of 2023, in which human activity has caused 1.3C of warming, to represent the “present-day”.)
They then count the number of heat-stress days that each country records on average, per year. The authors then repeat this exercise, simulating a pre-industrial climate without human-caused warming.
By comparing the number of heat-stress days in the present-day climate with the number in a pre-industrial climate, the authors can determine how many extra heat-stress days were driven by climate change. They refer to these as “extra” or “attributable” heat-stress days.
The authors find that “low-latitude” countries, located in the tropics, record the most extra heat-stress days.
For example, the paper finds that people living in Côte d’Ivoire currently face 112 heat-stress days every year. It adds that around half of these are due to human-caused climate change.
In contrast, Germany sees only 0.1 heat-stress days per year in today’s climate on average, which is largely attributable to human-caused climate change.
Rosa Pietroiusti, a PhD student at Vrije Universiteit Brussel and lead author on the study, explains why this number may seem lower than expected.
She tells Carbon Brief that the paper “really focuses on humid heat, at levels that are relatively rarely felt in Europe”. She adds:
“Our data also doesn’t capture the urban heat island effect, due to the resolution of the data we use, which also would lead to underestimations of heat stress locally, and lead to a mismatch with what people are experiencing at local scales, particularly in cities.”
Inequality
Extreme heat affects some people more severely than others. Children, people over 65 and those with pre-existing medical conditions or certain disabilities are among the most vulnerable. This is because their bodies are less able to regulate their temperature.
The authors use gridded demographic data to determine the age structure of each country. From this, they calculate how many people from each age cohort are exposed to extra heat days as a result of climate change.
The research finds that globally, 583 million children under the age of 10 already live through at least 20 attributable heat days every year. This accounts for 44% of all children in this age bracket.
In comparison, 190 million people aged 60-69 face at least 20 attributable heat days per year, accounting for 30% of this age cohort.
The authors find that children face the greatest exposure to humid heat for two main reasons.
First, there are more young people alive today than older people, with 1.3 billion children aged under 10 in the world, compared to 0.6 billion people aged 60-69.
Second, they find that countries in Africa and Asia typically have rapidly growing populations with more young children. In contrast, many countries in the northern hemisphere – which are typically cooler – have older populations.
The map below shows how many extra stress heat days each country currently faces as a result of human-caused climate change. Darker reds indicate a higher number of attributable heat days. The blue circles show the percentage of the population under the age of 10, with larger circles indicating a higher percentage.
Warming world
The authors also repeat their analysis for a 1.5C and 2C warmer world. They use population estimates from the SSP2 scenario, which projects that the world’s population will peak at more than nine billion in the second half of the 21st century, with most growth occurring in low-latitude regions – especially in sub-Saharan Africa.
The research finds that, in today’s climate, 11% of all under 10s currently experience 100 or more extra heat-stress days per year due to climate change. In worlds warmed by 1.5C and 2C, the percentage rises to 13% and 23%, respectively.
In contrast, only 6% of all people aged 60-69 currently face 100 or more extra heat-stress days each year due to climate change. This number rises to 9% and 17% for 1.5C and 2C worlds, respectively.
These results are shown in the plot below. The three rows represent the climates of 2023 (top), a 1.5C world (middle) and a 2C world (bottom). The columns show different age cohorts, from the oldest on the left to the youngest on the right.
Each circle contains 100 coloured dots, with each dot representing 1% of the age cohort.
The colour of the dot represents exposure to annual heat-stress day, with darker dots indicating more heat-stress days. Grey dots mean that people experience fewer than one extra heat-stress day per year due to human-caused climate change, while black dots mean more than 150 extra heat-stress days due to climate change.
The figure shows that higher warming levels expose more people to heat stress and that younger cohorts tend to be worst affected.
For example, the top-right circle represents heat stress for under 10s in the present-day climate. Three of these dots are coloured black, indicating that 3% faced at least 150 attributable heat-stress days in 2023.
Pietroiusti tells Carbon Brief the study uses wet-bulb temperature because it is a “well-established heat stress metric”. However, she notes that it was not “explicitly defined to focus on children”. She continues:
“A really important step forward in the research community would be to link up climate science and health science experts to do research on what metrics are really most representative of, for example, health impacts and educational impacts that children will be suffering.”
Vulnerability
Dr Qinqin Kong, a postdoctoral researcher at the departments of medicine and health policy at Stanford University, who was not involved in the study, praises its “robust” methodology.
He tells Carbon Brief that the research provides “a timely quantitative evidence for discussions of climate justice, children’s rights and intergenerational equity”.
However, Kong suggests that the paper “may overstate the contrast between children and the elderly and underestimate the relative burden of older adults”.
He says:
“The elderly may also be more vulnerable due to their social circumstances. Children often benefit from parental supervision and caregiving, whereas many older adults live alone, have limited mobility and face barriers to accessing cooling or emergency assistance during heat events.”
Kong also notes that “people and societies in the mid-latitudes [for example, across much of Europe and North America] are less adapted to heat”, which may make them vulnerable to its impacts.
For example, he says that Europe “shows substantially stronger relative risk of heat mortality likely due to less heat-acclimatised populations, lower air conditioning prevalence and urban designs that don’t favour heat dissipation”.
Similarly, Dr Daniel Vecellio – a researcher at the University of Nebraska, who was not involved in the study – tells Carbon Brief that children are an “understudied cohort”.
However, he says there is “reason for hope” because “children are typically pretty good behavioural adapters to extreme heat” and because people who are “chronically exposed to extreme heat” will “have a better chance at better acclimatisation”.
Pietroiusti tells Carbon Brief that global reporting on heatwaves is often skewed towards wealthier nations.
For example, she notes that large-scale databases of disasters, such as EM-DAT, often underrepresent heatwaves in Africa, due in part to a lack of news coverage and formal reporting. She adds:
“Studies like this, which start from the climate data, can start to fill some of these gaps.”
She adds that the paper should inform discussions about climate justice, noting that children in developing countries, who are most severely affected by the increase in heat-stress days, “have contributed the least to historical greenhouse gas emissions”.
Pietroiusti, R. et al. (2026) Age-specific exposure to human-induced increases in humid heat, Science Advances, doi:10.1126/sciadv.aeb3232
The post Climate change exposes 580 million children to 20 extra ‘heat-stress days’ every year appeared first on Carbon Brief.
Climate change exposes 580 million children to 20 extra ‘heat-stress days’ every year
-
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”
-
Climate Change2 years ago
Bill Discounting Climate Change in Florida’s Energy Policy Awaits DeSantis’ Approval
-
Renewable Energy10 months agoSending Progressive Philanthropist George Soros to Prison?
-
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