Building Better Climate Initiatives: 7 Essential Ingredients for Effective Intergovernmental Cooperation margaret.overh… Tue, 11/04/2025 - 15:56

The number of cooperative initiatives aimed at combating climate change has ballooned over the past decade. Since the Paris Agreement, governments have launched hundreds of pledges and coalitions to tackle everything from renewable energy, zero-emissions transport and methane, to forests, food systems and adaptation. As the number of joint announcements and initiatives grows, so too do expectations that these efforts can close the ambition and implementation gaps left by slower-moving formal negotiations.

Cooperative initiatives are critical because they bring together "coalitions of the willing" to tackle specific challenges that can be hard to address through multilateral negotiating processes — especially in areas where it has not been possible to reach consensus on ambitious goals (such as setting specific global decarbonization targets). By focusing on specific sectors, activities and approaches, these initiatives have the potential to spur change and strengthen collaboration across borders, providing a much-needed dimension to international climate governance. They can bring momentum to multi-country efforts that, in turn, drive domestic climate action — where change is most needed and impactful.

Yet the effectiveness of these efforts has been questioned at times. Some initiatives may generate political visibility at launch, but the political and media attention they garner do not guarantee that they will deliver measurable outcomes. Other initiatives may duplicate existing efforts or fail to attract the actors most essential to driving progress. Without greater intentionality in how initiatives are designed, governed and assessed, the growing landscape of climate cooperation risks dilution rather than delivery.

Based on recent WRI research and lessons from the past decade, the following seven elements offer a practical framework for building coalitions that can catalyze national action, drive international cooperation and spur systemic change over time. This provides a guide that stakeholders, including governments and initiatives themselves, can use to develop, build and carry out effective collaboration for climate action.

1) Identify a Clear Need and Opportunity for Impact

Initiatives should begin with a clearly defined purpose rooted in a real gap or opportunity. That means identifying whether they address a sectoral gap; a regional need; or a missing governance function, such as standard-setting, implementation support or finance mobilization. If initiatives do not first assess their role and added value within the existing ecosystem of climate action, they risk duplication, fragmentation and limited relevance.

A stronger starting point involves identifying where cooperation can unlock action that would not otherwise occur. This may mean targeting underserved sectors or identifying new contributions to high-impact opportunities. One example is the Global Methane Pledge, launched at COP26 to target the namesake super pollutant. Other opportunities could lie in areas like heavy industry, adaptation in climate-vulnerable regions or land-use transitions. Equally important is recognizing where participation is currently lacking — whether among high-emitting countries, rapidly growing economies, or climate-vulnerable regions that face the greatest implementation challenges. Establishing a clear rationale for the initiative is essential for attracting meaningful participation and designing goals that matter.

2) Define the Initiative's Purpose

International coalitions serve different functions: Some are designed to send political signals; others, to align standards, coordinate implementation, share technical knowledge or mobilize finance. When the intended function is vague, expectations can be misaligned, and success becomes difficult to assess.

A credible initiative should articulate whether commitments are collective or individual; whether their focus is political coordination or technical delivery; and whether they are meant to catalyze near-term action or longer-term transformation. This clarity helps determine who needs to be involved, what institutional arrangements are required, and how progress should be evaluated. Defining purpose early also reduces the likelihood of symbolic announcements that lack pathways to implementation.

For example, the Powering Past Coal Alliance (PPCA), launched by the United Kingdom and Canada at COP23, defined its purpose from the outset: as a collective political commitment to phase out unabated coal power and halt new plants without carbon capture and storage, while supporting clean energy transitions through domestic policy and finance measures.

3) Set Ambitious and Actionable Goals

Actionable goals are essential for moving initiatives beyond statements of intent. While broad aspirations can help shape narratives or bring attention to a particular issue, initiatives with specific targets or well-defined action areas can better guide decision-making and implementation. For example, the Glasgow Leaders Declaration set a broad target to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030, while the Forest & Climate Leaders' Partnership takes this a step further, with its participating countries working together on six action areas to help drive the achievement of the Glasgow Leaders goal.

Setting credible goals involves articulating what the initiative aims to achieve, by when and through what means. Furthermore, without clearly defined goals, it is difficult to assess progress, mobilize resources or coordinate efforts among participants.

Goal setting can be treated as an evolving process: At launch, initiatives should articulate clear quantitative or qualitative goals that signal intent and define their contribution to the cooperation landscape. As they mature, these goals should become time-bound and measurable. They can also be updated as progress is reviewed and the broader landscape evolves over time. For example, the SIDS Lighthouses Initiative, which aims to advance renewable energy installations in small islands states, has progressively revised and increased its targets several times. The initiative is now working toward achieving its third target (set for 2030), after meeting those previously set for 2020 and 2023.

A solar power installation in Fiji. Fiji is part of the SIDS Lighthouse Initiative, which aims to help expand renewable power in small island developing states. Photo by chameleonseye/iStock 4) Build with the Right Participants and Leadership

The effectiveness and credibility of an initiative depend heavily on who is involved. Strong initiatives intentionally recruit participants that reflect both the problem and the solution. This includes major emitters, countries with significant implementation needs and regions that have been underrepresented in existing efforts.

Today, however, the landscape of climate initiatives is largely dominated by participation from developed countries; the United Kingdom, Canada, Germany, Japan and the United States are among the five most active countries. Governments from Latin America, Africa, Eastern Europe and small island developing states participate at lower rates. Meanwhile, participation and leadership from governments in the Global South remain disproportionately low, reducing equity, ownership and relevance.

A better example comes from the International Solar Alliance. India's leadership, together with France, helped establish this initiative, which has since transformed into an intergovernmental organization bringing together more than 120 member countries, many of which are located in the tropics.

Political leadership also matters. Visible champions — whether national governments, regional blocs or ministerial coalitions -— can help attract buy-in, sustain visibility and influence others to join. Geographic diversity and shared leadership across North-South contexts can strengthen credibility, ensure initiatives are grounded in diverse realities, and eventually drive the impact they aim to achieve.

5) Set Up for Success through Robust Institutional and Governance Structures

Initiatives are unlikely to produce impact without sufficient structures, including governance and funding. Developing a robust institution is a prerequisite for effective delivery, with clear decision-making and governance processes.

Research has shown that secretariats support an initiative's ability to deliver and are valuable tools for coordinating participating actors, directing and supporting activities, and facilitating engagement with outside stakeholders. Some initiatives may choose to establish a new, bespoke secretariat, or to house one within an existing organization. The Climate and Clean Air Coalition, for example, has developed robust governance structures, with a secretariat housed at the UN Environment Programme, rotating co-chairs, a diverse board and a scientific advisory panel.

But initiatives and their secretariats cannot deliver without the necessary levels of support, including funding. A dedicated budget is necessary to support process management (such as the secretariat) and the initiative's activities. Equally important is ensuring that this funding is sustained over the long term; otherwise, the initiative risks fading away and being unable to continue its activities.

6) Implement Outcome-Driven Activities

Climate initiatives often succeed in generating visibility, at least during COPs and other major events, but fall short when it comes to execution. To achieve real results, an initiative must be able to translate commitments into activities directly tied to outcomes — whether through policy coordination, technical support, standard setting, information sharing or mobilization of finance. Outputs should be aligned with the stated purpose and structured to allow for delivery within member countries' national contexts.

In practice, this may look like designing workplans or roadmaps and producing concrete outputs (such as technical guidance, pilot projects, finance mobilization plans or capacity building activities) that help member countries deliver their commitments. Here, it is essential to identify the stakeholders needed to effectively carry forward these activities in respective member countries.

With intergovernmental cooperative initiatives, making sure objectives are integrated into national plans and strategies can help strengthen implementation. Embedding initiative goals in domestic policy processes not only ensures that they are aligned with domestic efforts, but also enables activities to be tailored to national realities and ultimately achieve stronger outcomes on the ground.

For example, the Zero Emission Vehicles Transition Council (ZEVTC) supports participating countries through tailored partnerships that align national transport decarbonization strategies with industrial and clean energy policies. It aims to accelerate the transition to zero-emission vehicles by supporting domestic measures to phase out internal combustion engine vehicles and expand charging and refueling infrastructure. Through its multi-stakeholder platforms and country partnerships, ZEVTC helps translate political commitments into coordinated action, mobilize private-sector investment, and catalyze systemic shifts in the transport sector and on the ground.

Electric cars at curbside chargers in Copenhagen. Denmark is a member of the Zero Emission Vehicles Transition Council, which aims to help countries deliver on their transportation decarbonization strategies. Photo by LIVINUS/iStock 7) Monitor Initiative Impacts with Regular Reporting

Transparency is essential for building trust that initiatives are making real progress toward their commitments, yet regular and systematic public reporting remains the exception rather than the rule. While some initiatives publish reports on their efforts online, including through UN Climate Change's Global Climate Action Portal, many provide only ad hoc statements or press releases. And others do not have any formal processes for tracking outputs and outcomes. A robust monitoring and evaluation system, through the development and use of indicators to measure progress against stated objectives, is critical for assessing whether initiatives are mobilizing resources, shifting policies or catalyzing systemic change — in other words, delivering.

This gap is more than a technical shortcoming: It strikes at the very credibility of international climate cooperation. Without clear evidence of delivery, the broader community cannot assess impact or hold initiatives accountable. As a result, confidence in these efforts can erode, raising doubts about the integrity of multilateral climate governance. Cooperation could start to appear as a vehicle solely for symbolic or even greenwashed leadership than as a driver for measurable results.

A Framework for Assessing Progress Assessing intergovernmental climate initiatives: An expectations-based framework

Explore the full report.

Download

WRI's recent research explores how to evaluate whether initiatives are equipped with the goals, governance structures, implementation strategies and reporting systems required to deliver on their commitments. This research puts forward a framework through which an initiative's maturity can be assessed. It tests whether an initiative's goals are clear, as well as complementary to the wider landscape of climate cooperation; whether governance and implementation structures are in place to turn commitments into concrete actions; and whether monitoring and reporting systems exist to track outcomes and communicate progress.

Applying this framework can help identify where climate initiatives need to enhance their efforts and transparency and, in turn, support a shift from one-off pledges toward concrete implementation and impact. Ultimately, the value of cooperation lies not only in what is promised, but in the impact delivered — and it's crucial that initiatives can demonstrate that they are making a difference.

How Can Cooperative Initiatives and COP30 Advance Climate Progress?

Delivering on the promise of international cooperation will require active engagement and collaboration — not only among governments, but across all stakeholders, including international organizations, civil society, subnational and local governments, and others. With the world still off track to achieve the goals of the Paris Agreement, enhancing international cooperation is imperative.

Brazil's COP30 Presidency has drawn renewed attention to the "Global Climate Action Agenda," an umbrella encompassing the wide range of climate efforts undertaken by diverse actors. The incoming Presidency has sought to align the Action Agenda with the outcomes of the first Global Stocktake in order to connect real-world action with the negotiations at COP30. This effort opens new possibilities for harmonizing the multilateral process with the broader ecosystem of climate action, allowing countries to harness the cooperation already underway, elevate successes and address persistent barriers to greater impact.

Ultimately, the promise of intergovernmental climate cooperation will be determined not by the number of initiatives launched or commitments made, but through effective collective action that delivers systemic transformations.

solar-panels-fiji-thumbnail.jpg International Climate Action Climate International Climate Action COP30 Type Technical Perspective Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• International Climate Action

Authors Nathan Cogswell Kiyomi de Zoysa

Why Once-Scarce Water Is Coming Back in North Mecha, Ethiopia margaret.overh… Tue, 11/04/2025 - 12:31

Minzir, in northern Ethiopia, looks different than it used to. Three years ago, water was dwindling and the landscape was barren. Today, wells have refilled, springs have emerged, and the area is greener.

"Streams used to dry up but are now flowing much longer. For the first time, we are using this water during the dry season. Honestly, I have never seen anything like this in my lifetime," said Molla Arega, a farmer and village leader living in the area.

At the root of the change? A watershed restoration project that's reviving local water supplies.

Photo by Asfaw Melese Landscapes Under Stress

Minzir 01 is a micro-watershed nestled in Ethiopia's North Mecha District, part of the larger Lake Tana Subbasin. The hills and lands of the Amhara Region, where the district is found, bear the marks of decades of overuse and mismanagement.

In Minzir, soil erosion had carved deep gullies through farmland, deforestation and overgrazing stripped the land of its fertility, and rainfall ran off the bare surface. Streams and wells that once provided water for households and crops saw their sources depleting.

"When I was a child, this place was meadow and suitable for farming," said Gedif Tadele, another farmer from the area, in 2022. "There was no deterioration. Now, the land is eroded."

Climate change has magnified these pressures. Increasingly unpredictable rainfall is further straining water supplies and making food harder to grow in the region, threatening household needs. For residents of Minzir 01, living under the shadows of land degradation and water scarcity offered a bleak future.­­­­

This story is not unique. Across Ethiopia and beyond, degraded landscapes are undermining water security and livelihoods, leaving communities increasingly vulnerable to shocks. Poor land management and vegetation loss exacerbate erosion, which strips valuable moisture from the ground. This prevents rainwater from being absorbed and curbs groundwater recharge. As a result, natural water cycles fall into disrepair, compromising everything from agricultural productivity and biodiversity to water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) access.

But in Minzir 01, change has begun to take root

Water in landscapes: Land, trees, vegetation and rainfall interact to impact water availability and quality up and downstream. Graphic by WRI Healing the Land to Safeguard Water Supplies

In 2022, WRI partnered with WaterAid Ethiopia to launch a three-year community-led watershed restoration project across 400 hectares of Minzir 01. The goal was simple yet bold: rehabilitate degraded land to improve soil health, revive water sources and strengthen people's wellbeing. Community members from the area — those most affected — would be key actors in planning and implementation.

Seedlings ready for distribution. Photo by Mulatu Adane/WaterAid

The project focused on revegetation and other soil and water conservation practices. Together, participants planted over 187,000 tree and grass seedlings and built 20 kilometers of farmland terrace structures (such as soil bunds and fanya juu) to help stabilize the soil and improve water absorption. They constructed 28 check dams to control water runoff and trap sediment. They closed off over 200 hectares of land to livestock and farming, giving nature a chance to regenerate. And they promoted sustainable farming practices, like agroforestry, on both communal and individual croplands.

These measures were designed to help reduce erosion and rainwater runoff and limit sedimentation (which pollutes waterways). In so doing, they aimed to boost surface waters, replenish groundwater and improve water quality — sustaining the sources that feed local water supply systems.

A soil bund (left: Muluneh Bimrew/WRI) is a raised embankment built to reduce water runoff and soil erosion. Check dams (right: Francesca Battistelli/WRI) are small, localized dams built across a stream or drainage channel and designed to slow water flow, control erosion and trap sediment. The Water's Return

After three short years, the results are striking.

To understand how healthy watersheds affect local water supplies, WRI developed an extensive monitoring framework for this project. With the help of the Abbay Basin Administration Office, we tracked and measured changes in biophysical dynamics (mainly vegetation cover and water availability and quality), as well as impacts on people. An endline assessment of Minzir 01 carried out by external evaluators used GIS, remote sensing, field observation, household surveys and local interviews to compare conditions before and after intervention. With research amplified by local testimony, it highlights both the tangible and locally perceived benefits that have arisen.

Water is already coming back to the land.

Two new springs captured in April 2025. Photo by Muluedil Asres

Groundwater levels rose by 1.2 meters on average across five monitored community wells since the project started — a promising improvement in a region where locals are seeing levels falling. Two local streams, once seasonal, now flow through the dry season, bringing reliable water for over three additional months. New ponds have formed in the stream depressions, and the local wetland has expanded, boosting water retention and supporting irrigation. And two freshwater springs have appeared where none previously existed, standing as proxy for better groundwater.

"I have lived here my whole life. There was never a spring in that part of the land before," says Achenef Alemayehu. "Now, a spring has started to emerge, and it has not stopped flowing since. For a place that used to struggle with water shortages, this has really changed things for the better."

The project has also curbed erosion, stabilizing the area's steep slopes and gullies (an extreme form of soil degradation). It has reduced sediment concentration in local streams by 40%, leading to cleaner water and healthier soils. And the land is becoming greener — measurably so1 — indicating a healthier landscape. Native tree species such as misana, agam and girar are naturally regenerating.

A new water body that has emerged in Minzir 01. Photo by Mulatu Adane

For residents, the science and field data match their own experiences. All those surveyed noted improved water availability, rising water levels and extended stream durations.

"Even more encouraging," says Ambaye Ewnetu, who remembers many years ago when the wetland was stable and saw it thinning out over time, "is that people's attitudes have changed. We now understand the value of protecting our environment."

Locals Reap the Benefits

As the land mended and water availability improved, so did household opportunity and economic uplift. 

Agroforestry — a practice of planting trees alongside crops to improve soil fertility — has provided new fruit and market products, while plants grown for fodder are helping fatten livestock. When asked about income gains, all households surveyed reported an increase. Most (93%) reported higher crop production. Many were also able to start growing a second crop, shifting away from mono-cropping practices that endanger soils and household resilience.

With water more plentiful, homestead vegetable gardens have also flourished. This is important for combatting hunger and malnutrition in a region where approximately 46% of children under five are stunted and 20% of households face moderate to severe food insecurity.

A local woman harvests fodder to feed livestock. Photo by Mulatu Adane/WaterAid

As Yezina Alemneh, a young female farmer, explains: "I began growing wheat and vegetables in my backyard and fattening animals with the fodder. These changes have helped to improve my farm's production."

Her neighbor remarked: "I started growing crops twice a year. When I have extra, I sell it at the nearby market. That small income has helped support my family. We also use the stream water at home for cooking and washing. Some people have started using it for irrigation."

"It's made a big difference for me and others in the community," Molla, the village leader, adds.

Building Sustainable Landscapes: How It all Came Together

Ethiopia is no stranger to land restoration, yet this project stands apart.

What made this effort different was its focus on water outcomes and its integrated scope. For one, it did not treat watershed management solely as a conservation or agricultural endeavor. Instead, it was designed to directly support water security and water supply services, which in turn benefits domestic water, crop cultivation and the environment, as well as broader development goals.

Unlike earlier conservation programs in Ethiopia, which often sidelined the needs and realities of rural communities, the project placed local ownership and livelihood security at its core. The Minzir community jointly planned and implemented activities together with local government officials, who also collaborated in novel ways.

"Unlike the traditional approach, where watershed management was left primarily to the agriculture, environment and forestry offices, we in the Water and Energy Office participated from the beginning in project scoping, implementation, monitoring and evaluation," said Muluedil Asres from the North Mecha Water and Energy Office. "This cross-sectoral collaboration is, in my view, one of the project's most powerful strengths."

District officials also worked closely with the newly formed Watershed Management Committee, in time led by Molla. The committee brought together respected elders, women and others from local villages to ensure community buy-in and help mobilize households in the conservation activities, all on a voluntary basis. By the project's end, all 321 households in Minzir 01 were involved in its implementation and had received hands-on training.

The Minzir 01 Watershed Management Committee. Photo by Muluneh Bimrew/WRI

Alongside on-the-ground activities, the project worked to strengthen institutional decision-making and coordination on water at multiple scales, from basin-level planning to community-managed water systems. For example, the watershed committee joined forces with local Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Committees (WASHCOs) — "an innovative integration between two groups that had never worked together before," Muluedil explains. This helped align land-based restoration efforts with water-point management for a more holistic protection of water supplies and services. "These changes," continues Muluedil, "are now helping meet water needs, and they show that sustainable water source management is achievable."

WRI and partners, including the Millennium Water Alliance, also provided trainings and technical assistance targeting basin, region and woreda (district) authorities. Topics ranged from source water protection, to water allocation planning, to efficient irrigation and water safety planning (a risk assessment and management approach to ensure that water points remain safe and functioning). Trainings by WaterAid at the community level focused on sustainable land and water management practices, climate-smart agriculture and livelihood diversification — some tailor-made for youth and women-headed households.

Minzir 01 community members involved in project implementation. Project by Mulatu Adane/WaterAid

Endorsement across government agencies was and remains strong. Every interviewed official — representing the district's water, agriculture, environment, forestry, land and other offices — expressed solid support for the project's participatory approach and a desire to bring this integrated model to other watersheds in the district and region.

As Asfaw Melese from the Environment and Forest Office emphasized: "From the beginning, the intervention was designed and implemented through a truly participatory, integrated and coordinated approach. My office collaborated closely with other key offices in North Mecha, and most importantly, the local community. The project provided valuable training and experience-sharing opportunities, which significantly built technical capacity and led to improved planning and implementation of conservation measures. These gains represent a major step toward ensuring reliable and sustainable water access for the community."

Community members, too, expressed strong willingness to continue the conservation efforts, underscoring changing attitudes while pointing out the need for consistency. "Personally, I have taken it as my responsibility to maintain the structures on my own land and to encourage my neighbors to do the same," said one resident. "We have already seen the positive results of working together. If we continue, I believe the future will be even brighter for our community."

Lessons Learned

Lessons from Minzir 01 will inform the next project phase, and could offer helpful insights for other ecological restoration initiatives:

• Community leadership and local realities are foundations for long-term sustainability. Without strong local buy-in and livelihood considerations, conservation efforts are unlikely to endure.
• Agro-ecology matters. Local conditions always impact outcomes. Results must be seen in light of an area's agro-ecological circumstances, including climate conditions, soil profiles and topography.
• Water is a unifying thread. By linking landscape restoration to water access, interventions can deliver ecological, hydrological and socio-economic benefits, helping contribute to sustainable water services while improving the local context for water, sanitation and hygeine.
• Integration is powerful. Collaboration with local government and across the water, agriculture, environment, land administration and WASH sectors is essential to water security.
• Monitoring needs time to build evidence. Better data and consistent monitoring are critical to understanding trends and long-term impacts.

It is important to note that, while the results are positive overall, the findings and methodological limitations urge some caution. Rainfall variability dynamics could have influenced some outcomes, while survey and perception-based findings need prudence. However, the endline study did isolate rainfall dynamics, finding that a small increase during the project timeframe alone cannot explain the changes in streamflow and groundwater.

Looking Ahead: A Model for the Future

Minzir 01 has transformed from a degraded catchment into a landscape of recovery and hope.

Perhaps most importantly, the project has rekindled optimism. Community members see a future where their land provides environmental resilience and economic opportunity, while officials see a replicable example for other districts and regions and the larger river basin.

As Asfaw put it, "this is a model for how Ethiopia can secure its water future."

While sustaining these efforts and addressing long-term climate variability will require ongoing support, the lesson is clear: Healthy landscapes mean more water security. Investing in restoration delivers multi-dimensional benefits — not only more trees and carbon storage, but also reliable water, ample food and more resilient communities. Because when land heals, so do those who depend on it.

This article was written in collaboration with Mulatu Adane (WaterAid Ethiopia), Tamene Chaka (Millennium Water Alliance/MWA), and Bewuketu Abebe (Abbay Basin Administration Office/ABAO).

This work was made possible through a generous grant from the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation.

 

1 Using the Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI). An NDVI assessment involves using a remote sensing technique to measure and analyze vegetation health and density using satellite imagery.

minzir-01-community.jpg Freshwater Ethiopia Water Security Water Quality restoration Forest and Landscape Restoration Type Vignette Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Water Security
• Water for Sustainable Development in Ethiopia

Authors Francesca Battistelli Muluneh Bimrew Zablon Adane Tinebeb Yohannes

Expert Q&A: What Should the 2025 UN Climate Summit (COP30) Achieve? margaret.overh… Mon, 11/03/2025 - 15:03

While the impacts of climate change are becoming ever-clearer, so too are the benefits of action.

The shift toward technologies like renewable energy and electric vehicles is already cleaning the air and preventing deaths from pollution. Countries investing in greener development models are creating millions of new jobs in areas like power and manufacturing. Clean energy is lowering electricity costs and bringing power to those without.

Yet this transition is not happening nearly fast enough to prevent increasingly dangerous climate impacts, and progress remains uneven. As some countries forge ahead on low-carbon development, others are pulling back. Meanwhile, the cost of climate change continues to rise: Extreme weather caused over $300 billion in damages last year alone.

What we need now is a step change. The world must move from setting targets to delivering them. The upcoming UN climate summit (COP30) in Belém, Brazil is a prime opportunity to do so.

WRI experts have laid out four key areas where COP30 can put the world on track for a safer, more prosperous future:

1. Deliver robust national climate commitments, using detailed global and country plans to close the gap in climate action.
2. Transform the global financial system so that all forms of finance (public and private, domestic and international) support the transition to green, inclusive, resilient economies. Ensure that funds reach the countries and communities that need them most.
3. Step up climate resilience by recognizing that investing in adaptation means investing in growth, security and development; by delivering an ambitious new adaptation finance goal; and by setting clear, measurable indicators for tracking progress.
4. Protect nature, reform food systems and advance Indigenous land rights: three key elements for tackling the interconnected climate and nature crises together.

So, what must COP30 achieve in these areas and beyond to be considered a success? Here's what our experts are looking for:

Embrace Climate Action as an Economic StrategyAni Dasgupta, WRI President and CEO

About COP30

The 2025 UN climate summit (COP30) runs from Nov. 10-Nov. 21, 2025 in Belém, Brazil. To learn more about the key issues at stake and explore the latest news, research and events, visit WRI's Resource Hub

Right now, we face many headwinds for climate action and multilateralism. The U.S. has stepped back, and there are similar discussions of slowing down in parts of Europe. But that's not the whole story. Across the 50 countries WRI works in, what we see on the ground is that progress is happening.

All of the leaders I speak to from developing countries see this transition as their best economic opportunity, not as a burden. This is especially true in large middle-income countries. China and India are driving record renewable deployment, especially solar. Economic growth driven by clean energy is now even more of a motivator than climate. As COP host, Brazil is also showing how an economy rooted in forest protection, rather than destruction, can create over $8 billion in additional GDP and more than 300,000 new jobs in the Amazon region by 2050. For these countries, economic prosperity, energy security and decarbonization are essentially the same thing, driving the momentum we're seeing today.

There's a geopolitical realignment of climate leadership taking place. These middle-income countries played a key role in shaping the outcome [at COP29 in 2024] in Baku. With their large populations, substantial emissions and significant stores of biodiversity, they will continue to play an outsized role in determining the success of the global transition for people, nature and climate. We are watching closely to see what form their leadership will take at COP30.

Banners outside the UN climate talks in Bonn, Germany, that precede the annual COP climate conference. Photo by UNclimatechange/flickr Accelerate Action on National Climate Commitments, Finance and AdaptationMelanie Robinson, Global Climate, Economics and Finance Director, WRI

All countries are due to deliver new national climate plans (known as "nationally determined contributions," or "NDCs") this year. Sixty-five countries had formally submitted NDCs as of Oct. 27 — and the current plans fall far short of what's needed to meet the Paris Agreement's goals. Several major emitters are still expected to put forward NDCs ahead of or during COP30, which could help. But a substantial gap remains.

In Belém, leaders must agree on a decisive global response to address this shortfall. This includes: 1) reaffirming the 1.5 degree C goal and developing an "Ambition Framework" which sets out how to close the gap to achieve it; 2) accelerating sector-specific strategies to cut emissions from areas like energy and transport before 2030, reflecting the outcomes of the 2023 Global Stocktake on climate action; and 3) clarifying pathways to achieve countries' net-zero goals, particularly through updated long-term strategies.

On the finance front, leaders set a target last year to mobilize $1.3 trillion annually from all international sources for developing countries' climate action by 2035. The forthcoming Baku-to-Belém Roadmap will lay out pragmatic strategies to achieve this goal, showing how countries can get all sources working together as a system to deliver finance for the transition at scale. At COP30, countries must demonstrate how they will turn this plan into action. One promising development to look for is the unveiling of "country platforms": various country-led approaches that aim to align all sources of finance behind countries' climate and development plans, policy reforms and investment pipelines.

As for climate resilience, the 2021 "Glasgow pledge" to double adaptation finance expires this year, and countries must decide on a new goal at COP30. Some developing countries are calling for a needs-based target while others are calling to triple adaptation finance by 2030. Our own forthcoming analysis shows that a tripling is achievable by 2035, but it would take increases across all sources (including multilateral development banks' funds for the poorest, bilateral funds, new sources of concessional finance, and more private finance being mobilized), and finance working better as a system. 

COP30 also offers an opportunity to adopt a set of progress indicators under the Global Goal on Adaptation. This will create a common language to track resilience-building efforts and the support needed. Done right, this can help put resilience at the heart of countries', communities' and corporates' core economic, development and business planning.

Construction of a solar power plant in China. At this year's climate conference, it's critical that countries deliver concrete plans to put their national climate commitments into action. Photo by Xiangli Li/Shutterstock Strengthen Pledges that Align Action on Climate and NatureMariana Oliveira, Director of Forests and Land Use, WRI Brasil

We won't meet our climate goals — not on mitigation, not on adaptation — if forests and ecosystems aren't part of the plan. The science is clear that protecting and restoring nature and transforming food systems are powerful tools to cut emissions, build resilience and reduce climate impacts. The challenge? Mobilizing the resources to scale these solutions.

One initiative to watch at COP30 is the Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) that will be launched by the Brazilian government. This bold proposal offers predictable, performance-based payments to countries that keep their forests standing, moving away from dependence on philanthropy. Brazil has already pledged $1 billion to the fund, and other countries, such as the U.K., Colombia, Norway and Indonesia, have expressed their support for it. But for the TFFF to work, it needs at least $25 billion to be announced during COP. Whether developed countries will step up is a key question.

Countries should also deliver a strong package to bolster Indigenous Peoples' and local communities' land tenure rights and increase funding to them. While these communities are some of the world's most effective forest stewards, their territories are under constant and increasing threats, and many lack legal rights to the lands they manage. COP30 can help by delivering an improved Forest Tenure Pledge 2.0 and ensuring that Indigenous Peoples and local communities receive at least 20% of funding from the TFFF.

Equally essential is unlocking investments in sustainable agriculture and land restoration. One development to watch is the launch of the RAIZ (Resilient Agriculture Investment for Net-Zero Land Degradation) initiative. This proposes innovative financial mechanisms to fund the restoration of up to 250 million hectares of degraded land by 2050 — while at the same time increasing global food production.

Alongside RAIZ, complementary initiatives already underway in Brazil (such as the National Productive Forests Program and the Action Plan for Deforestation Prevention and Control in the Amazon) underscore the country's emerging leadership in integrating action on climate, nature and food systems. Advancing this cohesive agenda more broadly can help ensure that COP30 delivers not only on climate ambition, but also on resilience, equity and shared prosperity.

A restoration initiative led by the organization BIOCOOR in Rwanda. Solutions like restoring degraded land and shifting to more sustainable farming practices can deliver wins for people, nature and the climate together. Photo by Serrah Galos/WRI Under Brazil's Leadership, Make This the 'COP of Implementation'Karen Silverwood-Cope, Climate Director, WRI Brasil

In its role as COP president, Brazil is bringing a clear and ambitious vision to COP30: to make Belém the "COP of Implementation." The Presidency's central challenge is to turn promises into real-world action — bridging divides between developed and developing countries, ambition and equity, mitigation and adaptation. The Brazilian Presidency has outlined three priorities that began to be articulated and implemented in 2024 and will culminate in Brazil's COP Presidency by the end of 2026.

First, Brazil has been working to align climate and economic priorities over the last year through convenings like the G20 and BRICS [Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa] summit, putting finance at the heart of international climate talks. Brazil also launched the COP30 Circle of Finance Ministers, bringing together representatives from 37 countries who developed concrete recommendations on concessional finance, multilateral bank reform, country investment platforms and regulatory frameworks to unlock capital flows. This work provided key input to the Baku-to-Belém Roadmap and was an important step toward better integrating finance ministers, who are key to scaling up climate finance, into international climate talks.

Second, Brazil is redefining regional leadership, rooted in cooperation between emerging economies. For example, the Rio Declaration at the recent BRICS summit signaled a readiness among emerging economies to lead a resilient, low-carbon transition — from green bonds and tropical forest protection to new trade and carbon accounting initiatives.

Finally, Brazil's presidency is working to weave together the broader web of actors that drive progress outside of formal COP negotiations. It aims to deliver an "Action Agenda" that can better align all actors behind various climate commitments and processes (like the Global Stocktake, NDCs and long-term strategies), promoting transparency and accountability in climate action.

Other key deliverables to watch for at COP30 under Brazil's leadership include progress on the Just Transition Work Programme and the Gender Action Plan and the development of indicators for the Global Goal on Adaptation.

Follow Along

WRI experts are tracking these issues closely in the lead-up to COP and will be on the ground in Belém during the summit. To learn more about the issues at stake, explore related articles and research, and stay abreast of the outcomes, visit WRI's COP30 resource hub.

amazon-rainforest-belem-brazil.jpg Climate COP30 climate change National Climate Action International Climate Action NDC climate finance adaptation Forests Food biodiversity Type Expert Take Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Maggie Overholt

CityMetrics Dashboard Helps Cities Understand and Reduce Climate Risks sarah.brown@wri.org Fri, 10/31/2025 - 09:48

The new CityMetrics site from WRI Ross Center for Sustainable Cities offers an interactive dashboard where users can explore key urban indicators and geospatial datasets from more than 60 cities that WRI works with. It includes cities participating in the Deep Dive Cities Initiative, Cities4Forests and UrbanShift.  

The dashboard is organized around seven key themes related to sustainability and resilience — flooding, heat, air quality, accessibility, land protection, biodiversity and climate change mitigation. It provides datasets and maps that let users analyze metrics within each city over a selected period and compare information across multiple cities.

The seven themes include different indicators such as:

Flooding: Exposure to coastal and river overflow, presence of built-up land near natural drainage, and the expected number of days of extreme rainfall.

Heat: Projected high temperatures and number of heat waves, presence of built-up land without tree cover and areas with low surface reflectivity.

Air Quality: Exposure to PM2.5, or fine particle, pollution.

Accessibility: Proximity to essential goods and services such as health care and public transportation, and the amount of green or recreational space per capita.

Land Protection: Protected areas, restored habitats, permeable areas and the presence of tree cover.

Biodiversity: Presence of species in natural and built-up areas, and habitat connectivity.

Climate Change Mitigation: Greenhouse gas emissions and potential mitigation measures.

Creating a broad and detailed view of urban risks can not only accelerate effective action but also encourage cities to learn from one another and track progress on key resilience priorities. By gathering, analyzing and presenting open data on cities worldwide, CityMetrics aims to empower city leaders and other decision-makers to better understand local challenges and prioritize actions. Through the dashboard, they can also identify opportunities for potential management and mitigation efforts based on a city's risk profile.

The CityMetrics dashboard stems from the technical expertise of WRI Ross Center’s Urban Analytics and Data Innovation team and core project partners. It builds on the Cities Indicators Dashboard, an earlier version of the tool created to support cities involved in the UrbanShift and the Cities4Forests programs. Because of its success and value to users, WRI’s Urban Analytics and Data Innovation team refreshed and expanded the tool, adding more cities and indicators for decision-makers to explore and analyze. With the CityMetrics dashboard, users can explore interactive views of data within the site and download background data for a deeper analysis. 

It helps city leaders and decision-makers answer questions such as:

Which risks impact my city the most?

From extreme temperature exposure to accessibility of green spaces, users can identify which risks affect their cities the most.

For example, in Delhi, India, air quality and flooding pose the greatest risks, with the city ranking among the those with the highest risk scores for these two themes in CityMetrics. High levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) pollution contribute to air quality challenges, while intense rainfall combined with development in low-lying, flood prone areas make the city particularly vulnerable to flooding.  

Which areas within the city are most at risk?

Users can explore which areas of a city face different levels of risk across the dashboard’s seven metrics.

For example, in Freetown, Sierra Leone, wards (the city’s neighborhoods) 402, 403, 430 and 422 have the most built-up land near natural drainage of all wards in the city, making them particularly vulnerable to flooding. The first three wards (402, 403 and 403) contain large areas of irregular settlements, while the last one (422) is mostly covered by a coastal port.  

How are specific populations impacted by certain risks?

Through the dashboard, users can see which segments of the population face risks across the seven themes.  

For example, the accessibility metric in Mexico City, Mexico, shows that children have less access to open spaces than the entire population. About 53.2% of children have access to an open space within a 400-meter walking distance, compared to 55.4% of the total population and 58.7% of the elderly.  

How have the risks in a city changed over time?

Users can explore historical trends to see how risks in a city have changed over a selected period.

In Jakarta, Indonesia, the amount of land that can naturally absorb rainwater has dropped significantly over the past 30 years. In 1989, nearly half (49%) of the city’s land could absorb water, but by 2018 that figure had fallen to just 8%.

To access the full dashboard and explore and compare indicators across cities, visit CityMetrics.wri.org. To learn more about the dashboard and why open data is essential for driving urban innovation and resilience, read the blog on CityMetrics at TheCityFix.org.

 

istock-1456244538.jpg Cities climate change climate impacts data data visualization Climate Resilience Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Eric Mackres Eillie Anzilotti Saif Shabou Ted Wong

Reducing Food Loss and Waste Could Feed More Than 7 Million Kenyans Every Year alicia.cypress… Fri, 10/31/2025 - 09:30

Africa is the only region where hunger is on the rise. Today, more than 300 million people — one in four Africans — are hungry and if current trends persist, the continent will account for over 60% of the world’s hungry by 2030.

In Kenya, at least a quarter of the population faces severe food insecurity, even as up to 40% of the food produced (worth an estimated $578 million) is lost or wasted each year. This not only squanders scarce resources such as land, water, labor and energy but also fuels climate change, contributing to 21% of the country’s greenhouse gas emissions.

While often discussed together, food loss and food waste are distinct: food loss occurs earlier in the supply chain — on farms or during handling, storage and transport — whereas food waste occurs later, at retail, in restaurants and in households.

A recent WRI report focused on Kenya’s key food value chains (maize, potato, fresh fruits and fish), has found that if Kenya achieves a 50% reduction in food loss and waste by 2030, it could: 

• Feed more than 7 million people annually with food that would otherwise be lost.
• Inject 36 billion Kenyan shillings ($279 million) back into the economy, boosting small farms and small business incomes. 

• Eliminate more than 7 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions significantly advancing Kenya’s climate goals and reducing pressure on biodiversity.

   

Despite Kenya’s commitment to reducing food loss and waste, WRI research found that progress has been slow due to limited data, weak coordination and insufficient financing for scalable solutions.

How Much and Where Do Losses and Waste Occur in Kenya?

Food loss and waste happen in all value chains, but we focused on specific foods for their importance as staples to the Kenyan diet (maize, potato, banana), nutrient-rich sources (fruits and fish) and commercially significant commodities (mango and avocado).

Due to long, complex supply chains and limited tracking data, it is challenging to ascertain exact figures for food loss. However, reported estimates indicate losses and waste ranging from 20% to 36% for maize, 19% to 22% for potato, 17% to 56% for mango, 15% to 35% for avocado, 7% to 11% for banana and 15% to 34% for fish.

While food loss and waste occur at all stages, critical points differ by commodity: Harvesting, retail and wholesale for potato, fruit and fish; drying and storage for maize; and processing for fish. The primary causes are inefficient harvesting, rough handling during packaging and transportation, limited storage and outdated processing methods for fish.

Innovations Can Reduce Food Loss and Waste

One of the most effective strategies Kenya can adopt to reduce food loss and waste is scaling up the use of proven technologies and innovations across the entire food value chain. These include improved harvesting tools, appropriate fishing gear, drying technologies, insecticides, fruit fly traps, better storage facilities (e.g., hermetic bags, silos, light-diffused rooms), cold chains and decentralized processing for perishables. Process innovations also improve supply-chain efficiency by connecting farmers to reliable markets through aggregation, contract farming and traceability systems, which track foods from farm to table.

However, the adoption of new technologies depends on proper training for farmers and value chain actors. Traditional methods — such as long-used harvesting practices — are deeply ingrained, making farmers hesitant to change. Some technologies, such as hermetic grain storage bags, can significantly reduce losses but remain less affordable than widely used polypropylene bags.

Cold chain systems, while effective, are often ill-suited to small farmers. Process innovations, such as contract farming and warehouse receipt systems, also face low acceptance due to mistrust stemming from side-selling, past negative experiences, and weak enforcement. Similarly, small farm processing initiatives, though promising, struggle with high marketing costs and limited reach, making it hard to sustain operations at a commercial scale.

Moving from Commitments to Action

Despite Kenya’s commitment to reduce food loss and waste, as the country has signed on to multiple national and global sustainability targets, the country lacks a robust mechanism for monitoring it, which hinders efforts to understand its scale, underlying causes and effective solutions. This gap presents a major bottleneck in identifying priorities and implementing targeted interventions.

Here are three key strategies that can help Kenya and other African countries reduce food loss and waste:

1) Strengthen Measurement of Food Loss and Waste Magnitudes, Hotspots and Causes

Like many countries, Kenya lacks disaggregated data on where losses happen and why. What gets measured gets managed. Without accurate data, it is challenging to establish national targets, implement effective interventions and measure progress. Developing a standardized system for tracking food loss and waste across the value chains is critical. This includes investing in data collection tools, training stakeholders, and integrating food loss and waste metrics into national agricultural and food systems reporting. WRI and the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations are designing practical tools to measure and report food loss and waste in ways that reflect on-the-ground realities — small, scattered farms, seasonal harvests and complex supply chains. For Kenya and other African countries, these tools could be game changers in the fight against hunger, food loss and food waste.

2) Scaling Investment in Proven Food Loss and Waste Solutions and Practices

WRI’s research demonstrates that many proven technologies and practices exist to reduce food loss and waste in the selected value chains. However, without greater awareness and sufficient financing, most of these solutions remain small-scale and underused. Building capacity in areas such as pre-harvest checks, harvesting methods, drying, storage, hygiene, transport and aggregation is critical, and successful models — like maize cob-and-grain business hubs — should be scaled up.

Lessons from export value chains, including contract farming, farmer aggregation and cold storage, can also be adapted for domestic markets. At the consumer level, public education campaigns, school programs and retailer partnerships can help shift habits. Encouraging portion control, proper food storage and redistributing surplus food are practical steps to cut waste at the household and retail levels.

The World Bank estimates it will take $30 billion to $50 billion to halve food loss and waste by 2030, yet by 2020, only $1.1 billion had been invested. Closing this gap demands bold public–private partnerships and sustained financing — from seed to long-term capital — to deliver farm-to-fork reductions, save resources and cut emissions. At the same time, food loss and waste solutions, such as cold chains, reliable energy and improved handling, must be tested for real-world fit, affordability and trade-offs to ensure they are effective in local contexts.

3) Advance Policy and Coordination

Kenya needs holistic food strategies that move beyond sectoral approaches to systemic solutions, with food loss and waste at the center. Policy shifts must be evidence-based — grounded in accurate measurement of FLW across supply chains, an understanding of local drivers, and clear cost–benefit analysis of interventions, including potential trade-offs. Supportive policies for food donation and redistribution are also critical. To deliver impact, Kenya should strengthen implementation of its National Strategy on Postharvest Loss and Waste by operationalizing a national food loss and waste committee with clear mandates, county-level links and a dedicated budget, while also mainstreaming food loss and waste into its nationally determined commitments and sector plans as a lever for food security and climate action.

kenya-market-food-loss-waste.jpg Food Kenya Food Loss and Waste food security greenhouse gases biodiversity Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Fighting Food Loss and Waste

Authors Robert Mbeche James Wangu Susan Chomba

Modernizing Ports Is a Major Untapped Opportunity for a Healthier Planet alicia.cypress… Thu, 10/30/2025 - 15:03

If global shipping were a country, it would rank among the world’s top six emitters of climate-harming greenhouse gases (GHGs). Eighty percent of international trade — fundamental to the global economy and the goods we use in our everyday lives — travels by sea from port to port, generating 3% of global GHG emissions. Reducing these emissions is critically urgent to protecting our climate, oceans, economy and human health.

Countries have already focused significant attention on trying to decarbonize vessels and develop new fuels. Most recently, after 10 years of development and negotiations, the world was poised to pass a new framework from the International Maritime Organization that would have created a market-based system designed to promote vessel decarbonization.

Ships exceeding carbon-intensity targets would be required to pay penalties, while ships outperforming the targets would be rewarded and able to sell credits. The system would have raised revenue for an international fund that would help spur a transition to lower-emissions fuels.

But just as this paradigm-shifting program was set to be adopted, the U.S. and a small number of other countries abruptly withdrew their support, delaying the plan’s potential adoption for at least another year.

Port Vell, part of the Port of Barcelona, in Spain. Decarbonizing ports in cities around the world can play a significant role in addressing climate, ocean and human health. Photo by bearfotos/Shutterstock.

With progress on the water facing a fresh reckoning that calls for new collective efforts, now is the time to bolster efforts on the shore, where ports are largely an untapped resource in the fight against climate change.

Ports are a major polluter, generating harmful emissions and seldom prioritized for trailblazing climate action despite their importance to the ocean and global shipping. Of the world’s 50 largest ports, 42 are located around cities, where they generate jobs that support local and national economies and trade connections across the globe.

With the global move to address vessel-based emissions at a crossroad, there’s momentum and opportunity for ports and their home cities to play a more significant role in addressing climate change and economic development while safeguarding ocean and human health.

Early Movers Help Define Successful Decarbonization

Some countries and ports are already starting to pave the way toward full port decarbonization. These early actions present a wealth of experience that can facilitate broader progress on what works, what doesn’t, and what regulatory, financial and political conditions are required to succeed.

In 2024, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency launched a $3 billion Clean Ports Program, awarding 54 grants to fund clean port equipment and infrastructure as well as climate and air quality planning at ports located in 27 states and territories, where the work to decarbonize is still ongoing.

Earlier this year, government representatives of Brazil and Ocean Panel member, Norway signed a memorandum of understanding to promote sustainable maritime transport, including port decarbonization. This agreement looks to initiate low-carbon supply chains to create a green maritime corridor between the two countries.

The Port of Barcelona is already installing shore power for both container ships and passenger ferries, drawing on 100% renewable electricity. The port is also investing in electric straddle carriers for moving containers as part of its broader efforts to halve carbon emissions by 2030 (relative to 2017). Meanwhile, the Port of Trelleborg in Sweden is aiming for net-zero emissions by 2040 and exploring green fuel options. It is also establishing “green corridors,” which aim to create low-emission transportation routes with partner ports.

Cars line up to board a ferry in the Port of Trelleborg in Sweden. The port is aiming for net-zero emissions by 2040. Photo by Olrat/iStock. 

In China, the Port of Shanghai has developed a workplan to boost the transition toward alternative maritime fuels. This will increase the supply of liquefied natural gas, methanol and ammonia for vessel refueling (known as bunkering). A maritime decarbonization center is planned to help coordinate efforts in the transition toward alternative fuels.

In the Netherlands, major trading hubs like Rotterdam have set out a clear goal to become the green shipping hub of Europe. They, and many smaller ports including Walvis Bay in Namibia, have begun to pilot the production of green hydrogen.

4 Key Benefits of Decarbonizing Ports

Port decarbonization can provide a quadruple win, providing effective options for climate change mitigation, economic opportunity, improved human health and ocean ecosystem benefits:

1) A Powerful Force Against Climate Change

The decarbonization of shipping and ports is one of the most actionable and achievable opportunities to support the development of a sustainable ocean economy today while mitigating the impacts of climate change. Research indicates that action across seven ocean economy sectors can provide over 35% of the emissions reductions required by 2050 to limit temperature rise to 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit). Of these sectors, decarbonizing shipping and ports can mitigate 2 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year in emissions reductions by 2050 — that’s equivalent to more than 3% of global greenhouse gas emissions, or taking around 430 million gas-fueled cars off the road every year.

2) More Economic and Job Opportunities 

Decarbonizing ports can generate new economic opportunities, greater security in the energy and food sectors, and enhance stable global trade connectivity and partnerships.  According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the ocean economy has doubled since 1995, growing at an average rate of 2.8% per year globally. The same research also concludes that a sustainable global ocean economy will continue to grow — tripling in production by 2050, relative to 2020. Considering employment as a metric, the decarbonization of ports and shipping could support 13.3 million additional jobs in 2050 — including shipbuilding, renewable and alternative fuel production, vessel and port facility retrofitting, shipbreaking, electrical work and more — relative to a business-as-usual scenario.   

3) Better Health Outcomes for Communities

There are clear benefits to human health from port decarbonization. Vessels currently running on heavy fuel oil emit toxic air pollution that includes particulate matter, black carbon, nitrous oxides, sulfur dioxide and carbon monoxide. Decarbonizing vessels, when scaled to ports globally, could help to avoid as many as 265,000 premature deaths globally each year. Air quality improvements will benefit not only port workers, but also those communities living in proximity to ports, many of which are disadvantaged relative to other city neighborhoods. This would particularly benefit children, who breathe in more volume of air relative to their body weight and are in critical development stages, which make them especially vulnerable to air pollution.

4) Healthier Ocean Ecosystems

Ocean health would benefit from port decarbonization through a likely reduction in the frequency and size of oil and diesel spills. Decarbonization would also counter the localized ocean acidification that is associated with emissions of nitrous oxides and sulfur dioxide from fossil fuels. Alongside broader coastal habitat restoration activities, it’s possible that we could start to see nature returning to ports. 

Smaller ports in cities around the world, like Walvis Bay, Namibia, have begun to pilot the production of green hydrogen as an alternative to climate-harming fossil fuels. Photo by Pavel Mora/iStock.  Seizing the Opportunity

Achieving the full potential of decarbonized ports will require robust planning and implementation while aligning with business interests. Specifically, port planning needs to be paired with climate action plans and integrate terminal operators, logistics companies and local residents. As shipping is already a natural global connector, communication and coordination between cities and other ports will ensure that successes can scale widely.

Cities Are Key to Port Decarbonization

As seen from some of the early mover examples, high-level intergovernmental efforts to drive sector decarbonization requires city-level leadership for implementation. Cities are hubs of economic activity, and their administrations have influence over the businesses and developments within their limits.

To date, city leaders have played a key role as enablers and advocates for the rapid development of climate resilience. Decarbonizing ports provides further opportunities to promote sustainable growth and investment while mitigating climate change and boosting energy security and trade connectivity.

Private Sector Involvement is Crucial

The private sector has begun to set corporate targets and invest in low-carbon fuel and vessel innovations. In turn, ports are also starting to take action, identifying opportunities and challenges and developing plans for electrification.

Coordinating activities between the private sector and ports is challenging, however, because of a number of cross cutting areas that affect decision making both for shipping and cruise operators and ports. Chief among these is uncertainty generated by competing fuel technologies.

Putting One Decarbonized Step in Front of the Other

To make progress on decarbonization there are critical needs, including:

• Analysis on the economic case for action based on the current and projected future state of progress in vessel decarbonization and fuel choices.
• Analysis of the benefits and challenges associated with various alternative fuel options, including electrification, biofuel strategies that minimize suboptimal land use, ammonia, methanol and hydrogen, for land-side and water-side equipment and vessels.
• A roadmap for fuel development and cost/benefit analysis for the conversion of systems.
• Guidance and detailed case studies from ports that have started the transition exploring what has worked and why.

However, decarbonization efforts could start immediately with the electrification of port ground vehicles like terminal tractors, cranes, straddle carriers, heavy forklifts and heavy goods vehicles that serve as cargo handling equipment. These vehicles are under continuous intensive use in ports and typically powered by older diesel internal combustion engines. They consume about 15% of total port energy yet are responsible for up to 30% of particulate emissions. Switching to electric power will result in significant improvements of local air quality alongside reduced noise pollution.

Additionally, the electrification of short-trip port harbor vessels including tugs, pilot boats, mooring tenders and maintenance craft could lead to port greenhouse gas emissions reductions by as much as 25%. The electrification of domestic passenger ferry routes is becoming increasingly common as a method to increase operational efficiency and reduce port-based greenhouse gas emissions, with Norway in particular leading the charge.

A further step is for large vessels like cruise ships and cargo ships utilizing ports, such as container ships, to use electricity supplied through shore power (also known as ‘cold ironing’) when docked to significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and immediately improve air quality by limiting the need for running diesel generators. Analysis suggests carbon emissions associated with docked ships could be reduced by 30% to 60% depending on the source of the shore power.

Emerging opportunities are also offering some solutions but will require more studies and testing. These include decarbonizing the main propulsion systems of ships through hybridization and/or use of alternative fuels like methanol and ammonia, which can lead to a significant reduction of carbon emissions. Further reductions can also take place if coupled with technical measures such as  air lubrication, sail assistance, efficient propellor designs, and operational measures like slow steaming, frequent hull de-fouling, and route optimization that consider prevailing weather conditions.

To support landside electrification of ports, the installation of increased port renewable energy generation capacity and battery storage capacity (through microgrids) will be crucial. Wind, solar and tidal generation show particular promise at ports, and can further enhance the resilience of operations to main grid disruptions and energy price fluctuations.

Countries like Norway have begun using hybrid ferries to reduce emissions. The Scandline Hybrid Ferry uses its Flettner rotor with wind power to save on fuel. Photo by Photofex-AT/iStock. Accelerating Port Decarbonization

As noted, cities have a key role to play in advancing port decarbonization as a method to reduce their overall emissions. Specific steps include: 

1. Naming port decarbonization as key to carbon neutrality. Many cities have announced reduced or net-zero emissions goals to combat climate change. Ports can be elevated as a priority to address significant emissions while improving public health.
2. Setting ambitious mid- and long-term targets for emissions reductions at the city-level would create momentum and accountability regardless of stalled national or international progress.
3. Translating clean technology deployments in other sectors to ports including leveraging lessons and infrastructure from land transport electrification. The rapidly growing electric vehicle segment offers innovative approaches in shipping and goods movement.
4. Promoting exchanges between cities and ports to create transparency around data, progress, and technical learnings while launching breakthrough collaborations like new green shipping corridors between cities and ports or aligning on a common clean fuel source.

This type of approach that leverages ambitious climate goals with cross-sector and global collaboration has been effective in signaling change in other industries. For example, the Ocean Panel set targets and common goals between diverse nations to protect the ocean. Electric transit buses and school buses gained momentum using a systems-wide approach that engaged fleets, communities, energy providers, manufacturers and policymakers.

Now, more than ever, ambitious climate action is necessary across the transportation sector and beyond. Ports present an opportunity to not only bolster climate action but also provide clear wins for human and ocean health while supporting global and local economies and sustainable growth.

At a time when geopolitical shifts and a changing global economic outlook are stalling national climate ambitions and commitments, putting sustainable development at risk, decarbonizing ports offers a scalable and actionable opportunity to tackle climate change, address health risks and promote sustainable development.

valparaiso-port.jpg Ocean Cities climate change Air Quality Electric Mobility health GHG emissions Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• High Level Panel for a Sustainable Ocean Economy
• Electric Mobility

Authors Jonathan Baines Oliver Ashford Sue Gander Stephanie Ly Micheline Khan Katie Wood

What Is the Paris Agreement’s Article 2.1(c) on Climate Finance, and Why Does it Matter? Key Questions, Answered christian.made… Thu, 10/30/2025 - 14:00

Recent studies indicate that the world will need $10 trillion annually between 2030 and 2050 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change. That’s a lot — but the world has the money.

As the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) explains, “there is sufficient global capital to close the global investment gaps … but there are barriers to redirecting capital to climate action.” The challenge, then, is not necessarily raising additional finance for climate change mitigation and adaptation, but how to align all of the world’s capital toward climate action.

Article 2.1(c) of the international Paris Agreement on climate change aims to do just that by “making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and climate-resilient development.” However, the language of Article 2.1(c) is vague on what exactly it entails. Ten years after virtually all countries adopted the Paris Agreement, they’re still at odds over the scope of Article 2.1(c) and how it should be implemented.

Here, we explain what Article 2.1(c) is, how it interacts with other finance mandates, and what’s needed to put it into action.

What Does Article 2.1(c) Do? 

The heart of the Paris Agreement on climate change is Article 2, which sets the objectives of the agreement. Article 2.1(a) urges a global response to hold the increase in global average temperature to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) to reduce the risks and impacts of climate change. Article 2.1(b) outlines the need to adapt to adverse impacts of climate change, build resilience and pursue low-greenhouse gas development. Article 2.1(c) points out that we need to make finance flows consistent with these objectives if we’re ever going to attain them. Finally, Article 2.2 outlines the context these articles should be pursued under, including the principles of equity, common-but-differentiated responsibility, and respective capabilities and national circumstances.

2.1(c) is a holistic goal. That means it covers both mitigation and adaptation, potentially encompassing domestic and international finance flows. It requires not just scaling up the good finance — for example, climate resilience bonds and financing for new renewable energy projects — but also scaling down funding to carbon-intensive activities, like new coal plants or diesel truck fleets. And it doesn’t stop with government spending. Depending on how it’s interpreted, it could also encompass the private sector, including financial institutions, businesses, corporations and investors.

In short, financial systems broadly must align with the pursuit of sustainable development and international climate goals. This means that all types of investments and financing activities — all investors and actors in the real economy, stock as well as flows — should be “consistent” with achieving the world’s climate goals.

2.1(c) will require economic and financial reform. The tools (e.g., policies and economic and financial instruments) for getting there will be many and varied. Innovative policies and financial instruments will surely play a role, such as green procurement (where companies and governments would be required to decarbonize supply chains) and climate-related bonds to integrate climate priorities into economic development plans.

And in order to ensure equity, alignment of financial flows will have to be customized to each country’s economic, financial and social contexts. This especially includes developing countries’ pursuit of sustainable development, poverty eradication and a just transition.

What Progress Has Been Made Toward Achieving Article 2.1(c)? 

Though a common understanding of 2.1(c) has yet to be agreed upon by Paris Agreement signatories, efforts inside and outside the UN’s Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) are providing glimpses of what alignment could look like.

Efforts Within UNFCCC

Article 2.1(c) has been surfaced in several different forums within the UNFCCC over the past several years. These include the UN’s Global Stocktake, which concluded at the 2023 UN climate summit (COP28) and assessed progress towards the goals of the Paris Agreement, including Article 2.1(c), for the first time. In its key findings, it recognized that financial flows include “international and domestic, public and private.”

In 2022 at COP27, negotiators established the Sharm el-Sheikh (SeS) dialogue on Article 2.1(c). This brought together countries, organizations and other stakeholders to exchange views and deepen the understanding of Article 2.1(c) of the Paris Agreement and its complementarity with Article 9.

Between 2023 and 2025, six SeS dialogues were held, covering key topics including defining the scope of Article 2.1(c), identifying intended and unintended consequences of climate finance, methodologies for tracking financial flows, capacity building for the financial sector and more.

The Standing Committee on Finance (SCF), established during COP16, has two tasks related to Article 2.1(c): mapping information that contributes to the implementation of Article 2.1(c) and preparing a synthesis report (published in November 2023) analyzing how to operationalize it. The SCF provided a first report at COP27 and an updated report at COP28 for countries’ consideration.

Efforts Outside UNFCCC

Stakeholders like investors and corporations have developed frameworks to identify progress in aligning financing per Article 2.1(c). For example, WRI developed a framework and identified tools governments already have at their disposal to shift and mobilize finance. Tools are available in four categories: financial policies and regulations, fiscal policy levers, public finance and information instruments.

Investors, corporations and financial institutions have also shown some progress on Article 2.1(c) alignment.

Paying for the Paris Agreement Resource Hub

WRI's Paying for Paris resource hub highlights different tools to make progress toward 2.1(c). This platform includes multimedia modules on 16 tools for aligning and increasing public and private finance for climate goals, including public-private partnerships, green procurement standards, mandatory climate risk disclosure and more.

Some are mainstreaming climate risk in their operations by applying risk management approaches, including disclosure frameworks to assess physical (e.g., fires and floods) and transitional (e.g., regulatory and technologies) risks. The theory of change is that disclosing information on climate-related risks may lead to investors deciding to shift their investments, contributing to alignment. To this end, corporations are applying the Task Force on Climate-Related Financial Disclosures  frameworks to their own risk disclosures. Even some central banks have incorporated climate-related risks into their operations.

Additionally, investors with the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero  have developed guidelines for financial institutions to align their business and operations with the goal of achieving net-zero emissions. Financial institutions including asset owners and managers, commercial banks and insurers have made commitments to back sustainable finance and phase out coal. Multilateral development banks have also rolled out principles and a joint methodology to align their operations — including both direct investment and policy-based lending — to the goals of the Paris Agreement.

What Challenges Remain to Operationalize Article 2.1(c)?

Despite incremental progress, understanding the place of Article 2.1(c) in the overall climate negotiations, defining key terms like “financial flows” and “consistent,” and addressing concerns about countries’ sovereignty all pose challenges for the international finance community to move forward.

Defining ‘Consistency of Financial Flows’

One of the key challenges to operationalizing Article 2.1(c) is that countries are using different terms and concepts to interpret the word “consistency.” These include directing, orienting, aligning, shifting, steering, scaling up, scaling down and more. Some countries argue that “consistency of financial flows” is about directing finance to green, sustainable and/or climate-related activities, regardless of the financial instruments through which such flows are channeled. The IPCC has defined it more broadly as looking at all investments, whether or not they contribute to climate objectives, including those investments that play a transition role.

However, “consistency” will require some conversation about what not to do, as well. At the very least, countries need to come to a common understanding on how to scale down misaligned investments (like financing fossil fuels) and the impact this may have on countries’ domestic policies and national development.

Concerns About Unintended Consequences

Countries have different development pathways, needs and priorities. Policies and instruments to align their financial flows will need to account for this diversity. However, because 2.1(c) is a global effort, questions will arise about standards for action and whether similar policies and regulations need to be applied in all countries. For example, if one developing country does not reform a specific set of policies, will it no longer be eligible to access climate finance? Will there be trade restrictions imposed on specific products?

The Relationship of Article 2.1(c) to Other Global Finance Goals

Article 2.1(c) is just one goal within the Paris Agreement for addressing climate change. To effectively operationalize it, it must be considered within the context of the whole agreement — especially its other finance goals.

COP30 Resource Hub

WRI’s experts are closely following the UN climate talks. Watch our Resource Hub for new articles, research, webinars and more.

For example, negotiators and other stakeholders like research organizations and academic institutions are examining the complementarity of Article 2.1(c) and the new collective quantified goal (NCQG). Agreed to at COP29 in Baku, the NCQG is a new finance objective that goes beyond developed nations’ goal of providing a collective $100 billion in climate finance annually. However, while Article 2.1(c) refers to all financial flows for countries that signed the Paris Agreement, the NCQG is specific to finance that supports developing countries.

Importantly, the mandate to adopt the NCQG states that the new goal must consider developing countries’ needs and priorities. Developing countries have reiterated their concern that Article 2.1(c) discussions could draw the NCQG conversations away from this focus and toward domestic policy and finance flow shifts, or lead to conditionalities or barriers to access financial support.

Through the adoption of the NCQG, negotiators reaffirmed its purpose of accelerating progress toward the achievement of Article 2 of the Paris Agreement. But questions remain over how exactly this contribution will be measured and counted toward the NCQG.

What to Watch at Future COPs

Article 2.1(c) was addressed on several fronts at previous COPs, including as part of the Global Stocktake, in reports prepared by the SCF and in outcomes of the Sharm el-Sheikh dialogue.

At COP28, developed countries suggested an agenda item focused on Article 2.1 (c), as well as a dedicated work program within the UNFCCC. Developing countries, however, expressed skepticism about this approach, on the basis that a focus on 2.1(c) could “lead to developed countries shying away from their commitments and obligations” to provide financial support to vulnerable nations. This concern was also expressed the year before at COP27.

There will be no way to meet global climate goals if countries can’t agree on how to steer finance toward a low-carbon, climate-resilient world. Investment is both the fuel and the steering wheel for arriving where we need to go. Article 2.1(c) will be complicated to operationalize, but in its very ambition, it provides a vision for the road forward.

At COP30 in 2025, it will be essential to establish both a mandate to develop the Article 2.1(c) framework as well as a roadmap for its development. Such a framework could be used as guidance for countries, covering key elements such as transparency, quality, enablers and disablers, as well as ways to transform the global financial architecture. The roadmap on the other hand should include structured dialogues or alternative formats that ensure the framework is both effectively designed and successfully implemented.

This article was originally published on Nov. 22,2023. It was updated on Oct. 30,2025, to reflect the progress needed at COP30.

restoring_mangroves_east_africa (1).jpg Finance climate finance Paris Agreement Paying for Paris COP28 Climate International Climate Action COP29 NDC COP30 Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Allied for Climate Transformation By 2025 (ACT2025)
• Next Generation NDCs
• Setting a New Collective Quantified Goal on Climate Finance

Authors Natalia Alayza

STATEMENT: Indonesia Submits Its National Climate Commitment With New Emissions Targets Ahead of COP30 sophie.brady@wri.org Thu, 10/30/2025 - 11:15

JAKARTA (October 30, 2025) – Ahead of COP30, Indonesia has recently submitted its new nationally determined contribution (NDC), projecting that emissions will peak by 2030 and then decline to 1.26 and 1.49 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO₂e) by 2035 under two economic growth scenarios. 

Following is a statement from Nirarta "Koni" Samadhi, Country Director, WRI Indonesia:

“Indonesia’s new climate plan marks an important step forward, building on earlier commitments with an absolute target to reduce emissions by 2035. It strengthens transparency and accountability, and signals the country's commitment to tackling climate change. The plan also rightly recognizes the need to prepare for worsening climate impacts, while supporting workers through a just transition.” 

“The emissions reduction scenarios in the NDC are a welcome step, but both pathways show slower reductions through 2035, meaning steeper cuts will be needed after 2035 to stay on track for net-zero by 2060 or earlier.

“Bright spots in the plan include expanded coverage of potent greenhouse gases such as hydrofluorocarbons and new forestry and land use measures, including the use of harvested wood products, blue carbon initiatives such as mangroves and seagrass, and ambitious 2030 targets to restore millions of hectares of degraded land. It also aims to improve reforestation accounting through enhanced monitoring, reporting, and verification, while accelerating the energy transition with a target of 70–72% renewable energy in the national supply by 2060.

“Still, there is room for improvement. Greater clarity on the 2019 emissions baseline – currently reported with varying figures in its UN biennial update report – would make progress easier to track and increase transparency. It is also essential to align national plans with other key frameworks, including the Just Energy Transition Partnership (JETP) Comprehensive Investment Plan and Policy (CIPP) and the National Energy Policy (NEP), which show there’s room to be even more ambitious.  

“Recent WRI analysis finds that aligning the NEP with the JETP CIPP scenario would reduce greenhouse gas emissions while delivering socio-economic benefits, including better health outcomes, increased investment and job creation – ultimately boosting economic growth. Indonesia's Just Transition approach is currently limited to workers, with less attention to communities and regional economic losses. A broader, more inclusive approach is needed across all climate action efforts, covering both mitigation and adaptation.” 

National Climate Action Indonesia NDC COP30 Featured Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Empowering the Next Generation of Climate Leaders in Ethiopia shannon.paton@… Wed, 10/29/2025 - 16:27

Addis Ababa University’s (AAU) Department of Economics, in collaboration with WRI, has successfully completed two phases of the Research Hub Program on systems thinking and green economic modeling. Supported through WRI’s National Climate Action (NCA) initiative, the program is building a strong foundation for Ethiopia’s next generation of climate and economic modelers.

Over the past two years, this partnership has advanced AAU’s pioneering work in green-economy modeling and systems thinking. WRI worked closely with the university to develop a cutting-edge curriculum and train academic staff in system dynamics, equipping educators and researchers with tools to tackle Ethiopia’s complex climate and economic challenges.

So far, 10 master’s students have received full scholarships to specialize in applied economic modeling relevant to policy and planning. Their research explores themes such as green employment, agricultural productivity, sustainable transport and urban waste management. They also received professional training alongside practitioners from key government institutions and participated in a series of academic seminars. These efforts are not only building expertise but also bridging the gap between policy and research.  

This initiative marks a significant step forward in embedding analytical and modeling capacity within Ethiopia’s higher education system to support national climate goals. By introducing the Green Economy Model into academic curriculum and applied research, AAU and WRI are equipping the country with stronger tools to design, assess and implement climate-resilient, low-carbon development strategies.

The Research Hub has evolved into a national and regional center of excellence, bridging research, policy and practice. It is empowering a new generation of economists and climate analysts to work with the Ministry of Planning and Development (MoPD), the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and other institutions to implement Ethiopia’s 2050 net-zero vision. This collaboration underscores the transformative role universities can play in shaping national climate governance when research and policy are aligned.

Through WRI’s partnership, AAU implemented a program that strengthened academic and professional skills in systems thinking and green economic modeling.

Practitioners from MoPD, EPA and the Ministry of Finance joined the program’s advanced system dynamics training sessions, designed to improve cross-institutional collaboration and analytical and policy modeling skills.

Through guest lectures and seminars, the Research Hub built a vibrant learning community of students, faculty and policymakers to explore how modeling can inform climate policy. Graduates presented their findings at a seminar hosted by WRI Ethiopia, receiving technical feedback from experts across different sectors. Building on this momentum, the AAU team presented the partnership at the second African Climate Summit as an example of how academic research can shape national and regional climate strategies. These engagements showcased the students’ achievements and reinforced AAU and WRI’s reputation as leaders in applied modeling for sustainable development.

The AAU-WRI Research Hub demonstrates how long-term collaboration can strengthen institutional capacity and support evidence-based policymaking. It shows the key role local universities can play in generating data and research that directly guide government planning. By training people in modeling and analysis, the project helps ensure Ethiopia’s development decisions are based on sound evidence and measurable outcomes.

As Dr. Mengesha, head of the economics department at AAU, noted, “This collaboration has not only trained experts, but it has also established a long-term foundation for climate modeling that will continue to serve Ethiopia’s policy processes for years to come.” This comment captures the essence of the project — capacity building, knowledge generation and sustainable impact.

What’s Next?

Building on these achievements, WRI and AAU aim to expand the Research Hub’s curriculum by introducing new modeling modules and aligning it with Ethiopia’s emerging Climate Data Hub — a tracking and monitoring system that feeds directly into Green Economy Model projections. The next phase will focus on developing a new group of master’s and doctoral researchers, strengthening the hub’s role as center for learning and innovation, and deepening collaboration between universities and government institutions.

The upcoming work will also prioritize producing high-quality, policy-relevant research and improving access to data-driven tools for climate planning. Through the continued partnership, AAU and WRI aim to strengthen Ethiopia’s modeling and analytical capacity to better support the country's development goals.

 

If you are interested in partnering with Addis Ababa University and WRI to build on and expand this work, please contact sara.ascher@wri.org.

Ethiopia's next climate leaders Climate Africa National Climate Action Economics Finance Climate Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• National Climate Action

Authors Abiyot Dagne Belay Agimasie Demewoz Beakal Fasil Mikayla Pellerin

Are Countries’ New Climate Plans Ambitious Enough? What We Know So Far margaret.overh… Tue, 10/28/2025 - 08:00

Tracking NDCs

Countries are currently in the process of submitting new NDCs. This analysis incorporates submissions through Sept. 30, 2025. View WRI's Climate Watch NDC tracker to explore the latest.

2025 is a pivotal moment for climate action. Countries are submitting new national climate commitments, known as "nationally determined contributions" or "NDCs," that will shape the trajectory of global climate progress through 2035.

These new commitments will show how boldly countries plan to cut their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions; transform their economies; and strengthen resilience to growing threats, like extreme weather, wildfires and floods. Together, they will determine how far the world goes toward limiting global temperature rise and avoiding the worst climate impacts.

Over 60 countries — including some major emitters, such as Brazil, Canada, Japan and the U.K. — have already put forward new NDCs. These represent an improvement from previous commitments, and many smaller and developing nations are leading the way with stronger targets. Yet collective ambition still falls short of what's needed to keep the world within critical warming thresholds, according to a recent NDC Synthesis Report from the UN.

This is not the complete picture: Countries representing nearly 70% of global emissions have yet to submit their NDCs and are expected to do so by the 2025 UN climate summit (COP30) this November. But the current NDCs do give us an idea of where progress is headed.

We analyzed the submissions thus far for a snapshot of how countries' climate plans are shaping up and what they reveal about the road ahead.

How Many Countries Have Submitted New NDCs?

Under the Paris Agreement, 2025 NDCs were technically due in February. As of Sept. 30, 61 countries, covering 31% of the world's emissions, had submitted them.

About the 2025 NDCs

NDCs are critical to halting climate change. They lay out how each country will contribute to global goals outlined under the Paris Agreement, including emissions cuts needed to keep temperature rise below 1.5-2 degrees C (2.7-3.6 degrees F). 2025 marks the third round of NDCs since the treaty's inception in 2015, with countries setting climate targets through 2035. These plans are expected to reflect the 2023 Global Stocktake — the first full review of global climate progress — which called for deeper emissions cuts and faster action on fossil fuels, renewables, transport and forests, and adaptation and resilience. Learn more.

Among the G20 — the world's largest GHG emitters — seven have put forth new NDCs: Australia, Brazil, Canada, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. (The U.S. has since announced its intention to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, effective January 2026, though its NDC remains officially listed with the UNFCCC.) Others, including China, the EU and Turkey, announced top-line emissions targets but have yet to submit official NDCs.

Many more countries have also stepped forward, including Chile, Ecuador and Uruguay in Latin America; Kenya, Ethiopia and Nigeria in Africa; and island states such as Singapore, the Marshall Islands and the Maldives.

Most of the remaining countries are expected to present their new NDCs by the UN Climate Conference (COP30) in November.

How Much Have 2025 NDCs Reduced the Emissions Gap?

Compared to previous 2030 targets, the NDCs submitted so far have made only a modest dent in the 2035 emissions gap: the difference between where emissions need to be to align with 1.5 degrees C and where they're expected to be under countries' climate plans.

If fully implemented, new "unconditional NDCs" (those that don't require international support) are projected to reduce emissions by an additional 1.4 gigatons of carbon dioxide equivalent (GtCO2e) by 2035 compared to 2030. This leaves an emissions gap of 29.9 GtCO2e to hold warming to 1.5 degrees C. When "conditional NDCs" (those that do require international support) are included, the projected emissions reductions rise to 1.6 GtCO2e, leaving a gap of 26.6 GtCO2e.

In other words, the NDCs submitted so far achieve less than 6% of the additional emissions reductions needed by 2035 to close the gap to 1.5 degrees C.

Factoring in countries that have put forth emissions targets but not official NDCs (like China, the EU and Turkey) brings emissions down by an additional 1.3 GtCO2e by 2035. Even this is far from what's needed to keep warming within safe limits.

Still, many of the G20 countries — which together account for about half of global GHG emissions — have yet to submit. This raises the stakes for the upcoming NDCs. Ambitious commitments (particularly from the highest emitters) could narrow the emissions gap. Or, if their pledges fall short, they could leave the world locked into a trajectory that puts global temperature targets out of reach.

Emissions-reduction targets put forward by major emitters so far:

CountryPrevious 2030 Emissions-Reduction TargetNew 2035 Emissions-Reduction TargetsNet-Zero Target YearAustralia43% from 2005 levels62%-70% from 2005 levels2050Brazil53.1% from 2005 levels59%-67% from 2005 levels2050Canada40%-45% from 2005 levels45%-50% from 2005 levels2050Japan46% from 2013 levels60% from 2013 levels2050Russian Federation70% of 1990 levels65%-67% of 1990 levels2060United Kingdom68% from 1990 levels81% from 1990 levels2050United States50%-52% from 2005 levels61%-66% from 2005 levels2050China*Over 65% carbon intensity reduction below 20057%-10% from peak2060European Union*55% from 1990 levels66.25%-72.5% from 1990 levels2050Turkey*41% below BAUReach 643 MtCO2e2053

*These countries have announced 2035 top-line emissions-reduction targets but had not yet submitted NDCs as of Sept. 30.

How Do Specific Countries' Climate Plans Stack Up?

Among the countries that have submitted new NDCs so far, the United Kingdom stands out for its ambitious goal to cut emissions 81% from 1990 levels by 2035. This rapid decline in the coming decade would put the country on track to achieve net-zero emissions by 2050, based on realistic rates of technology deployment and ambitious but achievable shifts in consumer and business behavior.

Other countries, such as Japan and the United States, have opted for a "linear" approach toward net zero. This means if they drew a straight line to their net-zero target (for example, 0 GtCO2e in 2050), their 2030 and 2035 targets would fall along it, reflecting a constant decline in emissions each year. Japan aims to cut emissions 60% from 2013 levels by 2035, while the United States has pledged a 61%-66% reduction from 2005 levels by 2035. This linear approach — compared to earlier, steeper emissions cuts — can still achieve net zero by mid-century, but risks compromising global temperature targets by using more of the world's carbon budget sooner.

Despite the U.S. withdrawing from the Paris Agreement and reversing many federal climate policies, its NDC may still guide climate action at the state, city and local levels. Many of these entities have already rallied around the new NDC and are committed to making progress toward its targets.

Brazil presented a range of emissions targets in its NDC, committing to a 59%-67% reduction from 2005 levels by 2035. A 67% reduction could put Brazil on track for climate neutrality by 2050, while a 59% reduction falls short of that goal. It is unclear which target the government intends to pursue, leaving Brazil's true ambition in question. The NDC also omits carbon budgets for specific sectors (such as energy, transport or agriculture), which would clarify how it plans to meet its overarching emissions goals. However, Brazil committed to develop these sectoral plans at a later date.

Canada made only a marginal increase to its target, shifting from a 40%-45% emissions reduction by 2030 to 45%-50% by 2035 from 2005 levels. This falls short of the recommendation from Canada's own Net-Zero Advisory Body, which called for a 50%-55% reduction by 2035 — and warned that anything below 50% risks derailing progress toward the country's legislated net-zero goal by 2050. Canada is also working to cut methane emissions by over 35% by 2030, including a 75% reduction from its oil and gas sector relative to 2012.

Among the major emitters that have put forward emissions targets but not NDCs, ambition is mixed. China announced that it aims to cut emissions 7%-10% from peak levels by 2035, though without specifying a baseline year. Turkey pledged to cut emissions to 643 million tonnes by 2035. And the European Union released a statement of intent pledging a 66.25%-72.5% reduction by 2035 from 1990 levels.

Paulista Avenue in São Paulo, Brazil, is car-free on Sundays to allow for more pedestrians and cyclists. Tackling high-emitting sectors like transport is critical to halting climate change. Photo by William Rodrigues dos Santos/Alamy Stock Photo How Are High-Emitting Countries Addressing Key Areas like Energy, Forestry and Transport?

Establishing specific targets and measures for high-emitting sectors like energy, forestry and transport is essential for driving progress on the ground. It signals to stakeholders across government, industry and finance where action and investment are most needed to meet climate goals. Such measures are especially important among G20 countries, which can shape global supply chains, set standards, and direct vast public and private capital toward low-carbon solutions.

As more G20 countries come forth with new NDCs, a clearer picture is emerging of how they are embedding sector-specific action into their climate commitments.

Energy

Only a few G20 countries have set clear renewable electricity targets. The U.K., for example, pledged to achieve at least 95% clean electricity by 2030. Australia committed to 82% renewables by the same year. Others, including Canada, Brazil and Russia, signaled plans to expand clean energy but without quantified targets. China's announcement pledged that, by 2035, it will raise the share of non-fossil fuels in domestic energy consumption to over 30% and increase wind and solar capacity sixfold from 2020 levels.

Meanwhile, progress on transitioning away from fossil fuels remains uneven. The U.K. has already phased out coal power and pledged to hold consultations on ending new oil and gas exploration licenses. Canada and Australia are working to end coal power by 2030 and 2040, respectively. Russia positioned natural gas as a transitional fuel, while Brazil encourages the replacement of fossil fuels by promoting sustainable biofuels and electrification.

But this is not enough: Much of the focus remains on phasing out coal, particularly among developed economies, while oil and gas receive less attention. Without clear, time-bound decline pathways for all fossil fuels, clean-energy growth alone may not cut absolute emissions fast enough to align with the Paris Agreement's goals.

Transport

Only two G20 countries include clear targets for zero-emission vehicles in their NDCs. The U.K. has adopted a mandate requiring 80% of new cars and 70% of new vans to be zero-emission by 2030, reaching 100% by 2035. Canada's Electric Vehicle Availability Standard requires 100% zero-emissions vehicle sales by 2035.

Forestry

Brazil has pledged to suppress illegal deforestation and scale restoration initiatives, with goals to recover millions of hectares of forest by 2030 and 2050. Canada and the United States have committed to protecting and conserving 30% of their land and waters by 2030, while Australia's Strategy for Nature 2024-2030 seeks to halt and reverse biodiversity loss by the same year. China has pledged to expand its forests significantly by 2035.

Related

• What Are NDCs and How Do They Address Climate Change?
• What Would Ambitious Climate Commitments Look Like for the World's Top Emitters?
• Learn More About How Countries Can Incorporate Sectoral Targets into NDCs

What Other Trends Are Emerging Among NDCs Submitted So Far?

Several other trends are starting to emerge among the new NDCs. While submissions so far offer valuable insights, they don't yet reflect the full picture; deeper analysis will be needed as more NDCs come in by COP30 in November.

1) Nearly all new NDCs include 2035 mitigation measures, with half setting economy-wide emissions-reduction targets.

Almost all of the 61 NDCs submitted thus far — with the exceptions of Niue and Zambia — include new mitigation measures through 2035.

Most (56) express their 2035 targets as emissions-reduction goals. The exceptions are Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua, which instead included sectoral mitigation measures. Cuba, for example, committed to increase renewable electricity generation and improve energy efficiency by 2035.

Half of the countries with emissions-reduction goals set economy-wide targets covering all sectors and greenhouse gases (as encouraged by the 2023 Global Stocktake). Notably, China announced that its new top-line emissions target will for the first time cover all sectors and GHGs. This is an important step: China's previous NDCs covered only CO2, but the country's non-CO2 emissions alone place it among the world's top 10 emitters.

Under the Paris Agreement, developed countries are required to submit economy-wide targets, while developing countries are encouraged to work toward them over time.

2) Most countries did not strengthen their 2030 targets.

Despite clear scientific evidence and UN decisions urging stronger 2030 targets, only 14 (23%) of 61 countries have strengthened their 2030 emissions pledges. This includes Ethiopia, Saint Lucia, Nepal, Moldova, Jamaica and Montenegro, among others. For example, Montenegro revised its 2030 emissions-reduction target from 35% to 55% and set a 60% target by 2035, compared to 1990 levels.

Notably, none of the wealthier, high-emitting and more developed countries have strengthened their 2030 targets — despite having the greatest capacity and responsibility to take the lead on slashing emissions.

3) Most countries have strengthened their adaptation measures.

In the face of worsening climate impacts, 45 of 61 countries set stronger adaptation commitments in their new NDCs, continuing a trend seen in previous rounds. Many of these countries are prioritizing adaptation across sectors such as food and water systems, public health and nature-based solutions.

For example, Ecuador, which is particularly vulnerable to heavy rainfall and floods, prioritized action to build resilience of its water resources, human health and settlements, and natural heritage. Canada, which has witnessed devastating wildfires in recent years, cited its National Adaptation Strategy, which provides a framework for disaster resilience, biodiversity, public health and infrastructure.

Canadian firefighters in 2021. After being ravaged by wildfires in recent years, Canada's new national climate plan puts an emphasis on climate adaptation and disaster resilience. Photo by nathan4847/iStock 4) Developing countries continue to take the lead on reporting finance needs in their NDCs.

Among the 61 countries with new NDCs, 29 developing countries have reported specific financial requirements to implement their plans, totaling $1.9 trillion so far. This continues a trend seen in previous rounds, with the vast majority of reported finance needs consistently coming from developing countries.

Six, including Ecuador, Barbados and Tonga, reported finance needs for the first time in 2025, while 14 increased their estimates compared to previous NDCs. The largest increases came from Angola, whose needs jumped from $44 billion to $412 billion (with about 89% conditional on international support), and Pakistan, whose funding needs rose from $241 billion to $565 billion.

These numbers highlight the urgent need for scaled and predictable finance to support developing countries' climate goals. At the same time, total finance needs are likely underestimated, given that only about half of the 61 countries included cost data. This underscores the importance of enhanced transparency and support in climate finance planning.

5) More and more countries are incorporating 'just transition' in their NDCs.

Forty-four (72%) of the NDCs submitted so far explicitly mention a "just transition," representing a major increase from previous rounds. Crucially, more countries are now going beyond one-line references and expanding upon specific just transition efforts that are already underway or planned. Many, such as Colombia, Sri Lanka, Eswatini and the U.K., dedicate entire sections of their new NDCs to this concept.

Countries are also defining "just transition" more clearly and specifying where it is most relevant to their national climate action. Bangladesh and Brazil, for example, explicitly reference decent work and quality jobs. Countries like Moldova and the UAE reference the importance of skills and training to support workers and youth. While the energy sector remains the main focus for just transition discussions, some countries also incorporate areas such as water, agriculture, waste and climate adaptation.

6) Countries are recognizing the importance of subnational action.

Some countries' NDCs also recognize the critical role that subnational actors, such as cities, states and regions, play in shaping and delivering climate action.

More than 30 of the newly submitted NDCs come from countries that have endorsed the Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships (CHAMP), and several mention it explicitly. The CHAMP initiative — launched in 2023 by the COP28 Presidency, in partnership with Bloomberg Philanthropies and with the support of WRI and other partners — aims to strengthen collaboration between national and subnational governments on climate planning and implementation. As part of this commitment, 77 countries pledged to consult with and integrate subnational priorities and needs into their NDCs.

Brazil, for example, highlights an instrument called "climate federalism" designed to support the integration of climate action into planning and decision-making across all levels of government. Similarly, Colombia acknowledged the role of subnational governments in planning and implementing measures to both mitigate and adapt to climate change in its NDC.

What's Next for NDCs?

While many countries have yet to submit their commitments, the storyline is already clear: New NDCs will not put the world on track to limit warming to 1.5 degrees C.

The big question now is how countries respond at COP30 to narrow that gap. They must address what comes after NDCs, grappling with how to turn ambition into action and keep a safer future within reach.

Ultimately, putting forward strong plans — and fulfilling them — are essential levers; not only for limiting warming, but for safeguarding the health, prosperity and security of current and future generations.

Editor's note: This article was originally published in June 2025. It was updated in October 2025 with analysis of new NDCs submitted through Sept. 30.

solar-installation Climate NDC climate change climate policy National Climate Action COP30 Cities Urban Efficiency & Climate climatewatch-pinned COP30 Featured Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Next Generation NDCs
• National Climate Action
• Tracking and Strengthening Climate Action
• Coalition for High Ambition Multilevel Partnerships (CHAMP) for Climate Action

Authors Jamal Srouji Héctor Miguel Donado Natalia Alayza Ginette Walls

STATEMENT: UN Report Finds Country Climate Commitments Falling Short darla.vanhoorn… Tue, 10/28/2025 - 04:41

WASHINGTON, DC (October 28, 2025) — The UNFCCC released its NDC Synthesis Report today, reviewing climate plans from 64 countries, covering roughly 30% of global emissions. The report aggregates submitted plans and their projected emissions reductions, finding that current pledges would reduce emissions by about 17% from their 2019 levels, far short of what’s needed to limit warming to 1.5°C. The analysis reflects submissions received up until September 30, 2025.

Countries representing 64% of global emissions still have not formally submitted new NDCs and are not included in this analysis.

Following is a statement from Melanie Robinson, Global Climate, Economics and Finance Program Director, World Resources Institute: 

“This report lays bare a frightening gap between what governments have promised and what is needed to protect people and planet. While the transition to a low-carbon economy is underway, it’s clear that countries need to shift from a jog to an all-out sprint.  

"Some countries have recognized the economic gains to be made by being among the front-runners in the global energy transition. But too many nations are lagging behind, failing to see that climate action costs less than dealing with climate impacts – and that investing in the new economy is a catalyst for growth, driving jobs, prosperity and security.

"The UN analysis shows national climate plans are starting to bend global emissions downward: 2035 targets would lower emissions by about 6% compared with previous 2030 NDC targets, and emissions would peak by 2030 if those NDCs are implemented. But that progress is dwarfed by the vast gap still needed to avoid breaching the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit.  

“The report paints an incomplete picture because countries representing nearly two-thirds of global emissions either missed the September cut-off for inclusion or have not yet submitted new plans. Those still on the hook to submit must deliver ambitious climate targets if they want to stay competitive, attract investment and benefit their workforce.  

“Encouragingly, the analysis points out examples of real momentum, with more countries scaling renewable energy, decarbonizing transport and integrating adaptation and just transition into their plans. These are promising developments both countries and cities can seize upon, replicate and scale.

“Leaders should treat this report not as a warning but as a rallying cry. COP30 must deliver a practical plan to accelerate action this decade - because every fraction of a degree avoided means lives saved, more abundant food and water, better livelihoods, and stronger economies.” 

International Climate Action NDC COP30 Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

Financing Nature Conservation: Will the Tropical Forest Forever Facility Finally Do It? alicia.cypress… Mon, 10/27/2025 - 09:30

At the 1992 Rio Earth Summit in Brazil, the nations of the world agreed as part of the Forest Principles to provide financial resources for conservation efforts in developing countries with significant forest areas.

Yet for more than three decades, the international community has struggled — and largely failed — to fulfill that commitment, particularly to developing nations with tropical rainforests.

These tropical forests are home to a majority of the planet’s biodiversity, play a crucial role in combating climate change, and are critical to people’s livelihoods. Between 2002 and 2022, according to Global Forest Watch data, the world’s tropical humid primary rainforests shrunk by 8%, losing an area equivalent to nearly the size of Pakistan. This magnitude of loss has continued unabated, except in a few key tropical rainforest countries such as Brazil and Indonesia.

The basic challenge continues to be one of simple economics: Cutting and clearing natural forests for timber and agriculture is generally more profitable than leaving trees standing.

Conventional business practices are not designed to tangibly value and reward the conservation of forests, or their biodiversity and ecosystem services. Combined with continuing global demand for commodities, harmful subsidies in many countries, and weak and/or corrupt forest governance practices, this dynamic has increasingly degraded and destroyed the Earth’s tropical forests.

According to data from Global Forest Watch, between 2002 and 2022, the world’s tropical humid primary rainforests shrunk by 8%. Photo by PARALAXIS/Shutterstock.  A Potential Breakthrough: The Tropical Forest Forever Facility

Now, Brazil is once again playing a critical role, leading the development of an innovative new forest finance mechanism that could offer a breakthrough and flip the economics in favor of conservation. The Tropical Forest Forever Facility (TFFF) is designed as a “payment-for-performance” model that uses agreed satellite monitoring standards and systems to reward tropical forest countries with a continuing source of funding as long as they preserve their forests.

 While other forest conservation mechanisms such as REDD+ and carbon markets focus on rewarding emissions reductions, the TFFF takes a different approach. It aims to pay tropical forest countries directly for each hectare of standing forest they maintain, with payments decreasing based on any deforestation or fire-related forest degradation.

With Brazil’s leadership, the momentum of this year’s annual United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP30) taking place in the Amazon, and with effective new satellite monitoring technologies, the TFFF could finally turn forest conservation into an investment that benefits countries, investors and the planet.

Following several years of technical and diplomatic work, Brazil published the latest iteration of the TFFF Concept Note in October 2025. Just weeks before, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva announced at the UN General Assembly that Brazil would make the first $1 billion investment into the facility, which ultimately is expected to reach $125 billion. A few weeks later, Indonesia announced it would also contribute to the facility. The TFFF’s success now depends on other nations, as well as private sector investors, to make it a reality at COP30 and beyond. Currently, Brazil is working with other governments, including the UK, Germany, Norway, the UAE, Singapore and China, and potential private sector investors, to explore how they can commit funding in time for COP30.

The Tropical Forest Forever Facility is an innovative fund designed to reward countries for keeping their forests standing. Photo by Teo Tarras/Shutterstock. How Exactly Will the TFFF Be Funded?

Unlike most previous international assistance to conserve tropical forests, the TFFF will not be financed by donor grants. Once the facility reaches its $125 billion target (or, likely in the shorter term, a smaller sum), it will be the world’s largest “blended finance” mechanism of its kind, designed to pay eligible, participating tropical forest countries annually for maintaining their deforestation rates below 0.5% per year, as measured by agreed geospatial monitoring standards and systems.

The TFFF will borrow an initial capital base (targeted at $25 billion) from traditional “donor” nations and other countries in a position to invest, such as Brazil and China, and potentially philanthropic foundations, too. These “sponsors” would provide 40-year loans (the facility’s capital), or other comparable investment modalities, at an interest rate comparable to the yield of U.S. Treasury bonds (a 30-year bond is currently less than 5%) and would be the first to take responsibility over any losses in what’s known as a junior position in the debt structure.

This arrangement creates a safety net that enables the fund to raise an additional $100 billion from private, corporate and philanthropic investors. The combined $125 billion would then be invested in fixed income emerging markets and other sovereign and corporate bonds (excluding fossil fuels and other environmentally destructive sectors), which would earn a higher return.

The return is ultimately expected to generate some $3 billion to $4 billion per year — enough to make payments of around $4 per hectare of conserved forest to eligible countries which maintain deforestation rates below 0.5% over the long term. (Even in the short term, with a much lesser sum than $125 billion, the payments generated would still be significant.)

The TFFF governance structure is divided into the Tropical Forest Investment Fund (TFIF), managed by the World Bank under a separate governance structure that would manage the investment fund and determine the availability of funds for forest payments; and the TFFF itself, which would coordinate monitoring and reporting, and distribute forest payments to countries.

Where Would the Money Go?

The current TFFF proposal includes 74 UN-listed developing countries that combined are home to more than 1 billion hectares of moist, broadleaf tropical and sub-tropical forests.

The TFFF is not designed to fund countries to reduce their deforestation rates. Rather, it is meant to reward those that already have relatively low deforestation rates, providing a financial incentive to keep their remaining tropical forests standing and prevent any further deforestation. However, if it’s successful, the facility will serve as encouragement for countries with currently high deforestation rates to qualify to join the scheme. A good result would be if countries such as Bolivia, with one of the world’s highest deforestation rates, were able to qualify for TFFF funding in the years to come. The current structure would lead to significant flows of finance to some of the world’s poorest forest countries, including in Africa’s Congo Basin.

The TFFF includes several innovative features focused on where the money should go. The first is that it allows countries to allocate TFFF payments as they see fit on their national policies and programs that, directly or indirectly, contribute to tropical and subtropical forest conservation and forests’ sustainable use. Crucially, the TFFF requires countries to disclose what the funds are used for to ensure transparency and allow for public scrutiny and feedback.

Another striking and positive feature is a provision requiring 20% of payments to go to Indigenous peoples and local communities engaged in tropical forest conservation in eligible countries. This could be the single biggest source of international finance for Indigenous peoples and local communities, so often at the frontline of conservation. This finance could help these communities protect their rights, secure land tenure, tackle illegal mining and criminality, and pursue sustainable alternative livelihoods that are not dependent on clearing areas of forest.

It is also significant because the TFFF is the only such source of funding that could in some instances be accessed directly by Indigenous peoples and local communities — a provision that they have repeatedly asked for, granting these communities decision-making over the use of the funds.

Payments from the TFFF could help protect the rights of Indigenous communities and help them pursue sustainable alternative livelihoods that are not dependent on clearing areas of forest. Photo by Dekaro/iStock. How Will Forests Be Monitored?

The TFFF can only succeed if it is built on credible, transparent and operational forest monitoring that relies on satellite data. This requires methods and data that are produced in a way that can be verified, applied consistently through time and comparable across countries. Robust and universally applied technical standards must be established from the outset, not only to ensure credibility but also to build investor confidence that will attract the early capital needed for scale.

A core principle of the TFFF is that participating nations are expected to use their own national forest monitoring systems, provided these systems meet established quality and transparency criteria. For countries without a qualifying national system, a compliant third-party system, such as Global Forest Watch (managed by WRI) or the EU’s Joint Research Center tropical forests platform, may be used. Given this diversity in monitoring approaches, establishing agreed common methodological standards and definitions across all systems will be paramount.

The TFFF also proposes a fixed forest definition to be applied across all participating countries, creating a common basis for how forests are measured and valued. By setting a 20% to 30% canopy density threshold, a 5-meter minimum tree height and by excluding plantations, this definition establishes a solid technical foundation for consistent and comparable measurements.

What’s Still Needed to Launch the TFFF?

First, sponsors need to follow Brazil’s and Indonesia’s lead and commit contributions to the initial hoped-for $25 billion tranche of junior capital. If additional sponsors fail to make commitments at COP30, the TFFF may lose momentum in 2026, causing private sector investors to doubt the viability of the model.

It is therefore vitally important for industrialized nations across the world without tropical forests to make a significant financial commitment to this bold and ambitious idea. The stakes are global: If tropical forests are lost, adaptation costs from the ensuing climate impacts would far exceed these investments. For wealthy nations, investing in the TFFF is not only about justice and responsibility, but also a matter of economic self-interest. Tropical forests are, in addition to being sovereign national assets, a global public good, with a universal responsibility for their protection.

The World Bank Board has agreed to manage the funds as the trustee and interim host of the TFFF and formalized initial arrangements at its October 2025 meeting, which should provide a strong confidence signal for both sponsors and the private sector. But the World Bank will have to move rapidly to establish the TFIF to maintain momentum and move toward an operational phase of the facility.

Once all of that is in place, a key priority will be development of the operations manual that will govern how the TFFF actually works, including work on some of the more difficult technical issues. These include:

Degradation and Leakage

Not all forest loss is caused by deforestation. Forest degradation, which plays a major role in carbon loss and ecosystem decline (and often occurs at smaller spatial scales) can also take place.

Currently, the TFFF proposes to only consider fire-damaged areas (using burn scars as a proxy) as indicators of degradation, subsequently reducing payments by a 1:35 discount rate. But other degradation factors, such as selective logging, roadbuilding, mining and some edge effects, can be detected using 30-meter or 10-meter satellite data. Including both fire and non-fire degradation would strengthen the system’s integrity and ensure payments reflect actual forest conditions.

Deforestation “leakage” is another thorny issue: the TFFF focuses on broadleaf tropical and sub-tropical forests, the most important forests globally for both biodiversity and climate change. However, there is worry that this might cause deforestation to move into other biomes not covered by the TFFF — Brazil’s Cerrado and southern Africa’s Miombo woodlands are good examples — without notice or punitive measures. The TFFF seeks to address this by requiring participating countries to monitor and report forest cover changes in non-TFFF forest areas where significant increases in deforestation could trigger additional scrutiny and potential payment holds. Though this is a good conceptual solution, implementation could be complex given, among other issues, the difficulties associated with monitoring deforestation in drier or sparser forest landscapes. More work will be needed to ensure that the TFFF does not simply displace, rather than prevent, forest loss.

Consideration for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities

It will also be critical to maintain a strong consultative process with civil society and Indigenous communities as the TFFF — particularly its operations manual — is developed and moves toward implementation. Much of civil society is supportive of the TFFF and its efforts to engage Indigenous peoples and local communities; some remain critical and circumspect. There is no formal consensus on the TFFF among the diverse Indigenous peoples’ organizations across the world’s tropical forests. Continuing dialogue, consultation and free, prior and informed consent will therefore be critical in the years ahead.

A home along the Guama River in Belém, Brazil, where COP30 will take place. The TFFF will require that 20% of payments to countries that keep deforestation rates below 0.5% to go to Indigenous peoples and local communities. Photo by RudiErnst/Shutterstock.  Developing an Agreed Global Geospatial Monitoring System

Finally, the credibility and longevity of the TFFF will also depend on the quality and reliability of the geospatial monitoring systems that are used to base decisions on eligibility, standing forest area and deforestation rates. It is only in the past decade that credible, affordable satellite monitoring of forest cover has emerged. And there are no international covenants or treaties designating official satellite monitoring standards or systems.

In developing its monitoring standards, the TFFF should consider:

• Fine-tuning its measurement standards by aligning the standard minimum mapping unit with the pixel resolution of existing, free satellite data archives (30-meters or 10-meters) to provide a more accurate picture of forest dynamics. Using a finer mapping unit, instead of the proposed 1-hectare minimum mapping unit, would also enable more effective monitoring of forest degradation events like logging and roadbuilding.
• Ensuring that the monitoring systems that underpin the TFFF’s payment calculations provide open, independently verifiable data; use methods that produce data that are transparent and reproducible; and regularly validate the results using good practice and international reporting guidelines.
• Finally, governance will be critical to help ensure that technical decisions remain evidence based. The TFFF’s operations manual will codify the detailed rules and procedures for monitoring, so its development should include structured opportunities for expert and stakeholder input.

In short, there is a clear pathway: strong technical standards, robust degradation monitoring, validation, open data and shared governance. The technology is ready; what is needed now is collective agreement to put it into practice.

The TFFF’s Critical Contribution to the Global Forest Challenge

In summary, the TFFF could make a potentially critical contribution to addressing the world’s forest challenges, which are so closely linked to the biodiversity and climate crises we face. But, as the TFFF proponents themselves have noted, it is not a panacea; other forms of finance will also be needed, and of course there are many other dimensions of tackling tropical forest loss, including governance, legality, regulation, demand and consumption shifts.

The TFFF also inherently faces risks in a volatile world where the future of economies and markets cannot be predicted; it is a bold idea at a time of volatility and instability. But after more than 30 years of forest conservation, forest finance commitments and arrangements that have yet to turn the tide, the TFFF presents an ambitious idea from a major rainforest country that has real potential to make a potentially transformative impact in conserving tropical forests.

It is therefore a pressing global imperative for the international community to contribute generously to its success, starting at COP30, in the heart of the Amazon rainforest — a tropical rainforest, like others, on which the future well-being of humanity so profoundly depends.  

tfff-fisherman-tropical-forests.jpg Forests COP30 deforestation forest monitoring conservation Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Global Forest Watch

Authors Charles (Chip) Barber Edward Davey Viviana Zalles Mariana Oliveira

STATEMENT: Commitment Without Clarity Risks Europe’s Climate Ambitions and Leadership darla.vanhoorn… Fri, 10/24/2025 - 07:50

Brussels (October 24, 2025) – The European Council yesterday reaffirmed its support for the EU’s goal to cut greenhouse gas emissions by 90% by 2040. However, it stopped short of setting a clear and ambitious target for its upcoming Nationally Determined Contribution (NDC), which is due by COP30. 

In September, the European Commission put forward a “statement of intent” to cut emissions by 66.25 – 72.5% by 2035 from 1990 levels.  

Following is a statement by Stientje van Veldhoven, Vice President and Regional Director for Europe, World Resources Institute:  

“Europe stands behind the 90% emission cut goal by 2040 ‒ a strong signal of continued intent. But without formalizing its 2035 climate plan (NDC), the pathway to climate neutrality remains unclear.  

"EU leaders have now put the ball in the court of environment ministers, who must deliver a science-based and credible NDC by early November, ahead of COP30 in Belém. A clear, high-ambition pathway is the most credible way to turn the EU's climate goals into real action: cleaner air, stronger energy security, resilient communities and lasting competitiveness. 

“We warn against the EU Council’s reliance on carbon credits to hit its 2040 goal. While credits, under strict guardrails, can help support decarbonization efforts abroad, they don't replace the structural changes needed at home. Europe must invest in transforming energy, industry, housing, and transport.   

“Every euro spent on credits is a euro not invested in delivering cleaner, economic growth, jobs and resilience for European citizens. In this context, the Council’s call to revise the agreed EU ETS 2, the EU's emissions trading scheme for transport and buildings starting in 2027, risks undermining business confidence and the credibility of EU climate policy.  

"The EU's repeated delays come at a cost. Missing the September 2025 NDC deadline means the EU ‒ one of the world's major economic blocs ‒ will be left out of the UNFCCC's NDC forthcoming Synthesis Report, losing an opportunity to spur greater ambition from other major emitters. EU environment ministers must grab the chance to reclaim Europe’s global climate leadership with the most ambitious NDC before COP30, showing European business clear investment pathways to a clean, competitive economy.”  

Tracking Climate Action Europe NDC Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

What Is the EU Deforestation Regulation? 7 Key Questions, Answered sarah.brown@wri.org Thu, 10/23/2025 - 13:52

The world is losing 18 soccer fields of tropical primary every minute; much of it is the result of clearing for farms, pastures and tree plantations.

As a major buyer of commodities largely responsible for fueling deforestation — such as palm oil, cocoa, coffee, soy, cattle and timber — the EU has both a responsibility and an opportunity to help shift global markets toward more sustainable supply chains. The landmark EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), adopted in 2023, requires businesses to demonstrate that the products they sell or export to the EU do not come from land that was recently deforested or degraded. 

The EUDR is a key step in responding to today’s deforestation and supporting countries in achieving their national forest protection policies. Yet despite its promise, the regulation has faced delays and pushback, threatening its timely implementation.

In September 2025, the EU Commission proposed delaying the EUDR's enforcement until December 2026, pushing back its start date for the second year in a row. This was after the  EU Agriculture Ministers issued a letter calling for the EUDR's simplification, in July 2025. The EU Commission then reversed course in October 2025, putting forward a formal proposal to simplify the EUDR for micro and small businesses, as well as downstream operators. If approved by the European Parliament and European Council, the December 2026 delay would only be in place for these businesses. For all other companies, the EUDR will go into force as initially planned on Dec. 30, 2025, with a six-month grace period.

At a time when forests are increasingly under threat, it’s more urgent than ever to understand the regulation and ensure its full and rapid implementation. Here, we dive deeply into the legislation's details and potential impacts.

What Is the EUDR?

The EUDR is a landmark law that came into force in June 2023. Its goal is to ensure that certain products sold in or exported to the EU do not come from land that was deforested or degraded after Dec. 31, 2020. The regulation is designed to prevent EU consumer demand from driving further forest loss or damage, while also reducing the region’s contribution to greenhouse gas emissions and global biodiversity decline.

The EUDR covers timber and six key agricultural commodities: cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soy, as well as products made from them such as beef, furniture and chocolate. To be sold in or exported from the EU market, these products must meet the following three conditions:

1. They are deforestation-free.
2. They have been produced in compliance with the relevant laws of the country of origin.
3. They are covered by a due diligence statement, showing that the company has checked the origin and ensured the products meet EUDR requirements.

This means businesses must demonstrate that any EUDR-covered commodities were not produced on land that was deforested nor did they contribute to forest degradation after the Dec. 31, 2020 cutoff date. Although the regulation is legally in place, companies are not yet required to comply yet. The rules will apply starting from Dec. 30, 2025, for large enterprises and December 2026, for small and medium-sized businesses (if the proposal made by the European Commission is adopted by the EU institutions).

Why Is the EUDR important?

The EUDR offers a major opportunity for the EU to reduce its role in global deforestation and biodiversity loss, as well as help create deforestation-free supply chains. It supports the commitment made by the 144 countries that signed the Glasgow Leaders’ Declaration in 2021 to halt and reverse forest loss and land degradation by 2030. It can also serve as a model for other major consumer markets looking to lower their environmental footprints.

Since 2014, the EU has been the second-largest importer of goods linked to tropical deforestation after China. In 2017 alone, it accounted for 16% of global deforestation tied to international trade — equal to 203,000 hectares of forest.

More recently, in 2021, the EU was among the world’s top five importers of five of the six agricultural commodities covered by the EUDR (cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber and soy) and the largest importer of cocoa beans and coffee worldwide1 . Among all the agricultural products the EU buys, beef, cocoa and palm oil were linked to the most deforestation in the countries they came from. In fact, out of 160 agricultural commodities imported by the EU, just six — beef, palm oil, soy, cocoa, coffee and rubber, as covered by the EUDR — made up 58% of the estimated forest loss tied to EU imports.

By reducing the EU’s forest-loss footprint and tackling deforestation risks in its supply chains, the EUDR could help reverse deforestation worldwide. In 2024, a record 6.7 million hectares of primary tropical forests were lost — nearly double the 2023 rate and equivalent of losing 18 soccer fields of forest every minute. While wildfires captured global attention, some of the increase was due to agricultural conversion and logging.

What Challenges and Setbacks Has the EUDR Faced?

In December 2024, the EU postponed the start of EUDR compliance by 12 months to give companies more time to prepare to meet the regulation’s requirements. Then in September 2025, the EU Commission again signaled its intention to delay implementation by another year, reportedly because of issues with the EU platform used to submit due diligence statements.

A month later, the EU Commission put forward a formal proposal to simplify the EUDR for micro and small businesses, as well as downstream operators, delaying the enforcement date of the EUDR for these enterprises. If approved by the European Parliament and European Council, these businesses would not have to comply with the EUDR until December 2026. Large companies would still be held to a Dec. 30, 2025 start date, but with a 6-month grace period for checks and enforcement in light of issues with the IT platform.

In May 2025, the European Commission published the regulation’s benchmarking classification system, which ranks countries as low, standard and high risk based on indicators assessing the deforestation risk linked to commodity production in each country. The ranking system was designed to help businesses and enforcement authorities in the EU to conduct due diligence and enforce compliance. The risk levels indicate the percentage of checks on shipments, with greater scrutiny given to higher-risk countries. 

New proposals call on the EU Commission to revise the benchmarking classification system introduced in 2025. Some EU member state representatives have suggested adding a “no-risk” category to exempt certain countries from due diligence requirements; another suggestion proposed removing the system altogether. But changes like these could create loopholes and ultimately weaken the regulation’s effectiveness. The European Parliament already rejected a similar idea in 2024 for that very reason.

The EUDR was agreed upon following a lengthy negotiation between EU institutions and member states, as well as impact assessments and extensive consultations. Derailing its implementation would penalize producer countries and companies that have already invested in compliance, and it would create confusion and uncertainty in the EU market. The regulation may not be perfect, but it’s a necessary step toward deforestation-free supply chains. Many companies have already shown that EUDR compliance is possible, and several have urged the EU to uphold the legal text and stick to implementation timeline.

Since adoption, the EUDR has faced criticism from both inside and outside the EU. Most concerns focus on cost and complexity of compliance, as well as fairness, particularly for smallholder farmers. In response, the European Commission, EU member states and other development institutions have ramped up investment in EUDR preparedness by issuing resources and guidance, with a particular emphasis on preventing smallholder exclusion from the EU market.

What Counts as Deforestation and Degradation Under the EUDR?

The regulation's definition of a forest largely follows the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) which defines it as land larger than 0.5 hectares with trees taller than 5 meters and a canopy cover of at least 10% that is not primarily used for farming or urban development.

Under the EUDR, deforestation refers to clearing forest to make way for agriculture. The key factor is the conversion of land that was forest in 2020 into farmland — such as pastures or soy plantations. It’s a complete land-use change: the forest is no longer a forest.

• If that forest is cleared — whether by people or natural events like fire — and then converted into farmland, such as pastures for raising cattle or fields for soy or palm oil, it is considered deforestation.
• However, if a forest is cleared, for example by fire (whether from human activity or natural causes) and is not used to produce any of the six EUDR-covered agricultural commodities, it is not considered deforestation under the regulations.
• Forests used for wood production are not considered deforestation unless they’re also used for agriculture, for example, cattle grazing under the tree canopy.

The EUDR also covers degradation. Land that was forest in 2020 can be used for wood production and remain classified as a forest, even if it’s temporarily unstocked, according to EUDR definitions. A forest used for wood production is not considered degraded unless there's a specific structural change, such as:

• Converting primary forest (native, untouched forest) into other wooded land (trees have 5%-10% canopy cover) or into plantation or planted forest.
• Converting naturally regenerating forest (which has largely grown back on its own) into other wooded land used or plantation forest.

Who Does the EUDR Affect?

The EUDR affects any company that imports, produces or exports specific products, and their derivatives, to or from the EU market. This includes operators (those placing products on the market or exporting them from the market) and traders (those distributing and selling products).

It applies to companies based in the EU and internationally, and to businesses of all sizes, from micro and small enterprises to large corporations. However, larger businesses face stricter reporting requirements than smaller ones.

The EUDR spans multiple sectors, from food and beverage (such as companies sourcing cocoa and coffee) to fashion (leather goods, for example) to the healthcare industry (products such as latex gloves).

How Are Countries and Companies Preparing for the EUDR?

Under the EUDR, companies must prove that products linked to deforestation or degradation after Dec. 31, 2020, are not entering the EU market. This requires a due diligence process: collecting supply chain information (including geolocation), assessing the risk of deforestation and taking steps to eliminate any identified risk before the product can be put on the market.

Country-level efforts

Many producer countries are already taking concrete steps to prepare for the EUDR, from adopting national plans to developing traceability systems and improving data transparency. For example, Indonesia, Ghana and Vietnam are investing in government-led efforts to make information available to companies that must comply with the regulation. Delaying enforcement or altering the regulation’s scope could undermine these leading producer countries.

Vietnam stands out as a strong example of how the EUDR is reinforcing national policies to combat deforestation. As a top exporter of rubber and coffee, the country has shifted its focus from illegal logging to broader deforestation risks in agriculture since the regulation’s introduction.  In 2023, the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development adopted a national action plan prioritizing sustainable agricultural transformation. The following year, it launched a traceability system for coffee farms, piloting geospatial verification (such as satellite images) in key producing provinces. Developed through public-private collaboration, the system cross-references land-use maps and cadastral data to ensure EUDR compliance. Plans are also underway to expand it to rubber and cocoa.

Vietnam’s progress shows how the regulation can act as a catalyst for stronger policy alignment between global market demands and local sustainability goals. 

EU member states are also preparing by using satellite and aerial earth observation data, such as forest maps from 2020 (the EUDR cutoff year) to detect deforestation, alongside other monitoring solutions and tools to support compliant imports. 

Private-sector efforts

Companies across supply chains are ramping up EUDR preparations, sparking a wave of innovation in monitoring and traceability. Many are developing satellite-based systems to verify deforestation-free sourcing, training smallholder farmers to meet EUDR requirements and partnering with governments and NGOs to improve data sharing and risk assessment.

For example, Unilever and Meridia are working together to map smallholder farmers in Indonesia, making it possible to trace palm oil from plantation to mill. The Global Platform for Sustainable Natural Rubber (GPSNR) has created a system to help companies follow sustainability practices and demonstrate EUDR compliance. Open-source platforms like WRI’s Global Forest Watch are also supporting companies in verifying supply chains.

These efforts from governments, companies and EU countries show how the EUDR is already driving unprecedented action — transforming compliance from a burden into an opportunity to build more responsible and transparent supply chains. The challenge now is scaling these solutions across all commodities and regions.

What's Next for the EUDR?

The EUDR represents a major milestone in the fight against commodity-driven deforestation.

The EU must reject attempts to weaken the regulation’s core requirements. Its effectiveness depends on maintaining its ambition without dilution or delay. Backtracking at this stage would undermine the EUDR’s credibility and send the wrong signal to global markets. 

At the same time, the EU should also step up efforts to provide businesses with practical training and support to help them develop the skills needed for compliance, especially for small businesses that may otherwise struggle to meet requirements.

The European Parliament and Council must also give businesses clear guidance — and avoid adding uncertainty with further changes to the law. The EUDR is not only a necessary response to the crisis of forest loss, but also a vital tool to support and complement producer country efforts to halt deforestation by 2030.

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published on July 8, 2025. It was updated in October 2025 to reflect new policy developments. 

Footnotes

1Timber and timber products are not included.

14244777628_a88be761e2_k.jpg Forests Europe deforestation regulation climate policy commodities corporate sustainability Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Bo Li Sarah Carter Tina Schneider Sophie Labaste Olivia Campbell

When Your EV Battery Expires, Who’s Responsible for It? margaret.overh… Thu, 10/23/2025 - 09:00

More than one in five cars sold globally in 2024 was electric, with sales crossing 17 million — a new record. And similar trends are emerging across other vehicle types, such as electric trucks, electric bikes and U.S. electric school buses.

This marks a much-needed shift toward cleaner, healthier transportation that doesn't warm the planet or pollute the air. Yet rising EV use also presents a burgeoning challenge: How to manage the influx of retired batteries?

The amount of EV battery power needed globally is projected to triple in the coming years, from 1 terawatt-hour (TWh) in 2024 to 3 TWh in 2030. A typical EV battery is expected to last 8-12 years on average, after which it must be removed and replaced. At the current pace of EV sales globally, experts predict there will be about 20,500 kilotons of end-of-life batteries by 2040 — roughly 55 times the weight of the Empire State Building.

So, what happens to these batteries at the end of their life in a vehicle? How do we ensure they don't become a threat to people or the environment? And, critically, whose duty should it be to ensure they're managed responsibly?

We explored how some countries and U.S. states are addressing these questions — particularly through a policy known as "extended producer responsibility" — and what to watch on the road ahead.

EVs for sale on a lot in China. Rising EV use globally will lead to an influx of retired batteries that must be managed with care to avoid potential health and environmental risks. Photo by Wengen Ling/iStock The Challenge with EV Batteries

Used EV batteries are classified as hazardous waste in the U.S. and elsewhere. There's currently a lack of consensus on the best approach to handling this waste, and while solutions are starting to emerge, concerns around its potential environmental and social impacts are growing.

Batteries left in landfills can leach toxic chemicals that pollute soil and groundwater. This can expose nearby communities to severe health risks, including developmental and reproductive disorders, kidney damage and skin allergies. Ecosystems are also affected; for example, soil contamination can hamper plant growth and cause toxic chemicals to accumulate throughout the food chain.

Fires, which can happen during transport and at waste management facilities, recycling centers and landfills, are another major risk of mishandling batteries. EV battery fires are especially dangerous due to "thermal runaway" — a chain reaction of rapid, uncontrollable temperature and pressure increase within a battery that causes fires to burn hotter and release toxic fumes. This also makes them particularly difficult to extinguish.

Battery fires can expose workers to hazardous gases, metals and chemicals that can cause injuries and long-term respiratory damage. The risks are especially acute for workers in the informal sector (such as in developing countries, where waste is often shipped) who may not have the right training or equipment to safely handle used batteries.

The key to preventing such risks is keeping battery waste out of landfills and ensuring it's handled safely. This requires strong regulations around collection, repurposing and recycling. Yet progress in this area has been piecemeal. In the U.S., for example, recycling programs are largely voluntary, and battery recycling rates remain below 15%.

What Happens When an EV Battery Expires?

If an EV owner notices that their car has a lower driving range, slower charging, a warning light or a system issue, this can mean its battery is ready to be retired. The next step would typically be to take the vehicle back to the dealership or to a service center to either replace the battery or sell the car.

Importantly, EV batteries at the end of their "first life" aren't fully spent. Many still retain around 70%-80% of their original charge and could be put to use in less demanding applications, such as renewable energy storage. But they need to be assessed and rerouted for this purpose rather than thrown away.

Once they're removed, batteries are inspected for their state of health and safety characteristics (like flammability, ignitability, corrosivity and toxicity) to determine whether they can be reused or recycled. This can be done by specialized technicians at the dealer, outsourced to a partner company, or managed by waste handlers. After this, the batteries are dismantled, and their various components are sent to landfills, recycling facilities or repurposing centers as appropriate.

Much battery waste, at least from the U.S., is exported to other countries (often low-income) where it is handled based on local legislation.

The problem is that this system is far from airtight. For one, EV owners may not know who collects used EVs or EV batteries near them. If they aren't able to access a collection facility, or if their dealer lacks capacity and infrastructure, they might go to an informal auto dismantler. Once the battery is taken out of the vehicle, it is no longer covered by warranty, and its ownership is unclear. This can result in "orphan batteries" that are nobody's responsibility to collect or safely dispose of. In addition, most battery collection infrastructure in the U.S. is located far from facilities for recycling or repurposing, increasing transportation costs and the risk of fires en route.

The process of discharging old batteries and assessing their remaining health, if done improperly, can also expose workers to toxic metals, chemical spills and fires. These risks are exacerbated in countries that import e-waste or secondhand vehicles from abroad, as well as at informal vehicle dismantlers within the U.S. These places may lack regulation and enforcement, formal worker protections, and proper training and safety gear.

Who Should Be Responsible for Used EV batteries?

Keeping EV batteries out of landfills, mitigating safety risks, and increasing reuse and recycling will require oversight at each stage of their end-of-life journey. There needs to be an authority to take responsibility for ensuring that used batteries are collected, assessed and utilized to their full capacity — and paying for the process.

That's where extended producer responsibility (EPR) comes in.

EPR policies are intended to hold producers responsible for their products throughout the entire lifecycle. They are already used in some places for products like electronics, appliances and mattresses. For EV batteries, extended producer responsibility means putting the onus for end-of-life management on vehicle or battery producers, rather than consumers or waste handlers.

Most regions with significant EV adoption, including the EU, India and China, already have some form of EPR in place for EV batteries. But while a few U.S. states are following suit, the country lacks a national law.

How Do EPR Policies for Used Batteries Work?

While their broader design varies, all EPR laws have a minimum requirement for manufacturers to collect a percentage (often by weight) of the total product they place on the market. This could include working directly or indirectly with retailers to educate car owners on best practices and set up collection infrastructure; with waste haulers to help ensure safe transportation; and with recycling centers and repurposing facilities to aggregate batteries and data and determine the next best use for end-of-life batteries. Producers may even receive economic benefits by controlling end-of-life batteries, such as through revenue sharing agreements with repurposing or recycling companies.

Some EPR laws also include measures to increase rates of recycling, repurposing or remanufacturing. For example:

• The EU batteries directive requires that battery manufacturers minimize their environmental footprint by using specified amounts of recycled minerals in new batteries or designing them to be more repairable.
• The New Jersey Electric and Hybrid Vehicle Battery EPR law explicitly bans disposal of EV batteries in landfills and imposes a fine for doing so, incentivizing manufacturers to ensure all used batteries are collected. It also encourages repurposing, as partner companies could acquire a higher volume of used batteries from the manufacturers at a more predictable cost and quality.
• India's Battery Waste Management Rules allow producers to leverage deposit refund schemes or buy-back policies to incentivize car owners to return used batteries. They also require producers to use up to 20% recycled minerals in battery production by 2030.

In addition, EPR laws often include a component on public education to ensure that consumers are aware of how to handle used EV batteries and have access to information on drop-off points or dealership services.

• Voluntary Producer Responsibility Programs for Used Batteries
• While government policies are critical, better battery management can also happen from the bottom up. For example, over 25 companies in the U.S. set up a voluntary EPR program — the eBike Battery Recycling Program — to help manage their used e-bike batteries safely and ensure they are recycled. For a nominal cost (less than 1% of total vehicle price), a third-party organization tracks batteries placed on the market by participating companies and assesses their value at end-of-life. This cost is borne by the manufacturer, and the third-party organization aggregates, transports and safely recycles the used batteries.

EPR Laws Show Promise, but Hurdles Remain

While EPR laws related to EV batteries are relatively nascent, similar regulations for other commodities have proven to significantly increase collection, recycling and reuse. For example, British Columbia enacted an EPR law for residential packaging and paper in 2014, which increased their collected waste by over 60% in a single year. Japan's Home Appliance Recycling Law obliges retailers and manufacturers to collect and recycle specified household appliances; this led to over 15 million units collected in FY2021, with recycling rates above 90% for certain appliances — exceeding expectations. Meanwhile, a 2021 report by PBL Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency claimed that approximately 75% of all collected battery material in the country was reused in 2019. Such examples shed light on the promise of a well-designed EPR regulation for EV batteries.

However, these laws aren't without potential pitfalls. For example, manufacturers could pass the cost of battery management onto consumers by raising EV prices, which risks deterring some buyers and slowing the transition to EVs.

While the goal of an EPR law is to collect used batteries locally and build a domestic supply chain for reuse and recycling, this isn't guaranteed. E-waste is often shipped from wealthier to low-income countries, with very little retained and recycled domestically (around 20% in 2017). Exporting materials such as black mass (shredded battery scrap) simply shifts the environmental and safety burden to a different region.

Finally, with a loosely regulated battery collection market, waste haulers, retailers and producers may find it valuable to hoard used EV batteries in anticipation of rising demand and the potential for greater profits later. If batteries aren't stored safely, this could increase the risk of fires and dangerous chemical leakage.

Used EV batteries still hold much of their original charge and can be repurposed for other uses, like renewable energy storage, if they are collected and handled responsibly. Photo by Soonthorn Wongsaita/Shutterstock What's Next?

The U.S. currently lacks a national battery EPR law, although its Environmental Protection Agency is developing a national EPR framework. Meanwhile, many states are moving forward on policies and regulations. New Jersey was the first state to pass a used EV battery collection law, and others (including Washington, California, Hawaii, Illinois and Massachusetts) are in various stages of designing their own.

Other countries are exploring the prospect, too: In Australia, the Auto Recyclers Association is advocating for an EPR law and the adoption of the Global Battery Passport to increase collection rates and transparency in the battery supply chain.

For policymakers, expanding EPR laws — such as passing national laws in the U.S., Australia and elsewhere — is a good first step toward more responsible battery management. Equally important will be streamlining these policies and regulations between and within countries to make it easier for companies to comply and to help regulate waste flows across borders. This is particularly crucial for countries with active trade agreements related to used vehicles. Laying guardrails in EPR laws that require used batteries to be retained in the country or region could ensure that most collected batteries are repurposed and recycled domestically, encouraging energy security and helping limit e-waste exports.

Meanwhile, building consumer awareness about the drawbacks and opportunities from used batteries could help mitigate any potential adverse impacts to EV adoption. Companies in specific segments, like electric school buses, have a chance to lead the way through voluntary EPR programs, giving customers (i.e. school districts) certainty that their used batteries are being managed sustainably. As school buses are in every community, there's an added benefit of setting up partnerships and infrastructure with nationwide coverage.

Ultimately, EPR is just one of many strategies needed to enable a truly sustainable and circular battery value chain. Complementary policies can help ensure that used batteries are managed responsibly and not landfilled overseas, typically in low-income countries. Policies like a federal ban on landfilling and limits on exporting used EV batteries could help incentivize producers to create a safe and circular system.

ev-battery-packs.jpg Electric Mobility Electric Mobility transportation Type Explainer Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Electric Mobility
• Electric Vehicles in the U.S.

Authors Kriti Shah Vishant Kothari

RELEASE: No Sector on Track to Meet Global Climate Goals, State of Climate Action 2025 Finds darla.vanhoorn… Wed, 10/22/2025 - 00:01

WASHINGTON (October 22, 2025) – A major new assessment finds that the world is stalling on progress to limit warming to 1.5°C, with none of the 45 indicators of climate action on track for 2030.  

While most are heading in the right direction, the State of Climate Action 2025 report warns that the pace and scale of progress are alarmingly inadequate — exposing communities, economies and ecosystems to unacceptable risks. From protecting forests to phasing out coal and ending public finance for fossil fuels, the world is failing to act fast enough to combat the climate crisis and secure a livable future. 

“All systems are flashing red,” said Clea Schumer, Research Associate at WRI and co-lead author of the report. “A decade of delay has dangerously narrowed the path to 1.5°C. Steady progress isn’t enough anymore — every year we fail to speed up, the gap widens and the climb gets steeper. There’s simply no time left for hesitation or half measures.”  

Published under Systems Change Lab, the report is a joint effort of the Bezos Earth Fund, Climate Analytics, ClimateWorks Foundation, the Climate High-Level Champions, and World Resources Institute. It provides the most comprehensive roadmap yet for closing the global gap in climate action across key sectors. The analysis offers a guide for countries to follow through on their new national climate commitments, the Global Stocktake and announcements made at COP30.  

The report translates the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C limit into clear, actionable targets for 2030, 2035, and 2050, and tracks global progress toward them across the sectors responsible for most emissions — power, buildings, industry, transport, forests and land, and food and agriculture. It also grades efforts to scale up carbon removal technologies and climate finance.  

Of the 45 indicators assessed: 

• Six are “off track,” moving in the right direction but not quite fast enough.
• Twenty-nine are “well off track,” moving in the right direction but far too slowly.
• Five are headed in the wrong direction entirely, demanding an urgent course correction.
• Five lack sufficient data to even assess progress. 

Since the 2023 edition of the State of Climate Action report, several key trends have changed. Electric vehicles (EVs) are still growing rapidly and made up a record 22% of global passenger car sales in 2024, up from 4.4% in 2020, but growth has slowed in some major markets such as Europe and the United States. As a result, EVs’ share of global passenger car sales — previously the only indicator “on track” — has been downgraded to “off track.”  

Private climate finance, on the other hand, rose so sharply that this year’s report upgraded progress from “well off track” to “off track.” These funds climbed from roughly $870 billion in 2022 to a record $1.3 trillion in 2023, with individuals, businesses and investors, particularly in China and Western Europe, driving much of the gains.  

Alarmingly, progress on some of the world’s most consequential indicators has not budged across multiple consecutive reports. Public finance for fossil fuels has increased by an average of $75 billion per year since 2014, reaching more than $1.5 trillion in 2023. Deforestation, which had declined earlier in the decade, is once again rising, and coal as a share of electricity generation has fallen only slightly in recent years, as it has been unable to keep pace with record-high electricity demand.  

“We’re not just falling behind — we’re effectively flunking the most critical subjects,” said Sophie Boehm, Senior Research Associate at World Resources Institute and co-lead author of the report. “As this global report card shows, we have barely moved the needle on phasing out coal or halting deforestation, while public finance still props up fossil fuels. These actions aren’t optional; they’re the bare minimum needed to combat the climate crisis and protect humanity.” 

Keeping the Paris Agreement’s 1.5°C goal within reach demands tremendous acceleration in climate action across every sector. Warming beyond 1.5°C, even temporarily, will only intensify already devastating impacts and increase the risk of irreversible damage. For example, by 2030, the world must: 

• Phase out coal more than ten times faster — equivalent to retiring nearly 360 average-sized coal-fired power plants each year and halting all projects in the pipeline.
• Reduce deforestation nine times faster. Current levels are far too high — roughly equivalent to permanently losing nearly 22 football (soccer) fields of forest every minute in 2024. 
• Expand rapid transit networks five times faster — equivalent to building at least 1,400 km (870 miles) of light rail, metro, and bus lanes annually.
• Reduce beef and lamb consumption in high-consuming countries five times faster — equivalent to reducing consumption by 2 or fewer servings per week in North and South America, Australia and New Zealand.
• Scale technological carbon removal more than ten times faster — equivalent to building nine of the largest direct air capture facilities currently under construction each month.
• Increase climate finance by nearly $1 trillion annually — equivalent to roughly two-thirds of public fossil fuel finance in 2023.  

Amid these sobering findings, the report also highlights encouraging pockets of progress. Beyond the jump in private climate finance, the global share of electricity from solar and wind has more than tripled since 2015, making solar the fastest-growing source of power in history. Clean energy investment exceeded fossil fuel investment for the second consecutive year in 2024. Emerging technologies that were no more than ideas or small-scale pilot projects a decade ago, such as green hydrogen and technological carbon dioxide removal, saw some of the most significant one-year gains, and with the right support, could approach mainstream breakthrough. Green hydrogen production, for example, more than quadrupled in a single year.  

“Ten years after the Paris Agreement, the data show both how far we’ve come and how far we still have to go,” said Kelly Levin, Chief of Science, Data and Systems Change at the Bezos Earth Fund and Co-Director of Systems Change Lab. “It’s hopeful that clean energy investment is now outpacing fossil fuels and new technologies are taking off — proof that progress is possible when ambition and investment align. The challenge is to scale these successes and reverse the setbacks.”  

That momentum is encouraging, but it’s still far from enough. Even maintaining current growth rates will fall short for 2030. For example, while the share of solar and wind power has grown at an impressive annual rate of 13% since 2020, that rate must more than double — to 29% annually — to reach its 2030 target. The report warns that each year that progress fails to accelerate, the climate action gap widens.  

Additional quotes:

“Ten years after the Paris Agreement, the world is at a critical crossroads,” said Ani Dasgupta, President and CEO, World Resources Institute. “The choice before us is clear: we can either lock in the systems that are escalating climate catastrophes and failing people and the planet, or we can accelerate the transition toward a healthier, more sustainable future. This report offers a roadmap to change course. The challenge now is to act with the urgency and collaboration needed to bring it to scale.” 

“Keeping warming to 1.5°C now hinges on one thing: speed,” said Bill Hare, CEO of Climate Analytics. “The science is unequivocal — the world isn’t moving fast enough. Every year of delay makes the task harder, and only rapid, sustained cuts can keep 1.5°C within reach.”  

“Clean energy and EVs are now competitive with or even cheaper than traditional alternatives, with markets adopting them at faster rates than experts predicted even a few years ago,” said Helen Mountford, President and CEO, ClimateWorks Foundation. “They reduce dependence on fossil fuels, which are vulnerable to price shocks and trade disruption. Private finance is also increasingly shifting to climate-related investments. Despite notable rollbacks in climate ambition, most countries, investors, and corporate actors are still moving ahead with the transition to green development paths, recognizing that they are better for economic competitiveness, people and communities, and for the climate.”  

How to cite this report:  

Published under Systems Change Lab, this report is a joint effort between the Bezos Earth Fund, Climate Analytics, ClimateWorks Foundation, the Climate High-Level Champions and World Resources Institute. 

*Please do not attribute the State of Climate Action 2025 to a single organization. 

About Systems Change Lab 
Systems Change Lab aims to spur action at the pace and scale needed to tackle some of the world’s greatest challenges: limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees C, halting biodiversity loss and building a just economy. Convened by World Resources Institute and the Bezos Earth Fund, Systems Change Lab supports the Climate High-Level Champions and works with key partners and funders, including the Children’s Investment Fund Foundation, Climate Analytics, ClimateWorks Foundation, Climate and Land Use Alliance, Global Environment Facility, Just Climate, Mission Possible Partnership, National Institute for Environmental Studies – Japan, Rocky Mountain Institute, Systemiq, UN Environment Programme World Conservation Monitoring Centre, the University of Exeter and the University of Tokyo’s Center for Global Commons, among others. Systems Change Lab is a component of the Global Commons Alliance. 

About the Bezos Earth Fund 
The Bezos Earth Fund is helping transform the fight against climate change with the largest ever philanthropic commitment to climate and nature protection. Jeff Bezos has committed $10 billion to protect nature and address climate change. By providing funding and expertise, we partner with organizations to accelerate innovation, break down barriers to success and create a more equitable and sustainable world. Join us in our mission to create a world where people prosper in harmony with nature. 

About Climate Analytics 
Climate Analytics is a global climate science and policy institute engaged around the world in driving and supporting climate action aligned to the 1.5°C warming limit. It has offices in Africa, Australia and the Pacific, the Caribbean, Europe, North America and South Asia. 

About ClimateWorks Foundation 
ClimateWorks Foundation is a catalyst for accelerating climate progress, driving bold solutions that benefit people and the planet. We connect funders and implementing partners worldwide to co-create and scale transformative solutions across sectors and geographies, achieving faster, greater impact together. Since 2008, ClimateWorks has granted over $2 billion to 850+ partners in more than 50 countries and in collaboration with 80+ funders.  

About the Climate High-Level Champions 
The Climate High-Level Champions, mandated at COP21 and appointed by COP Presidents each year, drive ambitious climate action by connecting the work of governments with the many voluntary and collaborative solutions provided by cities, regions, businesses, investors and civil society. This includes delivering the five-year plan of the Marrakech Partnership, in collaboration with the UN Climate Change secretariat and other partners, and flagship campaigns such as Race to Zero and Race to Resilience. Ms. Nigar Arpadarai and Mr. Dan Ioschpe serve as the current High-Level Champions for COP29 and COP30. 

About World Resources Institute 
World Resources Institute works to improve people’s lives, protect and restore nature and stabilize the climate. As an independent research organization, we leverage our data, expertise and global reach to influence policy and catalyze change across systems like food, land and water; energy; and cities. Our 2,000+ staff work on the ground in more than a dozen focus countries and with partners in over 50 nations.  

International Climate Action COP30 Type Press Release Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

The State of Climate Action in 2025: 10 Key Findings shannon.paton@… Wed, 10/22/2025 - 00:01 .article .layout__region--byline a::after { content: "*"; }

This article focuses on the 2025 findings of the State of Climate Action report series. View past articles here: 2023 | 2022 | 2021 | 2020

Research contributions from Joel Jaeger, Yuke Kirana, Kelly Levin, Raychel Santo, Katie Lebling, Danielle Riedl, Anderson Lee, Neelam Singh, Michelle Sims, Neil Chin, Aman Majid, Sarah Cassius, Will Lamb, Ankita Gangotra, Neil Grant, Yiqian Zhang-Billert and Michael Petroni.  

This year marks the 10th anniversary of the Paris Agreement, a watershed moment on climate action when more than 190 countries agreed to pursue efforts to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees C (2.7 degrees F) above pre-industrial levels. Achieving this goal can not only help humanity avoid increasingly catastrophic climate impacts, but also secure countless benefits — from advancing energy security, to improving human health and well-being, to protecting ecosystems that deliver life-sustaining services.

The decade since has seen a tremendous transition take root, with many changes unfolding today that were unimaginable in 2015.

Electric vehicles have surged from less than 1% of passenger car sales a decade ago to more than a fifth today.

Since 2015, solar and wind’s share of electricity generation has more than tripled.

And the ratio of clean energy finance to fossil fuel finance has more than doubled, with investments in clean energy supply surpassing those in fossil fuels for the second consecutive year in 2024.

initFlourishScrolly( { trigger_point: "0%", offset_top: "50px" } ); .fl-scrolly-step { width: 80% !important; }

Still other technologies that were no more than ideas or small-scale pilot projects when countries adopted the Paris Agreement, such as green hydrogen and direct air capture, are now being deployed around the world. These momentous gains should be celebrated; they demonstrate that rapid change is not only possible, but already well underway in some sectors.

But looking ahead to 2030, it’s clear that we still have a long way to go. Global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and enhance carbon removals are failing to materialize at the pace and scale needed to keep the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal within reach, according to new findings from the State of Climate Action 2025.

This research provides the most comprehensive roadmap yet for closing the global gap in climate action. It translates the 1.5 degree C limit into actionable targets for 2030, 2035 and 2050 — showing how fast the world must move to transform the highest-emitting sectors, shift financial flows to align with the Paris Agreement and scale up technological carbon dioxide removal — and grades real-world progress against these benchmarks.

This year’s report card, the fifth in the series, is sobering: Not one of the 45 indicators assessed is on track to achieve its 2030 target.

For five of these indicators, recent rates of change are heading in the wrong direction entirely, such that an immediate step-change in action is needed to course-correct. Progress for another 29 indicators, while heading in the right direction, is well off track and moving so slowly that at least a twofold — and for most, more than a fourfold — acceleration will be needed by the end of this decade. And data for five indicators is too limited to even assess recent progress.

The remaining six indicators, though off track, offer a glimmer of hope. Global efforts to achieve these 2030 targets are advancing faster than the rest and are significantly closer to getting on track with the right mix of policies, investments and leadership.

.read-more, .ckeditor-accordion-container>dl dt>a, .ckeditor-accordion-container>dl dt>a:not(.button),.ckeditor-accordion-container>dl, dd p { font-family: "acumin-pro-semi-condensed",sans-serif; font-size: 1rem; font-weight: 300; line-height: 1.3333; } .ckeditor-accordion-container > dl dd { margin-inline-start: 0 !important; padding: 0 !important; } .ckeditor-accordion-container>dl dt { border-top:none; margin-top: 0; }

Has the World Already Breached the Paris Agreement’s 1.5 Degree C Limit?

2024 was the first full year on record in which global average temperature rise exceeded 1.5 degrees C above pre-industrial levels, with an estimated anomaly of 1.55 degrees C (2.79 degrees F). But this does not mean the world has exceeded the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal or that it is no longer within reach.

[Read more]

Instead, scientists estimate average global temperature rise over a longer period — typically between 20 and 30 years — to smooth out variability in naturally occurring phenomena that can significantly impact year-on-year warming, like the El Niño-Southern Oscillation and volcanic activity. Current estimates of this longer-term anomaly are between 1.34 and 1.41 degrees C (2.41 and 2.54 degrees F).

Additionally, scientists have interpreted “pursuing efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 degrees C above preindustrial levels” as stabilizing global average temperature rise at or below this threshold by 2100. This means that warming may temporarily exceed this limit before falling back down to 1.5 degrees C by the end of the century — an outcome that will require large-scale carbon removal. With that said, minimizing the magnitude and duration of this overshoot will be paramount. Every fraction of a degree of warming, however temporary, will result in increasingly irreversible and adverse impacts. Learn more here and here.

Here, we unpack 10 key takeaways from this year’s State of Climate Action, ranging from some of the most promising signs of progress to areas lagging far behind:

1) Private climate finance increased so sharply that global efforts to mobilize these funds shifted from “well off track” to just “off track.”

Between 2022 and 2023, climate finance from the private sector rose from roughly $870 billion to a record high of $1.3 trillion, and early estimates for 2024 suggest continued momentum. Individual consumers, businesses and institutional investors, particularly in China and western Europe, drove much of these recent gains.

Although still off track to reach at least $3.1 trillion by 2030, this jump invites optimism. Private climate finance is already enabling the scale-up of existing zero-carbon technologies, such as electric vehicles and heat pumps. And when pooled with public funds, it can accelerate deployment even further, as well as help nurture innovation and first-of-a-kind ventures.

Still, private capital alone will not be enough. All sources of finance need to be urgently aligned with the Paris Agreement and mobilized at scale to help transform all sectors. Dramatically scaling up public climate finance is critical, especially in areas where the private sector is currently unwilling or poorly positioned to invest due to high perceived risk or low expected returns. Restoring the world’s forests, expanding public transit infrastructure and developing climate-smart agricultural technologies, for example, have attracted disproportionately fewer investments from private funders.

State of Climate Action 2025

Explore the full report.

Download

2) Relatively new innovations, like green hydrogen, technological carbon dioxide removal and electric trucks, also saw some of the most meaningful one-year gains.

Although not yet close to mainstream breakthrough, these technologies experienced impressive advances in 2023 and 2024 that, if sustained, could be an early signal of acceleration ahead. For example, green hydrogen production more than quadrupled in a single year. And the share of electric trucks in medium- and heavy-duty commercial vehicle sales rose by 67% between 2023 and 2024.

Similarly, over 30 direct air capture projects are operating around the world today, and many more are in development. By one estimate, another 50 facilities could come online in the near future, including three that may each capture upwards of 500,000 tonnes of CO2 (tCO2) annually — nearly 14 times more than the capture capacity of today’s largest plant. But while promising and fast-growing, direct air capture currently accounts for a relatively small share of technological dioxide carbon removal. Getting on track for 2030 will require scaling up all novel approaches more than 10 times faster. To put this into perspective, this is roughly equivalent to building nine of the largest direct air capture facilities currently in development each month through the end of this decade.

Measures to stimulate greater demand for these innovations, as well as investments in their development and deployment, will prove critical to ensuring that these recent gains in adoption translate into longer-term momentum.

3) Electric vehicle sales are still rising, but slowdowns in some major markets have pushed progress from “on track” to “off track.”

Global EV sales have continued to rise rapidly, reaching a record 22% of global passenger car sales in 2024 compared to just 4.4% in 2020. Much of this growth has been driven by China — the world’s leading EV consumer and manufacturer — where nearly half of all passenger cars sold are now electric.

But in two other major markets, momentum has stalled. EV sales fell slightly in Europe following the rollback of supportive subsidies in countries like Germany and France. In the United States, growth in EV sales has decelerated due to a combination of factors, including a relatively slow buildout of public charging infrastructure and limited availability of affordable electric SUVs, which account for three-quarters of America’s passenger car sales.

Consequently, the rate at which EVs are growing as a share of total light-duty vehicle sales fell to an average of roughly 20% per year in 2023 and 2024, compared to more than 60% in the previous three years. While still remarkable, these recent gains lag behind what’s needed to help achieve the Paris Agreement’s temperature goal. This marks a downgrade from the last State of Climate Action, when EV sales were the only indicator on track.

4) Solar and wind keep hitting new milestones, but sustaining current growth rates won’t be enough to get on track for 2030.

Solar power is the fastest growing source of electricity in history, repeatedly exceeding projections for future increases in installed capacity and generation. Today, solar around the world generates roughly 2,100 terawatt-hours each year — roughly 8 times more than in 2015 and 66 times more than in 2010. And in 2024 alone, countries collectively added enough solar power to the grid to meet the equivalent of France’s entire electricity demand that year.

Together, the share of solar and wind in electricity generation has grown at an average rate of roughly 13% per year since 2020. But while this relatively consistent growth is impressive, maintaining this trajectory won’t be enough to get on track for 2030. Instead, solar and wind need to grow more than twice as fast, at 29% per year — and delays only make the challenge steeper.

This underscores a critical reality for all indicators assessed. Every year that passes in which current growth rates are sustained, rather than accelerated, increases the magnitude of the acceleration that is needed thereafter. Only by substantially picking up the pace of change can the world make up for delayed efforts and moving another year close to 2030.

5) The world has barely moved the needle on some of the most important climate actions, like phasing out coal and halting deforestation.

Sharply reducing deforestation is crucial to halting climate change. The world’s forests hold roughly 870 gigatonnes of carbon (GtC) — nearly twice the amount emitted from fossil fuels since 1850. At least a third of these carbon stocks (around 280 GtC) are vulnerable to human disturbances, meaning they would be immediately released if forests are converted to pasturelands or croplands. Once lost, much of this carbon would be difficult for forests to recover in time to help reach net zero by mid-century.

Yet despite the outsized role that protecting these ecosystems can play in avoiding future GHG emissions, efforts to effectively halt deforestation remain well off track for the third State of Climate Action in a row. Although permanent forest loss dropped from a record high of 10.7 million hectares per year (Mha/yr) in 2017 to 7.8 Mha/yr in 2021, it has since ticked upward to reach 8.1 Mha/yr in 2024. This is roughly equivalent to losing nearly 22 football (soccer) fields of forests per minute — permanently. This recent spike in deforestation has dampened a longer-term downward trend observed since 2015, such that getting on track for 2030 will now require the rate of permanent forest loss to decline nine times faster.

Equally concerning are sluggish efforts to phase out coal — by far the largest source of GHG emissions in the power sector. As a share of global electricity generation, coal fell only slightly from 37% in 2019 to 34% in 2024 and remains “well off track” for the fourth consecutive report.

Keeping the Paris Agreement limit within reach will require the share of coal-fired power to decline more than 10 times faster, reaching just 4% by 2030. This is roughly equivalent to retiring nearly 360 average-sized coal-fired power plants each year through the end of this decade, as well as halting all planning for and development of new coal capacity currently in the pipeline. Continued delays also risk stymying mitigation efforts across buildings, industry and transport, which all rely on electrification and a decarbonized power grid to reduce GHG emissions.

6) Public finance for fossil fuels is still climbing, despite global pledges to phase out subsidies.

The world has seen a troubling rise in public finance for oil, gas and coal precisely when these investments need to be declining steeply. Since 2014, governments’ financial support for fossil fuels — such as production and consumption subsidies and funding from domestic and international development finance institutions — has increased by an average of roughly $75 billion per year.

While these investments did fall from an all-time high of $2.1 trillion in 2022 to $1.5 trillion in 2023, much of this one-year drop can be attributed to falling international oil and gas prices, which led to a reduction in public funds subsidizing the consumption of fossil fuels like gasoline. Critically, these subsidies represent the largest form of government support for fossil fuels and generally ebb and flow alongside fluctuations in oil and gas prices. This most recent decline, then, represents limited progress at best. A step-change in action will be needed to phase out public financial support for fossil fuels by 2030.

7) Progress on decarbonizing emissions-intensive steel and cement production is a mixed bag.

Steel and cement serve as the building blocks of our cities, homes and workplaces. They are also among the most emissions-intensive materials to produce. And — given the high temperatures required to make them and their substantial “process emissions” (GHGs emitted from chemical reactions during production) — they are some of the hardest to decarbonize via existing approaches, like electrification.

Since 2018, the carbon intensity of global steel production has increased. This is a particularly worrying trend, given that steel alone is responsible for upwards of 7% of global CO2 emissions. Solutions exist to help steelmakers change course; for example, reusing more “scrap” steel, swapping out coal and fossil gas for green hydrogen, and shifting to electric furnaces. But these are not yet readily available. Green hydrogen, while growing rapidly, remains relatively nascent and expensive, while quantities of recycled or “scrap” steel are limited.

Global efforts to decarbonize cement are slightly more promising. The State of Climate Action 2023 found that progress had stagnated and needed to occur more than 10 times faster to get on track for 2030. Since then, the amount of CO2 emitted per tonne of cement produced has begun to decline thanks to energy efficiency gains; greater use of alternative low-carbon fuels; and increased substitution of clinker (the primary component of cement) for less emissions-intensive materials, like calcined clay. Now, getting on track for 2030 requires a fourfold acceleration. Encouragingly, the past five years have seen a surge in new projects focused on decarbonizing cement production, signaling that the world is paying more attention to addressing this challenge.

8) Promising solutions are emerging in agriculture to tackle some of the world’s most potent GHG emissions — but efforts to scale them are coming up short.

Agricultural production accounts for roughly half of global methane and nitrous oxide emissions, which have far more warming power than CO2, particularly in the near term. Major sources include enteric fermentation (the process by which some livestock release methane as they digest); the application of both synthetic and organic fertilizers, like manure and compost; rice production; and manure management.

While these absolute emissions have risen slowly but steadily since 2000, recent years have seen the emissions intensity of agriculture (the amount of GHGs released per kilocalorie of food produced) decline across all major sources. Now, getting on track for 2030 will require these improvements to occur 1.2 times faster for fertilizers, 2.5 times faster for enteric fermentation, and 6 times faster for both manure management and rice cultivation.

Yet accelerating progress is no small feat. Compared to the power sector — where solar and/or wind power can be deployed almost anywhere — there’s not an equivalent, predominant solution to reducing emissions from agriculture. Rather, technologies and practices must be tailored to each context, considering factors like the local climate, soil conditions, crop varieties, livestock breeds, agricultural traditions and more.

That said, a variety of promising strategies are available, but have yet to be adopted at scale. A well-established method of repeatedly flooding and drying rice paddies, for example, has significantly reduced methane emissions from rice production within a handful of Asian countries. Meanwhile, introducing easier-to-digest feeds has lowered enteric fermentation emissions across much of Europe and North America. More concerted efforts and financial support are urgently needed to bring — and adapt — these strategies to the regions that need them most.

9) Shifting demand — for example, across diets, transit networks and buildings — can deliver substantial emissions reductions, but these changes have yet to take off.

The IPCC finds that shifting consumption patterns, particularly among the world’s highest-earning households, can reduce GHG emissions 40%-70% by 2050 when compared with current climate policies. Cycling, walking or taking public transit instead of driving; avoiding long-haul flights; adopting more plant-rich diets; cutting food waste; and improving energy efficiency in our homes and workplaces are among the most effective changes.

Yet these global transitions have largely stalled. The share of trips taken by private passenger cars, most of which still rely on gasoline, continues to increase and now accounts for about half of all kilometers traveled — despite progress in expanding bicycle lanes and public transit networks among the world’s most populous cities. Energy efficiency improvements in buildings (as approximated by the amount of energy consumed per square meter of floor area) have also slowed in recent years. And available evidence suggests the world has made almost no dent in halving food loss and waste by 2030.

Meanwhile, per capita consumption of beef, lamb and goat meat across high-consuming regions has decreased slightly, from 107 kilocalories per day in 2018 to 104 kilocalories per day in 2022. But it needs to fall to no more than 79 kilocalories per person per day by 2030. This will entail the average person eating about 1.9 fewer servings per week in Australia and New Zealand, 1.3 fewer servings per week in South America and 1.2 fewer servings per week in North America. Fortunately, several initiatives are underway to make protein-rich beans, lentils and other legumes more accessible and appealing. And public investments have grown to support the research, development and deployment of alternative proteins, like plant-based and cultivated meats.

Supportive policies — including measures that incentivize efficiency improvements and help make sustainable behaviors the easiest, most affordable options — can help accelerate these shifts.

10) Persistent data limitations across some sectors mean we still can’t fully assess global climate action.

For a handful of indicators, particularly those focused on decarbonizing buildings and conserving wetland ecosystems, data has been insufficient to assess progress for every installment of the State of Climate Action series. This includes some that could deliver substantial reductions in GHG emissions.

Peatlands, for example, cover just 3.8% of Earth’s land, but contain at least a fifth of the world’s soil organic carbon stocks and store an order of magnitude more carbon per hectare than forests. Once degraded, these ecosystems can emit CO2 and nitrous oxide for decades to centuries until all peat is fully lost or their soils are rewetted. Accordingly, halting peatland degradation and restoring 15 million hectares of degraded peatlands by 2030 can offer immediate and relatively large reductions in GHG emissions. But despite recent progress in mapping these ecosystems, efforts to monitor annual changes in peatlands’ extent are insufficient to grade progress. Without better data, the world has very limited insights on whether we are losing or recovering these vital carbon hotspots.

Toward a More Prosperous and Sustainable Future

Unprecedented transformational changes across every sector, alongside large-scale carbon removal, are needed immediately to keep the Paris Agreement goal within reach. But despite some pockets of progress, such as rapid growth in EV sales and renewable power, climate action across the board continues to fall far short of what’s needed.

In spite of these grave challenges — indeed, precisely because global progress lags so far behind — achieving Paris-aligned targets for 2030 is all the more vital. Should warming exceed 1.5 degrees C even temporarily, already devastating impacts will only intensify, subjecting more people to increasingly frequent and severe storms, longer heatwaves and droughts, more extreme flooding and sea level rise, and more. Overshooting this threshold of warming also increases the likelihood that these future risks will compound one another, with multiple hazards battering communities at the same time.

Every fraction of a degree matters for lessening the scale and severity of these impacts. And the roadmap for reducing GHG emissions and enhancing carbon removals is clear: Everything from phasing out unabated fossil gas to electrifying industry is urgently required this decade — and remains technically feasible.

In this eleventh hour, we still have time to course correct. There’s no sugar-coating the fact that the challenge ahead is immense, and the scale of change required is unprecedented. But just because something is unprecedented doesn’t mean it’s impossible. The solutions exist. We know what to do. We just need to act with the urgency this moment demands.

Explore the data underpinning the State of Climate Action 2025 further:

*Sophie Boehm and Clea Schumer contributed equally to this work and share first authorship.

solar-panels-installation.jpg Climate climate change greenhouse gases GHG emissions carbon removal electric mobility renewable energy deforestation fossil fuels climate finance industry agriculture data visualization COP30 climatewatch-pinned Type Finding Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Systems Change Lab
• International Climate Action

Authors Sophie Boehm Clea Schumer

STATEMENT: European Commission Protects EUDR’s Core Principles nate.shelter@wri.org Tue, 10/21/2025 - 12:52

Brussels (October 21, 2025) — The European Commission today put forward a formal proposal to simplify the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) for micro and small enterprises, as well as downstream operators.

These companies will have reduced obligations under the EUDR, and the formal entry into application for micro and small enterprises will be delayed until December 2026. For all other companies, the overall entry into force date remains December 30, 2025, but a 6-month grace period for checks and enforcement will be granted in light of IT issues. 

The EUDR aims to prevent commodities linked to deforestation — such as coffee, cocoa, soy, beef, leather, palm oil, rubber, and wood — from entering the EU market. The new proposal exempts certain actors, including small-scale farmers and foresters selling locally, from submitting due diligence statements. It also exempts downstream companies from this requirement, allowing businesses that use or resell these covered products to rely on the due diligence conducted by the importer or first trader.

Following is a statement by Stientje van Veldhoven, Vice President and Regional Director for Europe of World Resources Institute:

“With this proposal, the Commission is creating a workaround to allow compliance with the EUDR to begin at the end of December 2025. While no tampering would have been preferable, this approach is far better than delaying enforcement another year or gutting the regulation, as some have called for.

“The Commission appears focused on reducing burdens where the impact is small, while maintaining rigor where the stakes are high. An exemption only for micro enterprises — not including small enterprises — would have had less impact. Yet this package could strike a robust compromise: businesses that have already invested won't see their efforts wasted, and those betting on future delays will not be rewarded.

“Crucially, it rejects the most harmful proposals like exempting entire countries. The proposal exempts small companies from submitting due diligence declarations, while making sure their products aren't sourced from land deforested or degraded after the cutoff date and comply with local laws. As such, the proposal addresses the issues with the IT system, but retains the EUDR’s core elements and maintains its predictability.

“It's important the European Parliament and Council give businesses clear guidance — and avoid adding uncertainty with further changes to the law. Forests are vital for climate stability, yet last year we lost 6.7 million hectares — 18 football fields every minute. With just 7% of the global population, the EU drives up to 16% of deforestation through imports. The EU bears a disproportionate responsibility to lead.”

Forests Europe commodities deforestation Type Statement Exclude From Blog Feed? 0

For New Global Forest Pledges to Succeed, They Must Center Forest Communities sarah.brown@wri.org Tue, 10/21/2025 - 12:34

Forests are among our most powerful allies in the fight against climate change. As the world races to halt and reverse deforestation globally by 2030, recognizing the role of the people who safeguard them is more critical than ever. 

At the upcoming UN Climate Summit (COP30) in Belém, Brazil, governments and stakeholders are set to unveil three global commitments that recognize the conservation value of these communities and mark a significant step forward for forest protection. These pledges aim to scale up both forest financing and formal land rights for Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants and local communities.

However, achieving these goals could face some hurdles. The process of getting legal ownership of land is typically complex and can take years. Without formal land deeds, forest guardians can face structural and institutional barriers to accessing the financing needed to sustain conservation efforts.

WRI COP30 Resource Hub

WRI’s experts are closely following the UN climate talks. Watch our Resource Hub for new articles, research, webinars and more.

One way to help turn these pledges into reality is through customary land rights recognition, which means recognizing that communities have the right to their traditional lands based on long-standing customs and ways of life, even without formal legal titles. Customary land rights can provide those already protecting forests with a pathway and structure to receive near-term funding and help lay the groundwork to secure long-term, formal tenure in the future. 

3 New Pledges for Forests and Rights

While the exact wording of the pledges is still being finalized, the following three commitments are expected to be made at COP30 in November:

• The Land and Forest Tenure Pledge 2.0 seeks to renew and expand the historic $1.7 billion Forest Tenure Pledge made at COP26 in Glasgow, Scotland, in 2021, with the goal of supporting Indigenous and community forest tenure rights and halting and reversing forest loss and land degradation by 2030.
• The Tropical Forest Forever Facility, or TFFF, proposes an innovative $125 billion blended-finance mechanism — combining public, philanthropic and private capital — that would pay forest countries for maintaining standing tropical forests. At least 20% of the fund will be reserved for direct access by Indigenous Peoples and local communities.
• The Intergovernmental Land Tenure Commitment, or ILTC, is a landmark commitment aimed at setting national, hectare-based targets for legally recognizing Indigenous, Afro-descendants and local communities’ land rights and strengthening existing laws governing community land tenure. 

Together, these commitments signal a growing consensus that securing forest stewards’ land rights and access to finance is essential to safeguarding the planet’s climate and biodiversity.

Why Land Rights and Finance Are Needed

Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants and local communities steward more than one-third of the world’s intact forests and biodiversity areas within their territories, and deforestation rates on these lands are up to 26% lower than the global average. While about 11% of lands and forests globally are formally recognized as theirs, at least 1.375 billion hectares of their lands remain without legal recognition by national governments.

Without formal land rights, communities are often excluded from direct climate and forest financing. This happens because funds usually go to those who are legally registered as landowners, which is often the state rather than the forest communities themselves. From 2011 to 2024, less than 1% of international climate financing reached programs that support Indigenous and community land tenure and management, and only a fraction of that went directly to community-led organizations. Of the $1.7 billion COP26 Forest Tenure Pledge, just over 10% reached Indigenous and community-led organizations in 2023.

As a result, these communities often lack the resources needed to effectively protect forests from incursions, encroachments and land grabs, and to invest in land management practices that support global forest goals.

When the new COP30 finance commitments begin to flow, communities lacking formal land rights could again be left behind. Even proposals such as the TFFF, which allocates 20% of its funds for direct community access, may fall short if the funding delivery mechanism isn’t clearly defined.

Logging in Congo. The Forest Tenure Pledge, made at COP26 in 2021, aims to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by 2030. Photo by Scott Thompson/WRI  Recognizing Customary Forest Stewardship

Many forest countries already recognize customary forest tenure, although the degree of recognition varies significantly. While these rights don’t grant full ownership, they can establish recognized forms of forest stewardship that can provide a foundation for communities to access financing and pave the way toward formal land titles.  

These forest tenure approaches typically include legitimacy vetting, geospatial mapping and recording in information registries, and documented conservation outcomes, which can serve as important building blocks to fulfill countries’ commitments under the ILTC and Pledge 2.0.

Here are several proven approaches to forest stewardship based on customary land tenure:

Recognizing colonial-era or ancestral land grants 

Payments for ecosystem services, or PES, programs that pay landowners to maintain forest cover typically require formal land ownership. This often excludes many Indigenous and smallholder communities. But Guatemala’s PINPEP program (National Incentives Program for Small Landowners with a Forestry Vocation) provides a different approach: It allows participants to join the program using verified colonial-era land grants and municipal certificates of possession in lieu of formal titles.

PINPEP recognizes verified customary possession and land use, allowing communities already protecting forests to access funds without undergoing the lengthy and costly process of getting formal land titles. The results are promising: An evaluation of Guatemala’s PES system from 2007 to 2022 found a 3.4% drop in forest cover loss in Indigenous and smallholder forests under PINPEP, compared to a 1.6% increase in forest cover loss in forests under Guatemala’s PES program for titled landowners.

Legal recognition of Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas   

Indigenous and Community Conserved Areas, or ICCAs, — also known as “Territories of Life” — are ecologically critical lands and waters governed and managed by Indigenous and rural communities based on their own customs, traditions and institutions. These lands recognize communities as collective stewards rather than private owners and provide a framework through which funding and conservation support can directly reach them.

These lands include sacred forests, community-managed forest areas, pastoral lands and coastal or marine regions that demonstrate positive conservation outcomes, even if conservation is not the primary objective. They are established by the communities themselves, based on deep historical and cultural connection to the area and their use of traditional land management systems. ICCAs are subject to peer review before being designated as such and recorded in the global ICCA Registry.  

Many countries legally recognize ICCAs, and donors are increasingly supporting them. For example, the German International Climate Initiative, or IKI, funded ICCA development in 45 countries, while World Wildlife Fund-Canada has established a fund to enable First Nations, Inuit and Métis Indigenous communities to create and manage their own protected areas.

Recognizing long-term community forest management rights

Many countries grant long-term forest management rights to state-owned forests. While forestland remains state property, communities gain exclusive rights to use, manage and protect it. This recognition allows them to participate directly in climate fund initiatives.

There are several examples of this in practice. Indonesia’s social forestry program, or Perhutanan Sosial, grants long-term permits of up to 35 years for local and customary communities to sustainably manage state forests. A study spanning from 2007 to 2018 found that these areas saw a steady increase in primary forest and a decrease of secondary forest converted into non-forest areas. At the same time, local livelihoods and incomes rose by up to 92% in some regions.

Similarly, in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the local community forest concessions program, or CFCL, grants customary communities within or near national forest estates perpetual user rights to as much as 50,000 hectares of land. Since early 2024, more than 166 CFCLs have been granted, covering over 3 million hectares. A study found that CFCLs have up to 23% lower deforestation rates than the national average and 46% lower than logging concessions.

Community-led reforestation in Indonesia. These types of efforts help restore degraded forests and strengthen local stewardship of natural resources. Photo by James Anderson/WRI  A Turning Point for Forests and Rights

Recognizing the role of communities in protecting forests as a valid reason to fund them is not only sound climate policy — it is a matter of equity. These and similar land-rights approaches offer a practical, high-impact pathway toward achieving the goals set under the new COP30 forest commitments.

The three forest commitments expected at COP30 could be transformative, but only if they lead to action that puts land rights at the center. Ultimately, fully recognizing the rights of Indigenous Peoples, Afro-descendants and local communities to their lands is the only way to protect the world’s forests and our shared future.  

As COP30 sets the tone for the next phase of global climate action, securing land rights and unlocking finance for those who protect forests are two of the most strategic, effective and urgent investments the world can make.  

 

Correction, 10/29/25: A previous version of this article stated that only 11% of the lands managed by Indigenous Peoples, local communities and Afro-descendant populations are formally recognized. We have updated the article to clarify that these groups hold legal title to 11% of land and forests globally.

 

     

hero.jpg Equity & Governance Indigenous Peoples & Local Communities land rights COP30 Forests climate finance Climate Equity Type Commentary Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Authors Celine Salcedo-La Viña Minnie Degawan Kevin Currey Edward Davey

Improving Air Quality in Bogotá, Colombia, from the Ground Up alicia.cypress… Tue, 10/21/2025 - 10:00

In Bogotá, WRI Colombia led efforts to improve the city’s air quality alert system and reduce pollution in key neighborhoods across the city. From 2020 to 2025, WRI Colombia worked closely with members of the community, the city’s secretariats of the environment and mobility, and the mayor’s office to address air quality on multiple fronts using practical data and tools.

Deep Dive Cities Initiative

Through its Deep Dive Cities initiative, WRI Ross Center works in a deep and sustained way with a network of cities to develop both long-term relationships and solutions to entrenched urban challenges. Learn more here.

For several years, WRI Colombia’s Deep Dive Cities team has supported Bogotá’s clean air goals. In 2024, the city unveiled a masterplan, Plan Aire 2030, launching its first Clean Air Zone and setting a benchmark to reduce air pollution by 30% by 2030.  It’s estimated that this goal will prevent more than 840 premature deaths a year and save the city $1.7 billion annually.

Arming Cities with Better Air Quality Data

In 2020, WRI helped upgrade Bogotá’s existing air quality forecasting system using CanAIRy Alert. By running Bogotá’s local air quality data through CanAIRy Alert’s machine-learning platform, WRI Colombia helped equip the city with a bias-corrected forecast system that can produce air quality predictions up to five days in advance of high-pollution events.

City officials were able to make evidence-based, real-time decisions to protect residents, especially those from vulnerable groups like children, elderly people and those with chronic health conditions. With advance notice, the city could recommend that vulnerable residents adapt their routines and reduce their exposure to pollution by avoiding open spaces during high-pollution hours, reducing their use of private vehicles to lower emissions, and increasing their use of public or active transportation, such as biking or walking, if they could do so safely. 

Tackling Air Quality on the Ground

In addition to improving air quality monitoring, the team worked with the city to assess how urban design enhancements could improve local air quality. The Barrios Vitales pilot program saw the installation of new bike lanes, green spaces and expanded pedestrian zones in San Felipe, a residential neighborhood just outside of Bogotá’s downtown area. 

To estimate the impacts on air quality improvements, WRI developed a series of air quality impact indicators that include: estimated changes in pollution emission reduction (in tons of PM2.5 avoided per year); the reduction in exposure to air pollutants in specific areas, such as public spaces, streets, parks and schools; and the increase of the percentage of days attaining local air quality standards.

Data was collected before and after the intervention was completed, and the initial findings showed that during the first year PM2.5 levels dropped by 13%. Furthermore, the neighborhood saw a 44% decrease in road crashes. Public transport use increased by 81%, and trips by bike and scooter also rose by 82%. 

This was the first pilot of its kind in Latin America, with the potential to be replicated across many more neighborhoods and cities. Bogotá hopes to be a model for other cities in Colombia, like Cali, Medellín and Barranquilla.

Driving Long-Term Change through Collaboration

From the outset, WRI Colombia and Colombia’s secretariats of environment and mobility shared a clear vision: to enhance air quality and safeguard the health of citizens.  WRI Colombia’s Deep Dive Cities team worked to actively break down institutional silos and foster a collaborative culture between technicians, decision-makers, academics and the community. This alignment allowed the teams to move nimbly, make informed decisions and build joint solutions.

WRI shared its technical expertise in air quality impact indicators and access to global forecast models (such as NASA's GEOS-CF), while the secretariats’ offices provided knowledge of the territory and local operations and implemented suggested measures. This combination enabled the transformation of complex data into actionable steps.

What’s Next for Deep Dive Cities Colombia?

Going forward, WRI Colombia will continue to support air quality improvement efforts in Bogotá through its deep engagement with the city. With the Barrios Vitales program expanding to the Las Cruces, El Porvenir, Chapinero and San Cristóbal neighborhoods in Bogotá, WRI Colombia will provide analysis of microscale data to evaluate air quality, noise and micro-environmental conditions. These analyses will help Bogotá identify causes of pollution and which public space interventions could help with mitigation.

In partnership with the new Breathe Cities initiative, WRI Colombia will continue clean air efforts in Bogotá by implementing two new strategies to improve air quality:

• Transitioning mopeds to electric models to reduce emissions in congested urban areas.
• Electrifying school bus fleets, prioritizing educational environments and areas of high vulnerability to pollution.

WRI Ross Center’s Deep Dive Cities Initiative focuses on locally driven strategic projects as entry points to foster long-term, cross-sectoral and transformative change. Through the initiative, WRI provides strategic funding and additional technical capacity to support a wide range of projects. The initiative also allows WRI to share lessons learned from across its network of partner cities.

colombia-clean-air.jpg Cities Colombia Urban Development pollution Urban Mobility Urban Efficiency & Climate Cities Type Project Update Exclude From Blog Feed? 0 Projects

• Deep Dive Cities
• CanAIRy Alert
• Air Quality
• Urban Development
• Urban Efficiency & Climate

Authors Beatriz Cardenas Sandra Meneses Daniel Cano Gomez Beth Elliott Madeline Palmieri