The leadership of Indigenous Peoples is essential to a liveable, climate-resilient future. Their knowledge systems, rooted in stewardship, interdependence and care for all life, have guided – and continue to guide – communities through environmental change for millennia.
Across the world, Indigenous Peoples are responding to climate impacts with ingenuity and foresight. Grounded in lived experience and sustained through generations, Indigenous ways of living are diverse, adaptive, relational and deeply ecological, connected to land and culture. These are dynamic frameworks for resilience.
Youssef Nassef, Director of the Adaptation Programme of the UNFCCC secretariat
As ambition under the Paris Agreement accelerates – in particular through the Global Goal on Adaptation – Indigenous Peoples are increasingly recognized not just as participants in climate policymaking, but as pathfinders. Their distinct and diverse worldviews offer valuable insights into what it truly means to be adapted: living in harmony with ecosystems, upholding intergenerational responsibility, and restoring balance.
Indigenous Climate Leadership in Action
Across diverse geographies, Indigenous Peoples are leading the way:
Vancouver Island, Canada: The Tla-o-qui-aht First Nation declared 100% of their territory under “Hishuk Ish Tsawaak” (ecosystem-based forest management), blending ancestral stewardship laws with modern conservation to protect salmon streams, old‐growth forests and watersheds – strengthening carbon sinks and food security.
Murray–Darling Basin, Australia: The Murray Lower Darling Rivers Indigenous Nations have reasserted customary governance over key river systems. Through inter-tribal cooperation, they negotiate water allocations, monitor river health, and restore wetlands to sustain ecosystems and downstream communities.
Highlands of Mongolia: Indigenous herder councils partnered with national meteorological services to co-design the Advanced Weather Information System, combining traditional forecasts with satellite data to issue drought and snow‐melt warnings, reducing livestock loss and economic shocks.
Mindanao, Philippines: Panlaoy, an Indigenous youth network, is reviving ancestral “kaingin” forestry practices, such as contour planting, sacred grove protection and community-based forest monitoring to slow erosion, recharge springs and regenerate degraded upland watersheds, securing downstream water for rice farming.
These are not isolated examples. They demonstrate that Indigenous-led climate action is happening, quietly and effectively, but is often under-recognised and under-supported. These examples reflect how place-based knowledge systems – whether managing forests, rivers, rains or soils – are being actively revitalised and scaled through partnerships with governments and research institutions. These systems are not only surviving; they are thriving and evolving.
In mitigation, too, Indigenous Peoples play a central role. Their stewardship of forests, wetlands and grasslands helps maintain vital carbon sinks and protects biodiversity. Studies show that Indigenous-managed lands have lower deforestation rates and greater ecological integrity than surrounding areas. Their contributions are not just environmental – they are critical to global sustainability.
“As UNFCCC works with countries and stakeholders to advance the Global Goal on Adaptation and long-term climate resilience, Indigenous Peoples must be at the centre, not just as stakeholders, but as partners and knowledge holders,” says Youssef Nassef, Director of Adaptation at UN Climate Change. “The Local Communities and Indigenous Peoples Platform (LCIPP) continues to drive this forward, ensuring that Indigenous voices shape climate policy and action.”
Supporting and Amplifying Indigenous Climate Leadership
On this day, and every day, UN Climate Change calls on countries, institutions and climate actors to:
Partner meaningfully with Indigenous Peoples.
Incorporate Indigenous worldviews and knowledge into national climate strategies.
Invest in Indigenous-led climate solutions with accessible, long-term support.
A Body tasked with operationalising the UN carbon market under the Paris Agreement has adopted a new standard on “suppressed demand”, opening the door for more inclusive climate action in regions with limited access to basic services such as water and sanitation.
Formally known as the Article 6.4 Supervisory Body, it is responsible for establishing the rules and infrastructure for the Paris Agreement Crediting Mechanism. This mechanism will allow countries and other actors to cooperate in reducing greenhouse gas emissions by generating high-integrity carbon credits, while also supporting sustainable development.
Martin Hession, Chair of the Supervisory Body
Supressed demand standard
Suppressed demand refers to situations where people use very little energy or services, not because they don’t need them, but because they can’t afford them or the infrastructure doesn’t exist. The new standard allows climate projects that help meet these basic human needs to earn carbon credits, even if emissions would naturally rise as a result of improved access.
This approach helps ensure that people in low-income communities can benefit from climate finance, by recognising the emissions that would occur if their basic needs were met and supporting projects that meet those needs in the cleanest way possible.
The decision allows suppressed demand to be recognised in mechanism baselines to credit projects that provide essential services. These baselines reflect the expected emissions if communities had normal access to those services and enable fairer crediting for development-focused projects.
“We’ve recognised that baselines can be established with reference to basic human needs where they aren’t being met. This approach allows the mechanism to support real development benefits, particularly in communities where access is currently limited,” said Martin Hession, Chair of the Supervisory Body.
Upcoming work on non-permanence and reversals
Methodological Expert Panel (MEP) has produced recommendations on non-permanence and reversals, for which public comment has just closed. The Supervisory Body is looking forward to the MEP making formal recommendations to the Body, which will be subject to a further consultation period before it is considered by the Body.
“While there is significant work to do, we are committed to securing a non-permanence and reversals standard this year. We expect to adopt a standard at our next meeting in October once we receive the final recommendation from the MEP,” said Martin Hession, Chair of the Supervisory Body. “I know there is significant stakeholder interest in the initial drafts produced by the MEP last month, and there has been strong engagement during the MEP’s initial consultation. Of course, there will be another opportunity to comment on the final recommendation once it has been formulated by the MEP in September.”
Other matters
The Supervisory Body adopted its two-year business and resource allocation plan for 2026-2027, outlining the minimum capacity needed to fully operationalise the mechanism. While early implementation is progressing, revenue generation remains limited at this stage and a significant upfront investment is required to establish essential infrastructure.
To support this, the Body agreed that the Chair and Vice-Chair will lead targeted fundraising efforts, with Parties to the Paris Agreement to be invited to contribute to resource mobilisation.
Next steps
The Supervisory Body will next meet from October 6 to 10, 2025, to continue developing other key elements of the mechanism, including a standard on reversal risk and additional tools and guidelines.
The World Health Organisation (WHO) has validated Kenya as having eliminated human African trypanosomiasis (HAT) or sleeping sickness as a public health problem, making it the 10th country to reach this important milestone. HAT is the second neglected tropical disease (NTD) to be eliminated in Kenya: the country was certified free of Guinea worm disease in 2018.
“I congratulate the government and people of Kenya on this landmark achievement,” said Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, WHO Director-General. “Kenya joins the growing ranks of countries freeing their populations of human African trypanosomiasis. This is another step towards making Africa free of neglected tropical diseases.”
Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, Director-General, World Health Organisation (WHO)
HAT is a vector-borne disease caused by the blood parasite Trypanosoma brucei. It is transmitted to humans through the bites of tsetse flies that have acquired the parasites from infected humans or animals. Rural populations dependent on agriculture, fishing, animal husbandry or hunting are most at risk of exposure.
As the name indicates, HAT is transmitted only on the African continent. The disease exists in two forms, gambiense and rhodesiense. The rhodesiense form (r-HAT), which is found in eastern and southern Africa, is the only one present in Kenya. It is caused by Trypanosoma brucei rhodesiense and progresses rapidly, invading multiple organs including the brain. Without treatment, it is fatal within weeks.
Kenya’s progress
“This validation marks a major public health milestone for Kenya, as we celebrate the elimination of a deadly disease in our country. The achievement will not only protect our people but also pave the way for renewed economic growth and prosperity,” said Dr Aden Duale, Kenya’s Cabinet Secretary for Health. “This follows many years of dedication, hard work and collaboration”.
The first cases of HAT in Kenya were detected in the early 20th century. Since then, Kenya has engaged in consistent control activities, without indigenous new cases reported for over 10 years. The last autochthonous case was detected in 2009, and the last two exported cases, infected in the Masai Mara National Reserve, were detected in 2012.
Recently, Kenya strengthened HAT surveillance in 12 health facilities in six historically endemic counties to act as sentinel sites. They were equipped with diagnostic tools and had their clinical personnel trained on diagnostic procedures, including the most sensitive and practical tests for r-HAT.
The country also actively monitors the control and surveillance of tsetse flies and animal trypanosomiasis, both within and beyond the historical HAT endemic areas, supported by the national veterinary health authorities and the Kenya Tsetse and Trypanosomiasis Eradication Council (KENTTEC). These activities and the related data provide supplementary backing to the claim of HAT elimination as a public health problem.
“This key milestone reflects Kenya’s efforts and commitment over many years, as a collaboration between national and county governments, national research institutions, development partners and affected communities,” said Dr Patrick Amoth, EBS, Director General Health, Ministry of Health, Kenya. “The country remains fully committed to sustain the quality of care and surveillance in line with WHO’s recommendations.”
Supported by WHO and partners, including FIND, Kenya’s HAT elimination programme will now implement a post-validation surveillance plan to detect any potential resurgence or reintroduction of transmission. WHO continues to support ongoing monitoring in previously affected areas and maintains a stock of medicines to ensure rapid treatment of possible future cases, thanks to donations from Bayer AG and Sanofi.
“This success was made possible by the Ministry of Health’s leadership, the dedication of health workers in areas at risk and the support from key partners,” said Dr Abdourahmane Diallo, WHO Representative to Kenya. “WHO is proud to have contributed to this achievement and encourages all stakeholders to remain involved in post-validation monitoring.”
Progress in global HAT elimination
A total of 57 countries has eliminated at least one NTD. Of these, 10 (including Kenya) have successfully eliminated HAT as a public health problem. The other countries that have reached this milestone are Benin, Chad, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Guinea, Rwanda, Togo and Uganda.
Only three months before the United Nations climate talks (COP30) take place in Belem, Brazil, Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has partially passed legislation that is expected to unleash higher rates of deforestation – and greater threats to Indigenous communities living there.
The bill rolls back strict environmental licensing rules that have kept destruction of the world’s largest rainforest in check.
Lula da Silva, President of Brazil
While Lula struck down some aspects of the bill, including stipulations that would strip Indigenous Peoples of veto power over economic activities on their lands, the overall threats to forests and Indigenous Peoples remain.
Dinamam Tuxá, of the Tuxá Peoples from Bahia, Pernambuco, and Minas Gerais, and the Executive Coordinator of APIB and a lawyer for APOINME, said: ”At his inauguration, President Lula made a public commitment to Indigenous Peoples and to the protection of the environment. In light of that, it was essential that he fully veto the so-called ‘Devastation Bill’.
“This bill represents a serious attack from a Congress that has consistently shown itself to be hostile to the rights of Indigenous Peoples and to the environmental agenda. Now, the responsibility for this law lies with Congress, which continues to push forward measures that violate constitutional rights and put the future of the planet at risk.”
On July 17, 2024, the Chamber of Deputies approved Bill 2,159/2021, incorporating 29 Senate amendments. The bill makes it easier for companies to obtain permits to develop new projects in forested areas by creating new types of environmental licenses, such as the Special Environmental License (LAE) and the Adhesion and Commitment License (LAC), which simplifies procedures and shorter analysis deadlines. In some cases, companies simply need to fill out an online form to receive a permit that would have previously undergone scrutiny.
Starting on July 17, President Lula had 15 working days to decide whether to veto the bill, fully or in part. Reported disagreements among his ministers and advisors and strong opposition from civil society, which dubbed the legislation the “Devastation Bill” created tensions.
The initial draft of the law created a fast-track license called the Special Environmental License (LAE) for large projects, allowing approval within 12 months and lasting up to 10 years. For smaller projects, there would be a simpler license (LAC) that wouldn’t require detailed environmental due diligence. Instead, the business would promise to follow rules and would be checked annually to ensure compliance.
Agencies that normally protect Indigenous lands, cultural heritage, and nature reserves could have less power in approving licenses. If the law goes forward, these agencies will only get to comment on projects if the Indigenous land is already officially recognised. Many Indigenous lands still waiting for this recognition wouldn’t be considered. These agencies would have less time to give their opinions, and if they are late, the licensing authority could ignore their input. This means some important concerns about the environmental or human rights impact of a project might not be fully considered.
The news comes as Brazilian Indigenous leaders are calling for the creation of an Indigenous NDC (Nationally Determined Contribution) – ensuring that national climate targets include metrics for land demarcation, recognizing that their territories are critical for environmental protection and climate mitigation.
The Articulation of Indigenous Peoples of Brazil (APIB)
APIB is the largest Indigenous organisation in Brazil and has, since its creation, fulfilled its commitment to fight for the constitutional rights of the country’s Indigenous Peoples. Whether nationally or internationally, APIB and its seven grassroots organisations are mobilised to protect territories, communities and people. The Indigenous Peoples, articulated through their regional organisations and APIB, seek in all instances the accountability of those responsible for this destruction.
APIB has historically mobilised the indigenous movement and faced the anti-indigenous policies that are being processed in the Federal Supreme Court and in the Chamber of Deputies, forming the front line of protection of Indigenous Peoples and Lands, and consequently, of the environment and the environment’s future. APIB is working on multiple fronts to stop these attacks against their rights and territories.
They are in Bonn, Germany, to raise international alerts; they are working hand-and-hand with government officials who care for the climate and human rights and organising nation-wide demonstrations.
The Dangote Petroleum Refinery has dismissed recent reports alleging a shutdown of its operations, reassuring the public and market stakeholders that its activities remain fully active and stable.
In an official statement by the Group Chief Branding and Communications Officer, Anthony Chiejina, the refinery’s management categorically denied claims that truck loading has been suspended or that production has been interrupted.
Dangote Refinery
“The Dangote Petroleum Refinery is fully operational. There has been no shutdown, nor has there been any suspension of truck loading activities,” the statement reads.
The refinery also clarified that the intermittent sale of Residual Catalytic Oil (RCO) is part of normal business operations, often involving large parcel sales, which explains the recent fuel oil tender.
According to the management, Dangote Petroleum Refinery consistently supplies over 40 million litres of PMS daily, alongside steady volumes of Automotive Gas Oil (diesel). These supplies continue unabated, despite speculation suggesting otherwise.
“As the world’s largest single-train petroleum refinery, the facility employs advanced predictive and preventive maintenance protocols to ensure uninterrupted operations. Routine maintenance activities are standard and do not impact the overall fuel supply,” the statement further clarified.
In response to speculation about potential supply shortages and price increases, the refinery challenged those sponsoring the rumour to place orders for daily deliveries of up to 40 million litres of PMS and 15 million litres of diesel for the next 90 days.
“To those who believe this misinformation and anticipate a bullish market, we extend a challenge: We invite interested buyers to place immediate orders for up to 40 million litres of PMS daily and 15 million litres of AGO daily, for the next 90 days.”
The refinery reaffirmed its commitment to transparency and Nigeria’s energy security, urging the public to disregard unfounded rumours sponsored by unscrupulous and unpatriotic individuals seeking to undermine the country’s energy independence for their own selfish interests, including the importation of substandard fuels under the false pretext of domestic supply shortages.
At least 234 fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists – a new high compared to the 221 identified by CIEL at INC-5 – have registered to participate in the fifth and final scheduled session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2) of the Plastics Treaty negotiations.
The strong presence of lobbyists at this stage of the negotiations raises concerns about corporate influence at a pivotal moment – when negotiators are expected to finalise the treaty text and lay the groundwork for its adoption. The negotiations are intended to provide a treaty truly capable of ending plastic pollution.
Opening plenary of the fifth session of the Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee (INC-5.2 session)
The analysis, conducted by the Centre for International Environmental Law (CIEL) – supported by the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics (IIPFP), the International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), the Break Free From Plastic movement, the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), Greenpeace, the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance (STPA), theInternational Alliance of Waste Pickers(IAWP), andPublic Services International (PSI) – is based on the United Nations Environment Programme’s (UNEP) provisional list of INC-5.2 participants.
The analysis reveals that:
Fossil fuel and chemical industry lobbyists outnumber the combined diplomatic delegations of all 27 European Union nations and the EU combined (233). Major fossil fuel and chemical companies and their lobbyists are particularly well represented, with Dow and the American Chemistry Council each bringing seven lobbyists, while ExxonMobil has brought six.
Nineteen fossil fuel and chemical lobbyists have secured places in the national delegations of Egypt (6), Kazakhstan (4), China (3), Iran (3), Chile (2), and the Dominican Republic (1).
Chemical and fossil fuel industry lobbyists outnumber the Scientists’ Coalition for an Effective Plastic Treaty (60) by nearly four to one, and the International Indigenous Peoples’ Forum on Plastics (36) by nearly seven to one.
CIEL’s estimate is likely to be conservative, as the methodology relies on delegates to the talks disclosing their own connections to fossil fuel or chemical industry interests, and some lobbyists may choose to obscure that link. The figure does not include lobbyists from adjacent sectors, including fast-moving consumer goods and waste management sectors, all of whom have vested interests in weakening the treaty’s ambition.
“We have decades of evidence showing the fossil fuel and chemical industries’ playbook: deny, distract, derail. Fossil fuel companies are central to plastic production, as over 99 percent of plastics are derived from chemicals sourced from fossil fuels. Many of these companies are facing legal scrutiny over their role in the climate crisis. After decades of obstruction in the climate negotiations, why would anyone think that they would suddenly show up in good faith in the Plastics Treaty talks? Involving the very corporations that profit from harm in shaping the path forward guarantees one thing: a treaty that protects their bottom line, not the public or the planet,” says Ximena Banegas, CIEL Global Plastics and Petrochemicals Campaigner
While the analysis captures the number of participants registered to attend the negotiations, it’s only the tip of the iceberg. Industry influence extends well beyond formal participation – through lobbyists embedded within country delegations, informal advisory roles, and lobbying during intersessional periods.
These actors often apply pressure on Member States, engage in intimidation tactics, and attempt to compromise ambition in related processes, threatening the treaty’s integrity. In the lead-up to INC-5.2, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) warned that actors with vested interests have used well-documented tactics such as lobbying, strategic funding, and ghostwriting scientific studies. The OHCHR emphasised that “this can lead to misleading claims that cast doubt on scientific evidence, thereby stalling or undermining effective policy action.”
Despite calls to protect the negotiations from the undue influence of these industries, there has been a failure to develop conflict of interest policies to protect the INC process and the future Conferences of the Parties (COPs). In this already vulnerable space, concerns over UNEP’s objectivity reached a fever pitch before the negotiations began, with The Guardian reporting of “totalinfiltration” of both petrostates and lobbyists throughout the Plastics Treaty negotiations.
“The fossil fuel and petrochemicals industry lobbyists aren’t just pulling strings behind the scenes – on the first day of INC-5.2, we saw them boldly take the floor, speak in plenary, and push their agenda in plain sight. Industry isn’t just stalling progress – they’re working in lockstep with petrostates in dragging the process toward the lowest common denominator. This may also reveal something else: public outcry over the plastics crisis shows them the tide is turning, and they’re doubling down,” says Rachel Radvany, CIEL Environmental Health Campaigner.
The outcome of these negotiations will have far-reaching consequences. Plastics pollute our bodies, our air, our water, and our soil, accelerating the climate crisis and the collapse of ecosystems. Without decisive action, plastic production could triple by 2050, exacerbating these impacts unless countries act now. While industry actors are here to protect their profits and safeguard their commercial interests, the majority of stakeholders are here to protect public health, environmental integrity, and a livable planet for future generations.
“Petrostates flanked by industry have been content to run down the INC clock, counting on exhaustion and dwindling resources to deliver a hollow treaty. But civil society isn’t going anywhere. We’ll be here every step of the way – encouraging governments to do what they know is right, and what their communities both deserve, and need. We are also here to remind Member States that they hold the power and that political courage must prevail over corporate capture and petrostate power,” says Delphine Lévi Alvarès, CIEL Global Petrochemicals Campaign Manager.
Juressa Lee, Co-chair, International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Plastics (IIPFP), said: “For generations, we have witnessed the destruction wrought on our planet and communities by extractive and exploitative colonial and capitalist systems of oppression. Right now, Indigenous Peoples all around the world are dealing with hostile governments and industries that are waging wars against our communities and the environments that sustain us.
“The plastics industry and these treaty negotiations are no exception. The infiltration of these negotiations by extractive industries is a huge miscarriage of justice and is symptomatic of the structural issues behind the INC process, which devalues the voices of those bearing the brunt of the plastics crisis across its entire life cycle, from extraction to disposal. We call on Member States to do the right thing – recognise the rights of Indigenous Peoples and show courage by putting people, planet, and future generations first. Not profit and private interests.”
Daniel Bertossa, General Secretary, Public Services International (PSI) Global Union, said: “Millions of workers are exposed to chemicals of concern and toxic additives along the whole plastics life cycle, including frontline workers in municipal waste management, water and sanitation facilities, as well as health care workers and firefighters. The CIEL report exposes the reality of the corporate capture of our national and multilateral institutions, and substantiates our call for urgent change. Polluters need to be held accountable for the healthcare and environmental burden they place on societies and must pay back through fair taxation as per the implementation of the polluter pays principle.
“Those resources are urgently needed to (re)build public waste management infrastructures and water and sanitation facilities that are safe for users, workers and the environment, so we can drink water out of the tap; to fund occupational health and safety (OSH); and to fund adequate measures for a just transition for all concerned workers regardless of forms of employment. We urge UNEP and Member States to resist pressure from polluters and support an ambitious treaty that protects both workers and the environment.”
Ana Rocha, Director of Global Plastics Programme, Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA), said: “The stakes could not be higher at INC-5.2. Every day, we learn new and terrifying ways that plastic is harming us, and yet we as civil society are forced to compete for the attention of our leaders with the very companies that caused the plastic crisis in the first place. The only way for us to get a treaty strong enough to meet this existential threat is for the majority of countries to close their ears to the plastic industry, and listen to the voices of the Indigenous Peoples, independent scientists, waste pickers, and frontline leaders demanding plastic production cuts.”
Dr. Vishvaja Sambath, Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), on behalf of the Break Free from Plastic movement, said: “Communities are suffering from the emissions of the petroleum and petrochemical industries, which supply plastics’ raw materials. Yet, at these negotiations, major oil-producing nations appear indifferent to both people and the planet. Their priority remains profit, so much so that they openly insist the treaty must only address plastic consumption and plastic waste mismanagement, while excluding any measures on production or extraction.
“This is an insult to frontline communities battling cancer and other severe health impacts. Now is the time to kick out the polluters and finalise an ambitious health- and environment-centric treaty to reduce plastic production and end plastic pollution.”
Pamela Miller, Co-Chair, International Pollutants Elimination Network (IPEN), said: “We are appalled not just by the sheer numbers of petrochemical industry lobbyists at the negotiations. Their presence represents an unbalanced power dynamic aimed at undermining the treaty and the urgent need to protect our health.”
Bethanie Carney Almroth, Professor of Ecotoxicology at the University of Gothenburg, Scientist Coalition for an Effective Plastics Treaty, said: “Robust independent science informs a clear understanding of the causes and effects of plastics pollution, and can support evidence-based decision making in developing policies to address these issues. Actors with conflicts of interest can delay or block policy by muddying the waters and creating doubt and uncertainty. While their tactics have extended to intimidating and harassing scientists, we remain committed to ensuring the best available science is accessible to negotiators and to support decision that protects humans and the environment.”
Deborah Sy, Head of Global Public Policy and Strategy at the Global Centre for Good Governance in Tobacco Control, on behalf of the Stop Tobacco Pollution Alliance (STPA), said: “This report highlights a failure to uphold basic principles of good governance. Even tobacco industry allies have been given a seat at the table in the Plastics Treaty negotiations, despite existing international rules under the WHO FCTC. It’s a sobering example of how, in the absence of clear safeguards, the environmental platform could disregard existing health obligations. A treaty process that could be shaped by those with a commercial interest in plastic pollution is not just a conflict of interest – it risks eroding public trust.”
Graham Forbes, Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Campaign Lead, Greenpeace USA, said: “The flood of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists in Geneva is undermining the world’s best chance to end plastic pollution and protect human health. It is unacceptable that the industries profiting from the plastic pollution crisis are being given a front-row seat in solving it. These actors have a vested interest in a weak agreement that allows them to produce plastics without limit for eternity, condemning future generations to a toxic future. Governments must show leadership, reject fossil fuel nonsense, and deliver the effective treaty that the world desperately needs. Polluters must not be allowed to write the rules.”
Soledad Mella, waste picker leader from Chile, IAWP delegate at INC-5.2, said: “For generations, we have witnessed the destruction wrought on our planet and communities by extractive and exploitative colonial and capitalist systems of oppression. Right now, Indigenous Peoples all around the world are dealing with hostile governments and industries that are waging wars against our communities and the environments that sustain us. The plastics industry and these treaty negotiations are no exception.
“The infiltration of these negotiations by extractive industries is a huge miscarriage of justice and is symptomatic of the structural issues behind the INC process, which devalues the voices of those bearing the brunt of the plastics crisis across its entire life cycle, from extraction to disposal. We call on Member States to do the right thing – recognise the rights of Indigenous Peoples and show courage by putting people, planet, and future generations first. Not profit and private interests.”
Graham Forbes, Greenpeace Head of Delegation to the Global Plastics Treaty negotiations and Global Campaign Lead for Greenpeace USA, said: “The flood of fossil fuel and petrochemical lobbyists in Geneva is undermining the world’s best chance to end plastic pollution and protect human health. It is unacceptable that the industries profiting from the plastic pollution crisis are being given a front-row seat in solving it.
“These actors have a vested interest in a weak agreement that allows them to produce plastics without limit for eternity, condemning future generations to a toxic future. Governments must show leadership, reject fossil fuel nonsense, and deliver the effective treaty that the world desperately needs. Polluters must not be allowed to write the rules.”
The Lagos State Government has reaffirmed its stance on the ban of single-use styrofoam, describing the decision as one rooted in public health, environmental sustainability, and scientific evidence and not for political convenience.
Commissioner for the Environment and Water Resources, Mr. Tokunbo Wahab, disclosed this on his verified X handle on Thursday, August 7, 2025.
Styrofoam
Wahab said the government acknowledged that the move was initially unpopular, drawing resistance from certain quarters.
He said the data the government relied on was clear and irrefutable, adding that styrofoam clogs drainage systems, pollutes water bodies, and enters the food chain, posing significant risks to human health and the environment.
“Our decision to ban styrofoam was unpopular, but necessary. We stood on irrefutable research: this material clogs drains, contaminates our water, and poisons our food chain.
“It wasn’t politics – it was public health,” Wahab said.
He expressed appreciation to Lagosians who have adapted to the new directive by embracing environmentally friendly alternatives.
He commended their role in reducing the incidence of flooding in the state, especially during the 2025 prolonged rainy season.
“To every Lagosian who adapted: Thank you. You’ve helped reduce flooding and protect our children’s future,” Wahab said.
Wahab recognised the contribution of popular comedian @_Taaooma, who used her platform to creatively enlighten the public about the ban and its implications, blending education with humour.
“Special thanks to @_Taaooma for enlightening us with humour, as always,” he said. Wahab emphasised that the success of environmental policies rests on collective responsibility and continued citizen engagement.
He noted that sustainable urban living is only achievable when both government and citizens work together.
“A flood-free Lagos is our collective responsibility,” Wahab said.
The ban on styrofoam and other single-use plastics in Lagos was officially announced in January 2024 following years of advocacy from environmental experts, civil society groups, and community health stakeholders.
Multiple studies by local and international bodies revealed that discarded styrofoam was one of the biggest culprits of drainage blockage across Lagos.
The Corporate Accountability and Public Participation Africa (CAPPA) has called on the Federal Government of Nigeria to immediately increase the excise tax on tobacco products to 100 percent to save thousands of lives, and at least ₦526 billion annually from healthcare costs and productivity losses.
In a statement issued on Thursday, August 7, 2025, CAPPA warned that the tobacco industry is continuing to aggressively target Nigerians with traditional and novel smokeless tobacco products like vapes and other e-cigarettes, despite tobacco use being a major risk factor for costly, debilitating diseases.
Muhammad Ali Pate, the Coordinating Minister of Health & Social Welfare
The World Health Organisation (WHO) links tobacco use to premature death from lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, dementia, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), birth defects, vision loss, gastrointestinal diseases, skin damage, weak bones and cardiovascular disease, among other NCDs.
Citing data from the Nigerian Tobacco Control Data Initiative, the statement noted that 90 percent of tobacco production happens in developing countries like Nigeria, which mostly bear the environmental costs of tobacco production, while rich countries make most of the profits from tobacco production.
According to the federal government, Nigerians consumed over 20 billion sticks of cigarettes annually as of 2018, while almost 30,000 people die each year in the country from tobacco-related diseases.
Relying on an analysis by the Centre for the Study of the Economies of Africa (CSEA), CAPPA said Nigeria spent ₦526.4 billion treating tobacco-related diseases in 2019.
The statement noted that, currently, Nigeria employs a mixed excise tax system on tobacco products, comprising an ad valorem tax of 30 percent on the unit-cost-of-production or manufacture price, a specific excise tax of ₦84 per pack (20 cigarettes) which became effective on June 1, 2022, and a shisha/tobacco tax of ₦3,000 per litre or ₦1,000 per kg, rising ₦500 annually. Although the federal government proposed increasing the tax to 50 percent in April 2023, this increase has not yet been implemented, and the current regime remains unchanged.
CAPPA urged Nigeria to align with global best practices and also emulate African countries like Senegal, Kenya and South Africa that are taking tough measures against tobacco use to protect their youths from addiction, disease and financial ruin.
Last Friday, Senegalese Prime Minister, Ousmane Sonko, increased taxes on tobacco to 100 per cent from 70 per cent.
Two days earlier, Kenya’s government announced an immediate ban on the importation of tobacco and nicotine-containing products such as vapes, citing an alarming increase in youth addiction rates. It pointed to the need to stem cheap, widely available imported products that undermine local regulations and facilitate underage consumption.
On June 3, South Africa proposed new measures to tighten tobacco control and outlaw vaping and smoking in public. The country’s Health Department made the proposal after seeing evidence that vapes not only contain nicotine, which is highly addictive, but that the vapour from vaping is harmful to the lungs.
“In Nigeria, the tobacco industry is having a field day aggressively targeting young Nigerians with their novel products such as vapes and other e-cigarettes, which they know are not only addictive, but also harmful. Using their so-called ‘tobacco harm reduction strategy’, the tobacco industry continues to hoodwink the public that vapes, and other e-cigarettes, are harmful to human health, but good for consumption,” said Akinbode Oluwafemi, Executive Director at CAPPA.
He warned that tobacco-related diseases strain Nigeria’s health systems, drain health budgets, reduce workforce productivity, and exacerbate poverty.
Oluwafemi added: “What the tobacco industry is doing is grooming the next set of addicts to replace the thousands of Nigerians who die from tobacco-related diseases and the many others whose lives are destroyed. They must be stopped.
“We urge the government to act fast and raise the taxes on tobacco and related products to 100 percent. This is a proven way to not only discourage tobacco and e-cigarette use, but also save billions in healthcare costs.”
Furthermore, CAPPA urged the federal government to ring-fence part of the revenue for health promotion, non-communicable diseases (NCDs) prevention, and full implementation of the National Tobacco Control Act.
Finally, it advised governments at all levels to resist tobacco industry interference, which continues to undermine life-saving policies for profit.
Unlocking new and innovative sources of financing will be critical to meeting Africa’s agrifood system transformation ambitions and deploying interventions across interconnected sectors such as energy, trade, infrastructure, and transport, amid a shifting global aid landscape, according to a new report.
The latest publication from the Malabo Montpellier Panel of agriculture and food security experts – MONEYWISE: Policy Innovations to Finance Africa’s Agrifood Systems– examines the needs and barriers to financing Africa’s agrifood systems and demonstrates how strategic financial interventions can be implemented to leverage opportunities for transforming these systems. It also provides case studies for Malawi, Morocco, and Rwanda, countries where noteworthy reforms and financing models are enabling more inclusive, resilient, and competitive agrifood systems.
Dr. Ousmane Badiane, Executive Chairperson, AKADEMIYA2063
The report is said to be timely, in an era of global decline in overseas development aid, raising fresh concerns about how African countries will fund the transformation of their agrifood systems in the face of fiscal pressures, growing inequalities, and climate shocks.
Africa’s agrifood sector is central to the continent’s development goals – supporting millions of livelihoods, nutrition, health, employment, and industrialisation. While government agriculture expenditures in Africa have grown significantly (from $138 billion in 1990 to $449 billion in 2023), the share of agriculture in total government spending has declined by around 55 percent over the same period. An estimated $77 billion in annual financing will be needed for transforming Africa’s agrifood systems by 2030 – 62 billion from the private sector and 15 billion from public sources.
“Bold and innovative financial strategies will be indispensable to the sustainable transformation of Africa’s agrifood systems,” said Dr. Ousmane Badiane, Executive Chairperson, AKADEMIYA2063 and Co-Chair of the Malabo Montpellier Panel. “This report demonstrates that strategic public policies, designed to enable strengthened domestic financial ecosystems, smart investments, and multistakeholder cooperation across borders, can drive inclusive growth, improve food security, and build climate resilience across the continent.”
Launched at the 16th Malabo Montpellier Forum in the presence of senior African government representatives, finance and agrifood industry experts, and development partners, the report argues that unlocking the immense potential of Africa’s agrifood sector will require more than reversing domestic public financing decline, with private sector investment and international development financing playing an important role.
The report’s case studies from Malawi, Morocco, and Rwanda demonstrate thataddressing governance and regulatory challenges, while enhancing institutional capacity, will further unlock investment opportunities and promote long-term resilience.
Malawi established the National Economic Empowerment Fund (NEEF) to provide affordable and sustainable financial services to economically empower marginalised populations, particularly women, youth, and persons with disabilities, and to support rural economic development and agricultural commercialisation. The non-deposit-taking microfinance institutionisprimarily financed through government seed capital and national budget allocations, with a revolving loan model that maintains capital by reinvesting repayments.
Morocco’s Agricultural Development Fund utilises public resources to crowd-in private investment, offering subsidies for private investment in land restoration, irrigation systems, and agro-processing, thereby encouraging private actors to participate in long-term agricultural development. Post-investment subsidies cover 70 to 100 percent of costs for key agricultural inputs like machinery, irrigation, and certified seeds, and funds are reimbursed to farmers or aggregators after investment verification.
In Rwanda, the Development Bank of Rwanda and the Capital Market Authority were established to spur financial sector development for capital mobilisation, while the Rwanda National Investment Trust (RNIT) promotes a culture of savings through financial literacy campaigns and mobilised savings. Village Savings and Loan Associations improve financial inclusion in the country, expanding access for smallholders.
“By showcasing success stories from across the continent, this report provides a clear roadmap for African governments and development partners to mobilise the finance in new ways for agrifood system transformation,” said Prof. Joachim von Braun, Centre for Development Research (ZEF), University of Bonn, and Co-Chair of the Malabo Montpellier Panel. “The report is relevant for the implementation of the 2025 Kampala Declaration, and it should also revitalise public finance for agrifood systems from development partners, as it shows the big development opportunities.”
The Malabo Montpellier Panel’s five-point action agenda draws on the experiences of the three case study countries to highlight several key factors underlying their success.
Unlock domestic finance through incentives, derisking, and partnerships: Derisking mechanisms, such as credit guarantees, can be used in agrifood finance systems to reduce investment risk and encourage greater private sector participation, while incentivising domestic financial institutions, such as banks, pension funds, insurance providers, and cooperatives, to channel resources into agrifood value chains. At the same time, land tenure reforms, smart subsidies, and strengthened farmer cooperatives can help improve the bankability of smallholder farmers and other SMEs in the sector.
Increase awareness and knowledge of innovative funding mechanisms: Raising awareness of new financial products among key stakeholders across the continent, including policymakers and private sector actors, should go hand-in-hand with supporting research to build a strong evidence base on their impact, scalability, and cost-effectiveness that will better enable the transformation of the region’s agrifood systems, as well as targeted awareness campaigns on these emerging funding mechanisms, and peer learning.
Build institutional and technical capacity:Agricultural ministries and related government agencies continue to face constraints in planning, budgeting, and monitoring, which limit their ability to mobilise and manage large-scale investments. Targeted training for institutions involved with public finance – including development banks and investment authorities – will strengthen their ability to design and manage new types of finance instruments.
Bridge the gap in formal banking access: African governments can adopt targeted measures in agrifood systems that expand access to digital finance and address infrastructure gaps, regulatory barriers, and financial exclusion, while increasing digital literacy and user trust among their citizens. Mobile-based solutions such as SMS or USSD crowdfunding platforms can be promoted in areas with limited internet access, while strengthening digital infrastructure, and enhancing the interoperability of mobile payment systems to improve financial access for entrepreneurs who are excluded from formal banking.
Aligning agrifood financing with integrated rural development:Efforts to improve financing for Africa’s agrifood systems need to be anchored in well-costed, evidence-based National Agricultural Investment Plans (NAIPs) that reflect national priorities in food security, nutrition, climate resilience, and trade. Adopting an integrated approach that links agrifood financing with wider rural development needs, while aligning both public and external resources with NAIPs, enhances efficiency and helps attract broader development partner support, even amid declining donor flows.
With the agrifood sector accounting for approximately 65 percent of total employment in Africa, ensuring long-term growth and sustainability has never been more evident. The report’s recommendations align with the African Union Kampala CAADP Declaration, which outlines a continental agenda for the next decade of the Comprehensive Africa Agriculture Development Programme (CAADP). The Declaration includes a commitment to boost investment and financing for accelerated agrifood systems transformation, with the ambition of mobilising $100 billion in public and private sector investment in African agrifood systems by 2035.
Nigeria is one of the most climate-vulnerable countries in the world – a painful paradox given our minimal contribution to global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Our vulnerability is rooted in complex agro-ecological zones, fast-growing populations, extensive coastlines threatened by sea level rise, and still-developing climate governance.
For Nigerians, climate change is no longer abstract: it is worsening health crises, eroding food security, deepening human insecurity, threatening livelihoods, and slowing economic growth. Confronting these challenges and seizing the opportunities of a climate-resilient future are why Nigeria signed on to the Paris Agreement, committing to limit global warming to well below 2°C.
Carbon market
One of the powerful tools at our disposal to meet these commitments is the carbon market – a mechanism established under Article 6 of the Paris Agreement to enable voluntary cooperation among countries in achieving their Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). The finalization of key aspects of Article 6 at COP29 has clarified the rules of engagement, offering Nigeria a clearer pathway to unlock climate finance and attract investments.
Domestically, the Climate Change Act of 2021 gives us a robust framework to transition toward a low-carbon, climate-resilient economy by integrating climate action into national development plans and laying the foundation for a functional carbon trading ecosystem.
Nigeria’s participation in carbon markets is not optional – it is critical. Carbon markets can provide financial incentives to reduce emissions; accelerate net-zero attainment by encouraging businesses to adopt sustainable technologies and nature-based solutions; catalyse the just energy transition and local development by creating new green jobs, building skills, and generating economic opportunities; and as well, channel carbon finance into the National Climate Change Fund to help deliver on our NDCs.
Ostensibly recognising this, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu at COP28 in December 2023 announced the Intergovernmental Committee on Carbon Market Activation (IGCCMA) Plan- comprised largely of Nigerian Ministers. In December 2024, the National Council on Climate Change Secretariat (NCCCS) released the draft Nigeria Carbon Market Activation Policy (NCMAP) and a Manual of Procedures for stakeholder review – critical in guiding the establishment of a high-integrity carbon market in Nigeria.
Despite these promising developments, progress has stalled. Months after the inauguration of the IGCCMA and the release of the draft NCMAP, Nigeria’s carbon market remains inactive and the policy unratified.
This inertia has consequences. It has slowed progress on sustainable development outcomes that forest-edged and coastal communities eagerly anticipate from carbon projects; dented investor confidence- stalling billions of dollars in potential climate finance; delayed the creation of an estimated 840,000 net jobs by 2060 that a low-carbon economy could bring; left hundreds of MtCO₂e of potential emission reduction projects hanging; and is denying Nigeria an estimated $2.5 billion in carbon market value being eyed by 2030.
This inaction creates the unavoidable perception that Nigerian Ministers are not prioritizing this transformative opportunity. While the Federal Executive Council may meet weekly, the urgent need to activate the carbon market appears to be consistently left off the agenda. Yet, the opportunity is immense. Carbon markets are not just a climate finance mechanism – they are a lifeline for climate justice, Just energy transition, sustainable development and net-zero attainment.
When Nigerian Ministers fully recognise this promise and act decisively, the results will be swift and transformative: the NCMAP will be ratified and operationalised; the Nigerian carbon market will be activated- unlocking Letters of No Objection and Authorisations for projects that have been stalled by the secretariat of the NCCC; a national registry will be established spotlighting our robust pipeline of projects.
The choice before us is stark – two futures for Nigeria. In one future, Ministers act now. By 2030, Nigeria has a thriving carbon market attracting billions in climate investments. Projects across our forests, farmlands, and coastlines deliver tangible benefits: jobs for young people, new income streams for rural communities, clean energy access for millions, and restored ecosystems that protect us from climate shocks.
Nigeria stands as a continental leader – shaping Africa’s carbon market narrative and commanding respect on the global climate stage. In the other future, we continue to delay. Investors take their capital elsewhere. Promising projects collapse before they start. Vulnerable communities see no relief as floods, droughts, and desertification worsen. Nigeria becomes a spectator – watching as Kenya, Ghana, and South Africa seize the opportunities we let slip through our fingers.
The time for deliberation has passed. Our Ministers must act – to ratify the NCMAP, activate the carbon market, and put Nigeria on the path to climate leadership. The world will not wait for us – and neither will history.
By Horsfall Tony and Eugene Itua, Ph.D
Tony is a member of the Special Task Force on Climate Action Agenda and Implementation of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG); and the Interim Coordinator of the Nigerian Carbon Market Community of Practice. He can be reached at tonyhorsefly@gmail.com
Itua is Lead of the Special Task Force on Climate Action Agenda and Implementation of the Nigerian Economic Summit Group (NESG), is also the Executive Director of the African Green and Sustainability Institute (AGESI)
