The world can't solve climate change without naming fossil fuels, says UN Rapporteur Puentes Riaño

At COP30 in Belem, negotiations have reached a decisive moment for climate-vulnerable nations demanding justice, accountability and financing aligned with human rights.

Astrid Puentes Riaño, the UN Special Rapporteur on the human right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment, warns that existing pledges and political compromises fall far short of scientific reality and international legal obligations.

In a conversation with The Business Standard, she explains why fossil fuels must be explicitly named in the final decisions, how the ICJ advisory opinion strengthens legal accountability for major emitters, and why loss and damage financing is not charity but a binding duty under international law.

This COP has been framed as a 'COP of implementation' and a 'COP of action.' Beyond adaptation and other thematic agendas, what should countries realistically expect to gain from COP30?

As the UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, my main expectation—shared by 29 other UN mandates—is that states uphold their human rights and international law obligations. We sent a joint statement reminding parties that all agreements must be aligned with these obligations.

Because this is the COP of truth and the COP for people, it is very important to have a strong reference to human rights, including the human right to a healthy environment. It is also crucial to explicitly mention fossil fuels, the main driver of climate change. Earlier drafts included this language, but the current text under negotiation does not, which is very worrying.

I hope that negotiators restore a clear and explicit reference to fossil fuels. Not only because the science is unequivocal, but because advisory opinions and expert bodies have confirmed that states must make decisions based on the best available science. I understand the transition is difficult, but that does not mean we should avoid naming the truth.

For me, the key outcomes must be: strong inclusion of human rights, explicit recognition of fossil fuels, and a clear path for how the just transition will take place.

The ICJ advisory opinion has been described as a landmark. How can vulnerable countries like Bangladesh, which contributed least to this crisis, legally hold high-emitting nations accountable under the erga omnes obligation to protect the climate system?

Exactly. And this is one of the key points. We are very grateful for the leadership of Vanuatu and other states—including Bangladesh—in bringing the ICJ advisory opinion forward.

A crucial conclusion of the opinion is the clarity that states have an obligation under international law to protect the environment and the climate system. This obligation is erga omnes, as you said—meaning every state has this duty simply by being part of the international community.

This is why COP decisions must reflect that obligation. Whether or not we emerge with strong agreements from this COP, the legal obligation still exists. The advisory opinion is there. After COP, states will also discuss the opinion at the UN General Assembly in New York, where a resolution will be developed based on it. That is a separate but important process, and I hope it will be strong.

At COP, we need clear alignment with the ICJ opinion: recognition of obligations, recognition of the 1.5°C framework, and recognition that even at 1.5°C there are severe impacts. Accountability must advance, and this is why these obligations must be reflected in COP outcomes. We will see what happens.

Bangladesh is already losing land, heritage, and lives to climate impacts. How can the human rights framework ensure that the Loss and Damage Fund is treated not as charity but as obligatory compensation?

It is an obligation. That is one of the key aspects clarified by the ICJ advisory opinion. The obligation to protect the environment and the climate system is linked to the obligation to cooperate internationally. Cooperation is not voluntary. It is not charity.

This includes the obligation of states to comply with their financial responsibilities to address loss and damage. All states share these obligations, but there is historic responsibility on some states that have caused this crisis. And we are nowhere near the amount of finance needed.

There is enough money in the world. Look at the fossil fuel subsidies still being provided. Look also at the billions that move through international arbitration under investment agreements, where states have been sued for decisions to deny coal licences or protect ecosystems. These investor-state cases reflect how distorted the system is.

We need a review of the international legal architecture so it aligns with science, justice, and human rights.

Current pledges to the Loss and Damage Fund are around $788 million. Are you seeing any indication that these pledges may increase?

I haven't seen that, though perhaps it is happening and I just haven't seen it. But overall, the conversation on loss and damage at this COP is not receiving as much attention as it deserves.

I did see a pledge from about 100 civil society organisations calling for stronger commitments—not only to the fund, but to the broader set of obligations. And I fully support that. When we talk about loss and damage, we talk about reparations. Under human rights law, if there is a human rights violation, there is a right to reparation and an obligation of the state to repair.

You've said fossil fuels are the root of the problem. Given the power of the fossil fuel lobby at COPs, what mechanisms can protect negotiations from undue influence and ensure a rapid, rights-based phase-out?

I will repeat something a delegate from the Caribbean said, which I loved. They explained that if you want to solve malaria, you do not invite the mosquitoes into the room. That perfectly captures the importance of controlling fossil fuel influence.

Of course, we need to engage with the fossil fuel industry. But states must prioritise the public interest and put human rights and nature at the centre.

There is precedent at the UN. In tobacco negotiations, the influence of the tobacco industry was recognised as a threat, and safeguards were put in place: the industry could be heard, but decisions were made independently, with health and human rights as the priority.

We need similar measures in climate negotiations. Without them, it becomes nearly impossible to advance the actions we urgently need.

Most climate finance still comes as loans, pushing vulnerable countries deeper into debt. How can the human right to a healthy environment help transform this system into one based on grants and obligatory, accessible funding?

This is an excellent point. The way climate finance is currently structured reflects a mindset that loss and damage is charity, not obligation. And this must change.

Climate debt cannot continue increasing. In other forums—on tax, on debt—there are proposals to reduce international debt burdens and align climate finance with grant-based, not loan-based, support. Because as you said, debt is increasing while climate impacts are increasing. How can states meet their human rights obligations under these conditions?

Even adaptation needs are enormous. Bangladesh and Asia face major risks linked to heat. Health systems need research, alert systems, capacity, and resources. But states cannot build that while trapped in debt repayment cycles.

The entire system must shift. Unfortunately, we are not hearing enough discussion about this here, but it is critical.

There is anticipation at this COP about progress on adaptation—especially hopes that finance will be split 50-50 with mitigation and that the Adaptation Fund will triple. Are we moving in that direction?

I hope the negotiations move in that direction. With loss and damage and adaptation, we keep talking about millions, but we need trillions.

We do not have much time. It may become clearer next year at the next COP and the following one in Africa. But yes, this COP is a major opportunity to increase support not only for loss and damage but also for adaptation.

These impacts are not coming in ten or twenty years—they have already been happening for more than a decade. We are already late.

If you had to choose one concrete, immediate action from COP30 that would signal a real shift toward a human-rights-based climate response, what would it be?

The express inclusion of the right to a healthy environment in the COP30 agreements. And also stronger language on fossil fuels—or at least restoring the language we had two years ago—so that we can move from negotiating obligations to implementing them. Obligations are not negotiable; they are clear.

The most important thing this COP must include is strong human rights language at the centre, including the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, and children's rights. We have seen some language on children and on present and future generations, but it must be strengthened.

The ICJ advisory opinion also clarifies that states' obligations apply to present and future generations, and that children are among the groups most affected by climate change. So these elements must be reflected in the final decisions.

Disclaimer: This story was produced as part of the 2025 Climate Change Media Partnership, a journalism fellowship organized by Internews' Earth Journalism Network and the Stanley Center for Peace and Security.