When the world pauses, nature pays the price
In those three months, conservation efforts stall, species lose vital protections and critical climate initiatives falter. A coral reef left unmonitored for a season can suffer irreversible bleaching. A mangrove forest, once promised restoration, remains vulnerable to rising tides. A coastal community expecting resilience support is left exposed to the next storm. But the damage is not limited to the environment.
This funding freeze has sent shockwaves far beyond climate action. Across the world, global health programmes have been thrown into uncertainty, leaving malaria treatments delayed and maternal health services disrupted. Humanitarian aid efforts have been suspended, food security programmes have been left without resources and countless initiatives designed to protect lives and livelihoods now hang in the balance. What was once a temporary policy decision has now spiraled into a global crisis affecting those who can least afford it.
As chaos unfolds across multiple sectors, one thing has become clear. The world cannot afford to be held hostage by policy shifts in one country. Lord Adair Turner has called for China, the EU and the UK to step up and form a climate coalition independent of the US, warning that the planet does not have the luxury of waiting. When a major player steps back, the responsibility falls on the rest of the world to push forward.
Here in Oman, we are already feeling the strain. The Environment Society of Oman's Marine Turtle Conservation project has been directly affected. This long-term programme, supported by the US Fish and Wildlife Service, has been at the forefront of protecting some of the region's most endangered marine species. For decades, it has safeguarded nesting sites, monitored turtle populations and worked alongside local communities to ensure these ancient creatures have a future in our waters.
Now, we are scrambling to find ways to keep this work going. Every survey, every community engagement and every protective measure is a battle against time and dwindling resources. The work must continue, because conservation does not wait for funding cycles to align. A turtle's journey to lay her eggs does not pause while policies are reconsidered. The threats these species face from rising temperatures to habitat destruction are relentless.
Oman, like many nations, must decide to forge a new path. We need stronger regional collaboration, private investment in sustainability and policies that make conservation a national priority rather than an externally funded initiative. If Europe and China can find ways to push forward despite geopolitical tensions, we must take control of our environmental future rather than being at the mercy of decisions beyond our borders.
At the ESO, we refuse to sit back and watch our efforts unravel. But we cannot do it alone. Now more than ever, we need partners, supporters and individuals who believe that protecting Oman's marine life is not just an environmental issue, but a responsibility. This is about safeguarding our country's natural heritage for future generations. If you care about Oman's wildlife, its ecosystems and its future, reach out. Extend a helping hand. Together, we will ensure this work continues, because while policies may change, our duty to this planet does not.
The writer is an environmental strategist and advocate for sustainable development
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Observer
8 hours ago
- Observer
Three-quarters of UN members support Palestinian statehood
Paris - Three-quarters of UN members have already or soon plan to recognise Palestinian statehood, with Australia on Monday becoming the latest to promise it will at the UN General Assembly in September. The Israel-Hamas war has revived a global push for Palestinians to be given a state of their own. The action breaks with a long-held view that Palestinians could only gain statehood as part of a negotiated peace with Israel. According to an AFP tally, at least 145 of the 193 UN members now recognise or plan to recognise a Palestinian state, including France, Canada, and Britain. Israel's offensive in Gaza has boosted support for Palestinian statehood. Four Caribbean countries (Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, and the Bahamas) and Armenia took the diplomatic step in 2024. So did four European countries: Norway, Spain, Ireland, and Slovenia, the latter three EU members. Within the European Union, this was a first in 10 years since Sweden's move in 2014, which resulted in years of strained relations with Israel. Other member states, such as Poland, Bulgaria, and Romania, had already done so in 1988, long before joining the EU. On the other hand, some former Eastern Bloc countries, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, do not or no longer recognise a state of Palestine. Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said Monday that "Australia will recognise the right of the Palestinian people to a state of their own" at the UN General Assembly. France said last month it intends to recognise a Palestinian state come September, while Britain said it would do the same unless Israel takes "substantive steps", including agreeing to a ceasefire in Gaza. Canada also plans to recognise a Palestinian state in September, Prime Minister Mark Carney said, marking a dramatic policy shift that was immediately rejected by Israel. Among other countries that could also formally express recognition, Malta, Finland, and Portugal have raised the possibility.
Observer
a day ago
- Observer
Where is the global resistance to Trump?
America's critics have always depicted it as a selfish country that throws its weight around with little regard for others' well-being. But President Donald Trump's trade policies have been so misguided, erratic and self-defeating as to make even the most cartoonish of such descriptions seem flattering. Still, in a twisted way, his trade follies have laid bare other countries' failures as well, by forcing them to consider what their responses say about their own intentions and capabilities. It is said that one's true character is revealed in the face of adversity, and the same goes for countries and their political systems. Trump's frontal assault on the world economy was a shock to everyone, but it also gave Europe, China and various middle powers an opportunity to make a statement about who they are and what they stand for. It was an invitation to articulate a vision of a new world order that could overcome the imbalances, inequities and unsustainability of the old one, and that would not depend on the leadership – for better or worse – of a single powerful country. But few rose to the challenge. In this respect, the European Union has perhaps been the greatest disappointment. In terms of purchasing power, it is almost as large as the United States – accounting for 14.1 per cent of the world economy, compared to 14.8 per cent for the US and 19.7 per cent for China. Moreover, despite the recent rise of the far right, most European countries have avoided backsliding into authoritarianism. As a collection of democratic nation-states whose geopolitical ambitions do not threaten others, Europe has both the power and the moral authority to provide global leadership. Instead, it dithered and then submitted to Trump's demands. Europe's ambitions were always narrowly parochial; but in folding to Trump, it is not even clear that it served its own immediate interests. The July handshake deal between Trump and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen leaves 50 per cent tariffs on European exports of steel and aluminium, places 15 per cent tariffs on most other exports, and commits Europe to ridiculously high levels of energy imports from the US. Rarely has the EU's structural weakness as a confederation of countries without a collective sense of identity been on starker display. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva has emerged as the rare exemplary leader who refuses to grovel at Trump's feet. China has played a tougher game, retaliating forcefully with its own tariffs and restricting exports of critical minerals to the US. Trump's vindictive, self-defeating foreign policies have helped China extend its influence and enhance its credibility as a reliable partner for the developing world. But the Chinese leadership has also failed to articulate a practical model for a post-neoliberal global economic order. Notably, China has shown little interest in addressing the two global imbalances that it has caused with its own large external surplus and excess of domestic savings over investment. Meanwhile, smaller countries and middle powers have mostly played the quiet game, pursuing independent bargains with Trump and hoping to limit the damage to their own economies. The exception is Brazil, whose president, Luiz Inácio Lula Da Silva, has emerged as the rare exemplary leader who refuses to grovel at Trump's feet. Despite facing punitive 50 per cent tariffs and pointed personal attacks, he has proudly defended his country's sovereignty, democracy and independent judiciary. As the New York Times puts it, 'There is perhaps no world leader defying President Trump as strongly as Mr Lula.' Such leadership has been sorely lacking around the world. In India, the political commentator Pratap Bhanu Mehta points out that many business and political elites are searching for ways to accommodate Trump. But in doing so, Mehta argues, they are misreading him and the world he is creating. At any other time in recent history, the Trump administration's behaviour would immediately be called out for what it is: imperialism – plain and simple. Imperialism must always be challenged – not accommodated – and that requires both power and purpose. Of course, America has held the reins of the world economy for a very long time. The dollar is firmly entrenched, and the US market remains singularly important. But these advantages are not as strong as they used to be. It would defy political logic and the laws of economic gravity if a country controlling only 15 per cent of the world economy (in terms of purchasing power parity) could dictate the rules of the game to everyone else. Though the rest of the world remains divided, surely everyone has a common interest in repelling Trumpian imperialism – and thus in uniting to resist his demands. Finding common purpose is perhaps the bigger challenge. If Trump 'wins", it will be because other large economies were unable (or unwilling) to articulate an alternative framework for the global economy. Pining after traditional multilateralism and global cooperation – as many targets of Trump's ire have done – is of little use and merely signals weakness. The world needs new ideas and principles for avoiding both the instabilities and inequities of hyper-globalisation and the destructive effects of beggar-thy-neighbour policies. It is not realistic to expect a new Bretton Woods agreement. Nevertheless, middle powers and large economies can still model such principles by putting them to work in their own policies. Trump's actions have held up a mirror to others, and most should recognise that their reflection is not a pretty sight. Fortunately, their apparent helplessness has been self-imposed. It is not too late to choose self-confidence over humiliation. @Project Syndicate, 2025
Observer
4 days ago
- Observer
Trump's tariffs on dozens of countries to take effect
US President Donald Trump's tariffs on imports from European Union members and dozens of other countries were set to take effect on Thursday. Just minutes before the tariffs were due to kick in, Trump announced on his Truth Social platform that they would take effect at midnight Washington time (0400 GMT). In a post, he wrote: "BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, LARGELY FROM COUNTRIES THAT HAVE TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE UNITED STATES FOR MANY YEARS,LAUGHING ALL THE WAY, WILL START FLOWING INTO THE USA." The European Commission had so far assumed that the new tariff rate would apply as of Friday. The new and varied tariff rates affect imports from around 70 countries, including the 27 EU member states. The EU has pledged to make significant investments in the US alongside accepting the 15% tariff. The exact terms and timing of those investments are still under negotiation. Trump has defended his aggressive tariff policy by pointing to alleged trade deficits that he says threaten US national security,framing the issue as a national emergency that requires such measures. His approach has sparked legal major trade partners - China and Mexico - are on different tariff timelines as trade negotiations continue. Trump has meanwhile threatened, or already ordered, additional tariffs on countries accused of conducting business with Russia,arguing such ties indirectly support Moscow's war against Ukraine.
