Leaders from island nations have spent decades warning that the climate crisis and the health of the ocean are inseparable. Those steering larger and wealthier nations, relatively insulated from sea level rise and other marine impacts of climate change, have often failed to listen.
The Seychelles’ Angelique Pouponneau is lead ocean negotiator for the Alliance of Small Island States (AOSIS). In this role she has helped coordinate the positions of some of the world’s most climate-vulnerable nations at international negotiations on oceans, biodiversity and climate change.
In a recent interview, Pouponneau told Dialogue Earth that ocean-climate action cannot be separated from the need for deep emissions cuts. She criticised nations that celebrate ocean protection while continuing to expand fossil-fuel use and failing to provide promised climate finance.
The interview has been edited for length and clarity.
Dialogue Earth: Small island states are often described as on the frontlines of the climate crisis. What does meaningful ocean-climate action look like from their shores in 2026?
Angelique Pouponneau: It is a difficult time. We love the energy and enthusiasm that we saw at the Our Ocean Conference in Mombasa. But it needs to be complemented by real action.
For me, I cannot stand any hypocrisy when it comes to states saying they love the ocean while refusing to make deep emissions cuts. It cannot be possible that you love the ocean and yet fail to curb your greenhouse gas emissions.
Some of those same countries not only refuse to cut emissions but also do not want to provide Africa and small island developing states with the finance needed to implement ocean-climate action or support a thriving and healthy ocean.
Many negotiators from vulnerable countries say climate diplomacy has become harder in recent years. How do small island states and Global South nations more generally respond to that?
For a very long time, perhaps we have overly relied on the United States as a pace-setter. But we are the global majority. We should harness that power and say to Europe that it needs to be on the right side of history. The right side is our side.
The hypocrisy has been around for a long time, but it has certainly been compounded, especially when we think about the diversion of resources towards military spending.
There is a quote often cited: if you want peace, prepare for war. I think what we need to say is that to avoid war, we need to invest in climate solutions. We need to invest in peacebuilding, rather than turning limited resources towards what could be seen as an arms race.
Blue-carbon ecosystems are attracting growing attention. How important are they for climate action?
There has been a lot of excitement around the blue-carbon space. Coastal wetlands, which lock up carbon, such as mangroves, seagrass meadows and salt marshes have emerged as possible solutions. They highlight the role of the ocean as a solution, rather than simply a victim of climate change.
But I want to start by recognising that they are supplementary solutions. They are not the solution. The solution is cutting emissions.
What is preventing these supplementary solutions from being scaled up?
There are two main challenges.
The first is governance and coordination. The seagrasses of Kenya and the Seychelles are one ecosystem. We are the only ones who decided to break it up. The borders are in our heads. We need to think about how to coordinate efforts. It would be unhelpful for Kenya’s seagrass meadows to be thriving while those in Seychelles are weak.
Not many people are motivated simply by doing the right thing
The second challenge is finance. Governance and coordination cost money. We need finance to scale up these solutions.
The irony is hard to miss. You bear the highest impacts of climate change, you hold many of the solutions, and yet you are not the source of the problem.
Climate finance remains one of the most contentious issues in international negotiations. Is the gap between promises and delivery getting any smaller?
For the longest time, we have taken a narrative centred on climate justice. I think that is the correct narrative. But we have seen that not many people are motivated simply by doing the right thing.
So we need to think about incentives.
A friend of mine who is an economist says we need carrots and sticks. Often, making money is the incentive. That is why we have spent an enormous amount of time trying to figure out how to make adaptation bankable and investable, so that adaptation can attract the same influx of finance that mitigation receives.
Mitigation means actions to stop climate change by cutting the greenhouse gases that enter the air. For example, switching to renewable energy or protecting forests so they can store carbon. Adaptation means adjusting to the real and future effects of climate change, such as by building sea walls or planting crops that survive in extreme heat.
For me, the climate-justice angle is non-negotiable. It must always stay on the table. But we need a multi-pronged approach.
The blue economy has become one of the dominant themes in ocean discussions. Are governments paying enough attention to sustainability and equity, alongside economic development of the ocean?
Blue economy is a buzzword. It often goes undefined. The only way to understand what people really mean by it is to look at their policy documents.
My understanding of the blue economy is economic prosperity, environmental sustainability and social equity — the three pillars of sustainable development.
Countries can decide where they want to begin, but they must not lose sight of the fact that it is a tripartite concept. You cannot focus only on the economy.
There is a danger of reproducing the extractive dynamics we have already seen elsewhere.
Are there countries you think are getting the balance right?
I’m biased: Seychelles.
Not because I would suggest we are doing it better than everyone else, but because Seychelles is pursuing an approach aligned with its national vision.
We depend heavily on a healthy ocean for both tourism and fisheries. We have no option but to think about the blue economy in that tripartite way.
If you could leave our readers with one message, what would it be?
We as a planet have a huge opportunity to reverse the planetary crisis that has been set in motion. I certainly do not think Africa or small island developing states set any of this in motion. But we have an opportunity, and we should harness our minds and resources to realise it.
