Credit: UNICEF/Ulet Ifansasti
By Ian Gary
WASHINGTON DC, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)
The climate crisis is getting worse and requires fundamental changes to societies, economies, and our global financial architecture in response. While extreme economic inequality is on the rise – the world’s billionaires now hold more wealth in the world than every country except the U.S. and China – the impacts of climate change are also unequally felt, with the poor in the Global South and North most at risk.
This month there will be two important UN events focused on addressing the climate crisis and global financial architecture. One event – the 30th UN Framework Convention on Climate Change Conference of Parties (COP30) – will overwhelm the Brazilian city of Belém and attract the media spotlight.
On another continent, in Nairobi, a UN event starting on the same day will get far less attention but is designed to advance an issue which must be central to the climate crisis response – global tax justice.
Starting November 10th, negotiators from member states, along with civil society organizations have sought to influence the process, are holding a formal negotiation session for a planned UN Framework Convention on International Tax Cooperation.
There is a strange irony in the fact that two major UN meetings on climate and tax are happening at the same time, thousands of miles away. On the road to Belém, many stories will be written about how Global North countries are failing to meet their commitments to provide billions of dollars in “climate finance” to help Global South countries invest in projects – such as flood defense – to adapt to the realities of climate change.
Rarely mentioned, though, is the need to look beyond aid to the system of global tax rules which starve Global South countries of the resources they need. A report last week from the UN Environment Program (UNEP) said that developed nations provided only $26 billion in “international adaptation finance” to developing countries, far short of the $40 billion a year committed at the Glasgow COP in 2021. Meanwhile, the same report pegs adaptation costs at $310 billion-$365 billion per year by the mid-2030s. Strangely, the UNEP report is completely silent on the need to reform global tax rules to increase the fiscal space to make realizing climate finance commitments possible.
Global tax justice must be advanced to fill the “yawning gap” highlighted by the UNEP between what has been committed and what is needed to deal with the climate crisis. The OECD has said that countries suffer $100-240 billion in lost revenue annually from profit shifting by multinational corporations.
A significant portion of that is lost by Global South countries. If these “lost” funds were recovered through changes in global tax rules, the resources could dwarf the paltry sums being provided by the Global North.
Given that major Global North donors are slashing their aid budgets or closing their aid programs entirely (see the shuttering of USAID), we must now approach the climate finance debate with a “post-aid” lens. The ritualistic annual highlighting of the failure of Global North countries to meet the climate finance commitments must be supplemented by growing demands for global tax justice, ensuring global tax systems enable countries to tax economic activity where it takes place.
Fair and progressive taxation must be part of the post-aid landscape, particularly to support the ability of Global South countries to respond to the climate crisis with their own financial resources.
While thousands of activists descending on Belém, a hardy band of a few dozen civil society groups, organized by the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, will be engaging the UN tax negotiation process in Nairobi. New and effective rules to ensure that multinational companies pay their fair share – including those companies most directly driving the climate crisis – are desperately needed.
Beyond closing tax loopholes, countries need to remove the tax subsidies that incentivize fossil fuel production. In the US, recent research by the FACT Coalition found that American taxpayers are effectively subsidizing oil drilling abroad.
Other research has found that tax and other subsidies may make some future oil and gas projects appear economically viable when, without these breaks, they aren’t.
Fortunately, some conversations are starting to bridge the climate and tax divide, with campaigners in both camps increasingly understanding that the global climate movement needs tax justice to win. Last month, academics and activists convened in Brazil for a policy research conference, with organizers stating that the “convergence of climate justice and tax reform is an ethical, political, and economic imperative.”
Foreign aid won’t come to the rescue, and the private sector won’t invest in climate adaptation at scale because of mismatched incentives. After the dust settles in Belém and Nairobi, governments, international organizations, and activists must find new ways to bring the climate and tax conversations together to tackle global inequality and the climate crisis. It will be a win for people and the planet.
Ian Gary is the Executive Director of the Financial Accountability & Corporate Transparency (FACT) Coalition
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Belém—30th Conference of the Parties (COP30). Credit: Antônio Scorza/COP30
By Erik Solheim
OSLO, Norway, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)
When world leaders now gather in Belém, Brazil for the UN climate conference, expectations will be modest. Few believe the meeting will produce any breakthroughs. The United States is retreating from climate engagement. Europe is distracted. The UN is struggling to keep relevant in the 21st century.
But step outside the negotiation tents, and a different story unfolds—one of quiet revolutions, technological leaps, and a new geography of leadership. The green transformation of the world is no longer being designed in Western capitals. It is being built, at scale, in the Global South.
Ten years ago, anyone seeking inspiration on climate policy went to Brussels, Berlin or Paris. Today, you go to Beijing, Delhi or Jakarta. The center of gravity has shifted. China and India are now the twin engines of the global green economy, with Brazil, Vietnam and Indonesia closely behind.
Erik Solheim
China has made the green transition its biggest business opportunity, turning green action into jobs, prosperity and global leadership. China is now making more money from exporting green technology than America makes from exporting fossil fuels.
India, too, is reshaping what green development looks like. I was in Andhra Pradesh last month, when I visited a wonderful six-gigawatt integrated energy park—solar, wind, and pumped storage. It delivers round-the-clock clean power. There is nothing like that in the West. In another state, Tamil Nadu, an ecotourism circuit is protecting mangroves and marine ecosystems while creating local jobs in tourism. The western state of Gujarat, long a laboratory for industrial innovation, has committed to 100 gigawatts of renewables by 2030, with the captains of Indian business – Adani and Reliance – driving large-scale solar and wind investments with the state government.
These are not pilot projects. They are national strategies. And they are succeeding because the economics have flipped.
The cost of solar power has fallen by over 90 percent in the last decade, largely thanks to the intense competition between Chinese solar companies. Battery storage is now competitive with fossil fuels. What was once an environmental aspiration has become a financial inevitability. In Indian Gujarat, solar-plus-storage projects are already cheaper than coal. Switching to clean energy is no longer a cost—it is a saving.
That is why climate action today is driven not by diplomacy, but by economics. The question is no longer if countries will go green, but who will own the technologies and industries that make it possible.
Europe, long the moral voice of the climate agenda, now risks losing the industrial race. After years of blocking imports from developing countries on grounds of “inferior” green quality, it now complains that Chinese electric vehicles are too good— too cheap and too efficient. Europe cannot have it both ways. The world cannot build a green transition behind protectionist walls. The markets must open to the best technologies, wherever they are made.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil understands this new reality. That is why he chose Belém, deep in the Amazon, as the site for climate talks. The location itself is a statement: the future of climate policy lies in protecting the rainforests and empowering the people who live within them.
Forests are not just carbon sinks; they are living economies. When I was Norway’s environment minister, we partnered with Brazil and Indonesia to reward them for reducing deforestation. Later, Guyana joined our effort—a small South American nation where nearly the entire population is of Indian or African origin.
Guyana has since turned conservation into currency. Under its jurisdictional REDD+ programme, the country now sells verified carbon credits through the global aviation market known as CORSIA. In the third quarter of this year, these credits traded at USD 22.55 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent, with around one million credits sold through a procurement event led by IATA and Mercuria.
The proceeds go directly to forest communities—building schools, improving digital access, and funding small enterprises. It is proof that the carbon market can deliver real value when tied to real lives. You cannot protect nature against the will of local people. You can only protect it with them. Last year in Guyana, I watched children play soccer and cricket beneath the jungle canopy—a glimpse of life thriving in harmony with the forest, not at its expense.
That, ultimately, is what Belém should represent: not another round of procedural debates, but a vision for linking markets, nature and livelihoods.
The Global South has also sidestepped one of the West’s greatest political failures: climate denial. In India, there is no major political party—or public figure, cricket star or Bollywood artist—questioning the reality of climate change. Leaders may differ on ideology, but not on this. Across Asia, from China to Indonesia, climate action unites rather than divides. Because here, ecology and economy move together.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India puts it simply: by going green, we also go prosperous. President Xi Jinping of China and President Lula of Brazil share that same message—a vision that draws people in, instead of lecturing them. It is this integration of growth and sustainability that explains why the Global South is moving faster than most of the developed world.
None of this means diplomacy is irrelevant. The UN still matters. But its institutions must evolve to reflect the realities of the 21st century. The Security Council, frozen in 1945, still excludes India and Africa from permanent membership. Without reform, multilateralism risks losing its meaning.
Yet, while negotiations stall, transformation continues. From solar parks in Gujarat to high-speed rail across China, from mangrove tourism in Tamil Nadu to carbon markets in Guyana—climate leadership is happening in real economies, not in press releases.
Belém will not deliver a grand agreement. But it doesn’t need to. The world is already moving—faster than our diplomats.
The story of Belem will not be written in communiqués, but in kilowatts, credits, and communities.
The real climate leaders are no longer in Washington or Brussels.
They are in Beijing, Delhi, São Paulo, and Georgetown.
The future of climate action is already here.
It just speaks with a southern accent.
The author is the former Executive Director of the United Nations Environment Programme and Norway’s Minister for Environment and International Development.
IPS UN Bureau
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Excerpt:
Indigenous leaders at COP30 in Belem. They are demanding active participation in the negotiation process. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS
By Tanka Dhakal
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)
Indigenous leaders from across the Amazon region are calling on climate negotiators to base climate initiatives on the recognition of the land rights of affected Indigenous communities. From the COP30 venue in Belém, these leaders are demanding full participation in the design and implementation of proposed projects.
The Indigenous leaders presented evidence that reforestation initiatives, carbon market schemes, and renewable energy projects could displace Indigenous and local communities and harm ecosystems if they are developed without community involvement and respect for their rights. According to the UNFCCC assessment report, active participation of Indigenous and local communities is key to the success of climate change-related initiatives, whether funded by public or private sources.
In this context, IPS spoke with Elcio Severino da Silva Manchineri (also known as Toya Manchineri), an Indigenous leader from the Manchineri people of Brazil. Manchineri is the General Coordinator of the Coordination of Indigenous Organizations of the Brazilian Amazon (COIAB).
Elcio Severino da Silva Manchineri at COP30. Credit: Tanka Dhakal/IPS
IPS: COP30 is happening on the land of Indigenous people here in Belém. What is the call from the Indigenous community to the negotiators?
Toya: Our main request to negotiators is to include Indigenous land demarcation as a climate solution—recognizing Indigenous lands as a climate response strategy.
IPS: Why is the recognition of land rights for Indigenous communities in climate negotiations so important?
Toya: It’s important because 80 percent of biodiversity is found in Indigenous territories, which means we conserve life. Land titling here and in other countries is crucial. If countries want to meet their targets for zero deforestation, they need to title Indigenous lands.
IPS: What is your view on reforestation efforts that happen without negotiation with Indigenous communities?
Toya: Reforestation is one of the key issues. But really—who is going to take care of those forests? We are the ones who care for them. We will be responsible for those forests. It’s been proven that 98 percent of our territories are well preserved. So, the real issue behind reforestation is guaranteeing the rights of Indigenous peoples to ensure our survival as well.
IPS: My follow-up question is: how can Indigenous communities and climate finance or climate progress come together? Is there a way?
Toya: We are working on climate hack finance and direct access to climate finance. Only direct access will strengthen what people are already doing in their territories. At the heart of it is the question: how can climate finance support what we’re already doing? That’s the important part.
IPS: To gain direct access to finance, you might need a place at the negotiation table. Do you think there is space for Indigenous leaders like you?
Toya: No, I don’t have a place—and that’s the problem. We need countries to consider us as negotiators, as part of official delegations, because we are the ones who know how to care for the forest and the environment.
IPS: Since you don’t have a place at the negotiation table, but Indigenous people have the knowledge to mitigate and adapt to climate change, how can climate projects or negotiations integrate Indigenous knowledge? Is there a way for Indigenous communities, their knowledge, and the negotiation process to come together?
Toya: It’s not only our traditional knowledge that can help mitigate climate change—we can also influence scientific knowledge. Sometimes scientists think they’re the only ones who can speak, but we can too. Our lands capture large amounts of carbon, which helps clear the air and reduce emissions. That’s the knowledge and practice we bring.
IPS: Finally, is there anything you want to see come out of the Belém climate conference? What is your top agenda?
Toya: What we really want to see in the final document is countries recognizing land titling for Indigenous peoples as a climate strategy—as a climate mitigation strategy. The just transition needs clear timelines to be effective. It must be just, but we also need to know by when.
Note: This feature is published with the support of Open Society Foundations.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Excerpt:
Depuis quelques jours, plusieurs publications sur les réseaux sociaux évoquent la réapparition de la gale dans certaines régions d’Algérie, notamment au sein d’établissements scolaires. Ces […]
L’article Des cas de gale signalés dans des écoles algériennes est apparu en premier sur .
Rakhi Matan holds bottles of cough syrup in her palm. This is what she gave to her kids two weeks back when they were feeling ill. Credit: Zofeen Ebrahim/IPS
By Zofeen Ebrahim
KARACHI, Pakistan, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)
When 23 children died in India’s Madhya Pradesh after consuming contaminated cough syrup in early September, the news barely registered across the border. In Pakistan—where self-medication is rampant and syrup bottles are household staples—the tragedy strikes dangerously close to home.
Many in Pakistan remain unaware that those sweet, over-the-counter syrups can be fatal. In the recent Indian case, the children—all under six—died of kidney failure after consuming syrup laced with diethylene glycol (DEG), a toxic solvent found at 500 times the permissible limit.
Investigations revealed the manufacturer, Sresan, had sourced industrial-grade propylene glycol from local chemical and paint dealers instead of certified pharmaceutical suppliers. With no qualified chemist overseeing production, the syrup went untested—and deadly.
This isn’t the first such incident. In 2022, Indian-made syrups caused the deaths of at least 70 children in The Gambia and 18 in Uzbekistan. Between December 2019 and January 2020, at least 12 children died in Indian-administered Kashmir after taking similarly contaminated syrup.
The prescribing doctor in India was the first to be arrested, followed by the suspension of the drug inspector and deputy director. The manufacturer, who had been absconding since September, has now been caught.
“It shows that even doctors can get caught in legal and ethical trouble, even when unaware of a drug’s quality issues,” said Professor Mishal Khan of the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. “The tragedy is a warning for Pakistan—weak regulation hurts everyone: doctors, pharma companies, and patients alike.”
A 2024 study by Khan found that approximately 40 percent of Karachi doctors accepted incentives in return for prescribing medicines from a fake pharmaceutical company without any checks on the company’s manufacturing standards or medicine quality. Antibiotics and cough syrups were among the medicines they agreed to promote.
As Pakistan enters its flu season, Karachi’s hospitals are filling up. “Between 50 to 70 percent of children who visit our clinics have respiratory tract infections,” said Dr. Wasim Jamalvi of Dr. Ruth K. M. Pfau, Civil Hospital Karachi.
And with the flu comes a predictable companion: cough syrup.
“If a child is brought for consultation for fever, cough and cold, parents feel a prescription is incomplete without a cough syrup,” said Dr. D.S. Akram, a senior pediatrician, who stopped prescribing them two decades ago. “Cough syrups don’t work—they just make the children drowsy or irritable,” she said.
Jamalvi agrees, “We don’t recommend syrups for under-fives, but parents still give them—they’re easily available over the counter.”
Self-Medication Culture
In Pakistan, cough syrups—often called sherbet—are viewed as harmless cures.
“I swear by this syrup a doctor gave me years ago,” said Mohammad Yusuf, a 31-year-old houseboy. “One spoon at night and I sleep better.”
Two weeks ago, when Rakhi Matan’s children, aged 10 and 13, came down with the flu, she reached for a bottle of leftover cough syrup from last year. “It saved me the doctor’s fee—he’d have prescribed the same thing,” she said.
Such casual self-medication is common—and hard to control.
Dr. Qaiser Sajjad, former secretary general of the Pakistan Medical Association, said regulating cough syrup sales is nearly impossible with thousands of quacks operating in the city. Medical store worker Majid Yusufzai agreed, admitting syrups are sold freely without prescriptions and “entire families share the same bottle.”
Health experts say Pakistan’s culture of self-prescription—reinforced by weak enforcement and cheap access to medicines—makes the system vulnerable to similar disasters.
Dr. Obaidullah Malik, heading the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan (DRAP), told IPS that Pakistan imported the majority of the raw materials (for several drugs, including cough syrups) from India and China.
With over 100,000 drug manufacturing companies, India, referred to as the ‘pharmacy of the world,’ is known for affordable generic drugs. But recent deaths have cast a long shadow on its safety standards.
Tighter Drug Oversight
“It is of great concern,” said Malik, adding that scrutiny of domestic quality control was enhanced after it received a global alert from the WHO on October 13, of three substandard cough syrups manufactured in India.
“Thankfully, the contaminated syrups were never exported to Pakistan,” confirmed Malik. “There’s no evidence of illegal shipments either—but we’re staying vigilant to ensure a tragedy like India’s doesn’t happen here.”
“DRAP has made it mandatory for all pharmaceuticals, including herbal and nutraceutical manufacturers as well as importers, to pre-test additives such as glycerin, propylene glycol, and sorbitol—either in their own laboratories or through public sector facilities like the Central Drugs Laboratory (CDL) in Karachi or the 12 provincial drug testing,” said Malik. The authority is double-checking vendor credentials and certifications and instructed field teams to step up sampling and testing—both of raw materials coming in and the finished syrups.
Recently, it trained pharma company reps from Nepal, Gambia, Sierra Leone, Maldives, and Sri Lanka on a quick detection method called Thin Layer Chromatography (TLC), which helps spot contamination early—saving time, cutting costs, and improving safety checks nationwide.
There are between 700 and 800 pharmaceutical companies across Pakistan, but only about 300 are members of the Pakistan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association—leaving much of the industry operating with little oversight. Yet, despite its fledgling state compared to India’s, Pakistan’s pharma sector is eager to expand into global markets. Khan cautioned that the recent scandal over unsafe medicines could jeopardize those ambitions before they even take off.
To avoid a similar crisis and protect its reputation abroad, Pakistan’s regulator has stepped up oversight at home. “Since November 2023, DRAP has recalled 63 finished products contaminated with diethylene glycol (DEG) and ethylene glycol (EG), identified 44 impurities, and issued 13 alerts about contaminated raw materials,” said DRAP’s CEO.
As Karachi’s clinics continue to fill up this flu season, syrup bottles are flying off shelves—often with no pharmacist in sight. “It’s just a syrup,” said Yusuf. He does not know, but for dozens of families across the border, that sweet bottle brought irreversible loss.
IPS UN Bureau Report
Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
Excerpt:
India’s cough syrup tragedy is a warning for Pakistan, where self-medication is common and the sweet cure fills every home. Experts call for tighter safety checks.Sur invitation du président de la République Abdelmadjid Tebboune, le président de la République fédérale de Somalie Hassan Sheikh Mohamed est arrivé, lundi, en Algérie […]
L’article Algérie – Somalie : signature d’accords stratégiques dans ces domaines est apparu en premier sur .
Outre Ramy Bensebaini et Farès Chaïbi, un autre forfait a été annoncé du côté de l’équipe d’Algérie. Il s’agit de Mohamed-Amine Tougaï, qui a été […]
L’article Equipe d’Algérie : un joueur quitte le stage des Verts est apparu en premier sur .