The deluge of crises over the past five years, from the COVID-19 pandemic to wars in Ukraine and Gaza, to the US’ destructive tariff policy, has put the global order under immense pressure. Multilateral institutions — including the UN and the WTO — are struggling to respond effectively to an increasingly complex geopolitical landscape, where international cooperation is being steadily supplanted by great-power politics.
Amid this economic fragmentation and political disarray, the global south and philanthropic organizations must take a pragmatic approach to protecting development gains and pursuing climate resilience. That means building issue-based coalitions, strengthening domestic institutions and making the most of opportunities to lead on the global stage, such as South Africa’s G20 presidency and India’s turn as BRICS+ chair next year.
Perhaps most consequential is Brazil’s role as host of this year’s UN Climate Change Conference (COP30), which is expected to focus on delivering past commitments and scaling up outcomes. Equally important would be the updated Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which all signatories of the Paris Agreement must submit, ideally within the next month.
According to the UN Environment Programme’s Emissions Gap Report 2024, there is a need for NDCs that are better aligned with the agreement’s pathway for limiting the rise in global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. More ambitious NDCs, in turn, would require greater international collaboration and reforms to the global financial architecture.
Action has become imperative. Despite the falling cost of renewable energy, fossil-fuel use continues to grow. As a result, climate change and biodiversity loss have accelerated. Meanwhile, efforts to close the climate-finance gap have fallen short.
The “new collective quantified goal” on climate finance agreed at COP29 in Baku, Azerbaijan, is grossly inadequate, and the situation looks set to deteriorate, as the US retreats inward and other developed countries significantly increase defense spending.
Likewise, progress on the UN Sustainable Development Goals has stalled, owing to a persistent US$4 trillion annual financing gap. While progress has been real and substantial, it remains fragile and unequal. As flows of official development assistance dry up, and global debt reaches a record high, developing innovative ways to mobilize domestic and foreign capital has become an urgent priority.
With that goal in mind, the Fourth International Conference on Finance for Development established a reform-oriented global financing framework and committed to a rules-based multilateral trading system. The conference also launched the Borrowers’ Forum, a platform that enables debt-distressed countries to negotiate collectively.
Global south countries are learning not to pin their hopes on the rich world’s empty promises. As a result, they are shifting their focus to implementation. Brazil launched an Action Agenda for COP30, while South Africa’s G20 presidency has highlighted the nexus of climate, development and debt.
Faced with unsustainable debt levels and prohibitive borrowing costs, global south — and particularly African — governments must improve fiscal resilience to scale up long-term investments in climate action and respond quickly to climate-related shocks. That by no means absolves developed countries of their financial obligations under Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, but it represents a pragmatic imperative for global south countries that do not want their climate and development priorities held hostage to great-power politics.
In such an environment, philanthropic organizations must reassess their role in helping national and regional actors achieve development and climate goals. That means confronting financing gaps in low and middle-income countries, as well as the transition risks that all countries face, while addressing existing priorities such as inflation, unemployment and social unrest, which implies the need to expand social protection for the most vulnerable.
Instead of taking an everything-everywhere-all-at-once approach, philanthropies must be more focused on expanding their reach, while also improving coordination among themselves. That is especially true in Africa, where only a handful of large philanthropic organizations are based.
The Just Energy Transition Partnerships in South Africa, Vietnam and Indonesia have shown that philanthropies can play a valuable role in establishing government-led country platforms for coordinating public and private-sector finance in service of development and climate goals. Philanthropic organizations can provide early financing, support capacity building and bring other actors, including community groups and small and medium-size enterprises, on board.
Another priority should be situating climate action in a development context. In Africa, that means helping countries reduce their debt overhangs, bolster fiscal resilience and devise credible investment plans for facilitating climate action. All of this should build the countercyclical economic momentum needed for sustainable growth.
However, it requires philanthropies to start engaging with the multilateral processes, using their flexibility, risk tolerance and trust-building capacity to advance the global south’s interests by enhancing institutional and human capacity.
To deliver on-the-ground results in climate-vulnerable countries confronting a confluence of global crises, philanthropies must collaborate with governments, grassroots organizations and development banks, concentrating on supporting systemic change as much as on providing relief. That would require staying focused on strategic climate and development objectives, and being prepared to manage trade-offs.
The new age of great-power politics will eventually pass, but global south governments and philanthropic organizations cannot afford to bide their time until then. Instead, they must take concrete steps toward ensuring sustainable growth and strengthening international partnerships. The only way to emerge from this era of disorder is to confront it head-on.
Saliem Fakir is founder and executive director of the African Climate Foundation. Prabhat Upadhyaya is adviser on the G20 and multilateral affairs to the African Climate Foundation.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS