Africa

Ibrahim Olabi, Permanent Representative of the Syrian Arab Republic to the United Nations, addresses the Security Council meeting on the situation in Syria. Credit: UN Photo/Evan Schneider

By Oritro Karim
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)

Eleven months after the fall of the Assad regime, Syria continues to grapple with severe instability as the country navigates a turbulent political transition. Rates of displacement have surged, and humanitarian organizations are struggling to support large numbers of refugees returning home. In recent weeks, the United Nations (UN) has documented numerous cases of enforced disappearances and abductions, calling for stronger accountability measures as the transition continues to unfold.

The ongoing displacement crisis at the Syrian borders was detailed in the latest regional flash update from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). According to the update, roughly seven million civilians remain displaced within Syria, while more than 1.9 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) have returned home, with roughly half of them departing from IDP sites in northern Syria.

As of November 6, UNHCR has recorded approximately 1,208,802 Syrians having crossed back into Syria from bordering nations since December 8, 2024. The majority of these returnees are projected to have departed from Türkiye, with UNHCR recording roughly 550,000 Syrian returnees in the past year.

Additionally, roughly 362,027 have been recorded returning to Syria from Lebanon. Smaller numbers of returnees have been recorded returning from Jordan, Iraq, Egypt, and afar. Currently, it is estimated that at least 1,476 Syrians have participated in the repatriation programme organized by UNHCR, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) and the General Security Office (GSO).

Both internally displaced Syrians and those returning home continue to endure harsh living conditions, compounded by severe shortages of humanitarian supplies. UNHCR notes that additional funding is urgently required to facilitate an effective political transition for civilians, with the agency recording widespread destruction to homes, an overwhelming lack of employment opportunities, and shrinking availability of access to basic services.

Aid operations are increasingly strained, struggling to keep pace with the growing scale of needs across the country. Winterization efforts are underway as harsh temperatures are projected to exacerbate already dire living conditions. UNHCR estimates that reduced funding threatens to leave roughly 750,000 Syrian refugees without winter assistance.

“Humanitarian budgets are stretched to breaking point and the winter support that we offer will be much less this year,” said Dominique Hyde, UNHCR’s Director of External Relations. “Families will have to endure freezing temperatures without things many of us take for granted: a proper roof, insulation, heating, blankets, warm clothes or medicine.”

UNHCR chief Filippo Grandi has urged the international community, the private sector, and Syrian communities to “come together and intensify their efforts to support recovery”, to ensure that returns are dignified and sustainable. “With renewed commitment, the international community can help preserve hope and support stability and durable solutions for one of the largest refugee situations of our time,” said Grandi.

To support displaced Syrian families ahead of the harsh winter season, UNHCR has scaled up its winterization response across Syria, supplying over 17,000 displaced and returnee families with essential non-food items. The agency delivered winter kits with essential winter supplies such as blankets, heaters, mattresses, and warm clothing in Aleppo, Hama, Dar’a, Quneitra, Homs, Qamishli, Sweida, and rural Damascus.

“Our teams are on the ground, determined to protect refugees from the cold, but we are running out of time and resources,” added Hyde. “We need more funding to help make many lives slightly more tolerable.” UNHCR aims to raise at least $35 million to repair damaged homes, insulate shelters, and provide warmth, blankets, and other essentials for children and the elderly, along with funding for medicines and hot meals.

To help meet the most urgent needs, UNHCR has continued distributing support through its Return and Reintegration Financial Assistance programme, providing critical financial aid to more than 45,000 returnees. Additionally, over 24,500 returnees have been supported at key border crossings with Türkiye and Lebanon over the course of this year, with UNHCR and its partners continuing to monitor civilian movement and welfare through home visits and referrals to lifesaving services.

Despite these efforts, the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) has underscored growing insecurity in Syria, marked by “worrying reports” of continued enforced disappearances and abductions. On November 7, OHCHR spokesperson Thameen Al-Keetan informed reporters in Geneva that at least 97 people have been abducted since the beginning of the year, adding to the more than 100,000 individuals who went missing during the five decade rule of the Assad regime.

Karla Quintana, the Head of the Independent Institution on Missing Persons in the Syrian Arab Republic (IIMP), added that “everyone in Syria knows someone who has gone missing”. OHCHR also highlights the disappearance of Hamza Al-Amarin, a volunteer with the Syria Civil Defense, who went missing in July of this year while assisting with a humanitarian evacuation mission in Sweida. OHCHR and its partners continue to urge for strengthened accountability measures and the protection of all humanitarian personnel.

“We stress that all armed actors – both exercising State power and otherwise – must respect and protect humanitarian workers at all times, everywhere, as required by international human rights law and applicable humanitarian law,” said Al-Keetan. “Accountability and justice for all human rights violations and abuses, past and present, are essential for Syria to build a durable, peaceful and secure future for all its people.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

CTBTO Executive Secretary Robert Floyd addressing staff, Vienna International Centre, Vienna, Austria, 2023. Credit: CTBTO Preparatory Commission

By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Nov 12 2025 (IPS)

The US took another step backward –to break ranks with the United Nations– when it voted against a draft resolution calling for the entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT).

The negative vote followed an announcement by President Trump last month that the US plans to resume nuclear testing after a 33-year hiatus. The US stood alone on the UN vote, which was supported by almost all member States in the General Assembly’s First Committee.

The resolution was adopted by an overwhelming majority: with 168 votes in favor, with one against (United States) and 3 abstentions (India, Mauritius, Syria).

During Trump’s first term, the US abstained on the vote. And in other years they had been voting in favour.

Jackie Cabasso, Executive Director, Western States Legal Foundation, which monitors and analyzes U.S. nuclear weapons programs and policies, told IPS the chaos and uncertainty arose from Trump’s factually-challenged social media post that “because of other countries testing programs, I have instructed the Department of War to start testing our Nuclear Weapons on an equal basis.”

The U.S. government’s first ever “No” vote, on the annual UN resolution in support of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT), raises further troubling questions about U.S. intentions.

Trump did not specify whether he meant explosive nuclear testing, missile tests, or something else. Russia and China are not conducting explosive nuclear tests, so the U.S. has no basis to respond in kind. They are conducting missile tests, but so is the United States, Cabasso pointed out.

In fact, she said, the U.S. conducted a “routine” test of an unarmed Intercontinental Ballistic Missile on November 5. The Department of Defense (now, Department of War) is responsible for missile tests, but it is the Department of Energy that is responsible for preparation for explosive nuclear testing.

Trump’s announcement was followed by mixed signals.

On November 2, Energy Secretary Chris Wright sought to explain Trump’s post when he told Fox News “I think the tests we’re talking about right now are system tests. These are not nuclear explosions. These are what we call non-critical explosions.”

The headline in a New York Times article was dead on target: Trump pushes Tests with a Nuclear Bang: A Top Aide Says Non-nuclear”.

The waters were further muddied, said Cabasso, by Trump’s unsubstantiated allegations in an interview with 60 Minutes (recorded October 31 but aired November 2) that Russia and China have been secretly conducting explosive nuclear tests deep underground.

In a written statement explaining its General Assembly vote, the U.S. – the only country to cast a No vote – stated, “The United States voted No…. because several paragraphs are inconsistent with U.S. policy or are undergoing policy review…. The United States is not currently pursuing CTBT ratification and therefore cannot support calls for ratification and entry into force.”

Of the other nuclear-armed states, the Russian Federation, China, France, United Kingdom, Israel, and Pakistan voted Yes. India abstained, and North Korea did not vote. Thus, the United States distinguished itself as a “rogue” nuclear armed State.

Jonathan Granoff, President, Global Security Institute, told IPS “calling the statement dumb and dumber does not further the argument that such a resumption of nuclear weapons testing would be contrary to promises made to induce indefinite extension of the NPT, justify further more sophisticated weapons developments in violation of the good faith duties to pursue disarmament under the NPT, end the US advantage of knowing more because it has tested more, upgrade the salience of the use and threat of use of nuclear weapons as legitimate tools of communication amongst nations, lead to increased spending on developing weapons which destroy the user as well as adversaries if used, and stimulate greater international fear and instability.“

“We critically need to develop trust and cooperation to, inter alia, protect the oceans and the climate, end the scourge of corruption stealing between two and four trillion from the world’s productive economies, stop the creation and production of new and even more dangerous weapons as we amplify adversity, ignore preparation for the inevitable next pandemic, eliminate poverty and generally pursue the sanity of human security rather than perpetual instability and the dangerous belief that by madness, mistakes by machines or humans, or design we will not lead ourselves into destroying civilization through the use of these horrific devices,” he said.

Elaborating further, Cabasso pointed out that under the 1980 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a State is obliged to refrain from acts which would defeat the object and purpose of a treaty when it has signed the treaty.

The United States, Russia and China have all signed but not ratified the CTBT. Russia withdrew its ratification in 2023 to maintain parity with the U.S. The three countries moratoria on nuclear explosive testing until now are consistent with the intent of the CTBT, but Trump’s statements and the U.S. vote in the General Assembly call this commitment into question.

Indicating just how dangerous and uncertain this situation is, Russian President Vladimir Putin, in response, has ordered officials to draft proposals for a possible test of nuclear weapons.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov was quoted in TASS, saying “In order to come to a conclusion about the advisability of beginning preparations for such tests, it will take exactly as much time as it takes for us to fully understand the intentions of the United States of America.”

“As we continue to advocate for nuclear risk reduction and the global elimination of nuclear weapons”, said Cabasso, “we must remain vigilant that the option of explosive nuclear weapons testing remains off the table”.

The United States should reverse course, commit to a permanent cessation of explosive nuclear weapons testing, ratify the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and invite other nuclear armed states to follow suit. This would be a huge contribution to long term prospects for international peace and security, she declared.

According to the Washington-based Arms Control Association (ACA), if the United States resumes its nuclear testing, other countries, such as Russia, North Korea, and perhaps China, will likely follow suit, escalating the nuclear arms race, and increasing global tensions.

In response to Trump’s rhetoric, Representative. Dina Titus (Democrat-Nevada.) has introduced the Renewing Efforts to Suspend Testing and Reinforce Arms Control Initiatives Now (RESTRAIN) Act (H.R. 5894) which creates “a prohibition of explosive nuclear testing while simultaneously preventing any funding from going toward the Trump Administration’s effort to conduct explosive nuclear tests.”

And Senator Ed Markey (Democrat-Massachusetts) has introduced companion legislation in the Senate as the No Nuclear Testing Act (S. 3090) to block renewed testing and has called on the Senate to approve ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.

In its appeal, ACA says: “We encourage you to reach out to your Member of Congress this week and tell them to block the resumption of nuclear explosive testing including by co-sponsoring the “RESTRAIN Act” and “No Nuclear Testing Act.”

ACA has been at the forefront of the effort to halt nuclear weapons testing for decades.

“Since Trump’s call for renewed nuclear testing, we have flown into action to get our message out, to rally Congressional opposition, to organize with other civil society organizations, and mobilize international opposition to the resumption of nuclear testing by any nation.”

IPS UN Bureau Report

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

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
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Mali has been paralysed by a fuel blockade, which has disrupted transport, schools, hospitals and more.

Mali has been paralysed by a fuel blockade, which has disrupted transport, schools, hospitals and more.

Mali has been paralysed by a fuel blockade, which has disrupted transport, schools, hospitals and more.

The Road to Belém is laid with layers of ambitious actions and outcomes including a plan to mobilize at least USD 1.3 trillion annually in climate finance for developing countries by 2035.

Two months ago, a military helicopter plummeted in a dense forest, killing eight people.

"I have lost the people whose faces I used to see smiling," says Abdu-Rabbu Ahmed after escaping el-Fasher.

"I have lost the people whose faces I used to see smiling," says Abdu-Rabbu Ahmed after escaping el-Fasher.

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

This is not about rhetoric; it is about results. China accounts for roughly 60 percent of global capacity in solar, wind, and hydropower manufacturing. It dominates in electric vehicles, batteries, and high-speed rail. China’s 93 GW installation of solar in May 2025 is a historic high and exceeds the monthly or short‐term installation levels of any other country to date.

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
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

Excerpt:

As climate leaders gather in the Amazon, the world’s green transformation is speaking with a southern accent—powered by markets, technology, and a new economic logic.

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
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');   Related Articles

• Turning Indigenous Territories From ‘Sacrifice’ Zones to Thriving Forest Ecosystems
• What’s Now Needed is Political Courage, Says UN SG Guterres at COP30
• Challenging Elites, Defending Democracy: Oxfam’s Amitabh Behar Speaks Out

Excerpt:

‘It’s not only our traditional knowledge that can help mitigate climate change—we can also influence scientific knowledge,’ says Indigenous leader Elcio Severino da Silva Manchineri at COP30.

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
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

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.

Alex Iwobi says Nigeria will have to "lock up" Gabon striker, and his former Arsenal team-mate, Pierre-Emerick Aubameyang when the sides meet in African play-offs for the 2026 World Cup.

As world leaders gather in Brazil for the COP30 climate summit, UN Secretary-General António Guterres called for urgent action to drive down global temperatures and keep the 1.5°C goal within reach. Credit: WMO/Guillaume Louÿs

By Pedro Barata
LISBON, Portugal, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)

I have been working on climate policy since the late 1990s. I was in the room when Europe’s early carbon market discussions were shaping the architecture that would eventually underpin the Kyoto Protocol.

That framework—built around international cooperation and market-based mechanisms—was born at a time when climate change was understood as a global problem requiring global solutions. For all its flaws, it carried an underlying logic: collective action was indispensable, and market-based tools could harness efficiency and scale.

Today, the mood has shifted. Public budgets are shrinking, geopolitical tensions are rising, and climate impacts are accelerating. Yet in the midst of this urgency, we are witnessing a troubling rise in what can only be called irrationality: a willingness to hold two or three contradictory ideas at once, even when the stakes are so high.

Take, for example, the persistent claim that carbon “offsetting” is no longer possible under the Paris Agreement. The argument goes like this: because countries now have emissions caps under Paris, offsetting somehow ceases to exist. But that is a fundamental misunderstanding. The very logic of cap-and-trade—whether under the EU Emissions Trading System or international markets—rests on offsetting, i.e. compensating emissions reductions elsewhere rather than reducing at home.

Offsetting is perfectly possible and even desirable, from an economic perspective, within a capped environment. The problem has never been with the principle. It has been with the credibility of particular credits, the uneven quality of oversight, and the lack of transparency in certain corners of the market.

These challenges are real. But the rational response is not to walk away from these challenges. It is to double down on the hard work: strengthen guidance and regulation, demand better data, increase transparency, expose bad behavior, and install integrity across the value chain. High-integrity markets are not easy, but they are possible—and they are already delivering results.

What’s more, evidence shows that international cooperation on carbon markets reduces costs in every modeled region compared to countries acting alone, with potential savings of as much as $250 billion by 2030. Walking away from these benefits would be an act of self-sabotage.

The irrationality extends beyond markets. Policymakers readily admit that public coffers are stretched thin, that development aid budgets are shrinking, and that climate is often being downgraded as a priority in national spending. Yet, in almost the same breath, some suggest that international mitigation can and should be financed primarily through public money rather than carbon markets.

Where is this money supposed to come from?

The data are stark: the world needs $8.4 trillion in climate finance annually by 2030, yet just $1.3 trillion was provided in 2021–2022. That leaves a $7.1 trillion gap today, still projected at nearly $4 trillion in 2030 even under business-as-usual scenarios. Magical thinking does not decommission coal plants, stop deforestation, or scale carbon removal.

Private finance is not just helpful, it is essential. External private finance for climate remains around $30 billion per year today. By 2030, that must rise to between $450 and $500 billion annually—an increase of 15 to 18 times.

There is no plausible pathway to close the gap without mobilizing capital at this scale, and high-integrity carbon markets are one of the few tools available right now that can channel such flows directly into mitigation.

What is needed is not purity, but pragmatism. We need the full suite of solutions—a portfolio approach for climate policy. Deep emissions cuts must continue at home. Rapid removals are essential to balance the carbon budget. And massive flows of capital to a wide range of solutions must scale together.

None of these tools alone will solve the climate crisis. There are no silver bullets. But rejecting viable tools because they are imperfect guarantees failure. Delay, not imperfection, is the greater risk.

Of course, criticism plays an essential role. Constructive critique strengthens systems, exposes weaknesses, and pushes for improvement. But when critique tips into absolutism—when markets are dismissed outright, or international cooperation is brushed aside in favor of isolation—it becomes self-defeating. At a time when geopolitical instability makes cooperation harder, walking away from available mechanisms is the height of irrationality.

I do not claim to have the full prescription for restoring rationality to climate policy. But I do know this: cynicism is not a strategy, and delay is not an option. Markets, when well-governed, remain one of the fastest ways to mobilize capital at scale for climate action. Public finance, though limited, must be directed strategically.

And international cooperation, however unfashionable, is indispensable. The future will not be won by choosing one path and discarding the others. It will be won by using every tool in the toolbox—and refusing to let irrationality steer us toward inaction.

Pedro Barata is Associate Vice President, Environmental Defense Fund

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

The Amazon rainforest, covering much of northwestern Brazil and extending into other South American countries, is the world’s largest tropical rainforest and is vital to fighting climate change. Credit: CIAT/Neil Palmer Source UN News

By Asoka Bandarage
WASHINGTON DC, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)

My recent visit to Brazil coincided partly with the Conference of the Parties (COP) 30, the 30th United Nations Climate Conference in Belém. Although I did not attend COP 30, I was very fortunate to visit the Amazon.

It was both awe-inspiring and humbling to experience —even briefly—the mystery and stillness of nature, and the ebb and flow of life in the Amazon: the largest tropical rainforest in the world, sustained by the ever-flowing Amazon River, the largest and widest river on Earth.

The magnificent forest, the river, and its tributaries, such as the black-water Rio Negro, teem with countless interdependent species. The great Samaúma—the “tree of life,” or giant kapok tree—stands tall above innumerable other trees, vines, and plants.

Many trees provide homes for birds and other animals that build their nests high among the branches or near the roots. Sloths do not build nests; instead, they spend their entire lives in the forest canopy, hanging upside down from branches while resting or sleeping.

In contrast, capuchin and squirrel monkeys leap from tree to tree in search of food, while birds—from the tiniest short-tailed pygmy tyrant to the colorful red-crested, green, and black Amazon kingfishers—flit from branch to branch, each awaiting its own prey. As night falls, the beautiful white owl-like great potoo emerges and sits patiently, seemingly forever, waiting for its turn to hunt.

In the river, silvery flying fish—sometimes in droves—leap from the water to catch insects, while gray and pink dolphins bob up and down, chasing fish or simply playing. Along the banks, proud egrets and fierce spectacled and black caimans lie in wait for their prey. Overhead, flocks of birds, including parakeets, fill the sky with song as vultures descend to feed on the remains of fallen animals below.

Humans have also lived in the Amazon for tens of thousands of years, in close symbiosis with other species, hunting in the forest and fishing in the river for their survival. Petroglyphs—carvings of human and animal figures, along with abstract shapes etched into rocks along the Amazon River—speak of their deep respect for nature and their ways of communicating with one another.

Even today, many of the indigenous communities who inhabit the Amazon remain devoted to protecting Mother Earth, upholding their eco-centric values and traditional ways of life.

There are also the river people (ribeirinhos), many of mixed indigenous and Portuguese descent, living along the Amazon River—often in floating homes or houses built on stilts. Their livelihoods and cultures are deeply intertwined with the river and forest, making the protection of the Amazon essential to their survival.

The Amazon lost an estimated 54.2 million hectares of forest—over 9% of its total area—between 2001 and 2020, an expanse roughly the size of France. The Brazilian Amazon, which makes up 62% of the rainforest’s territory, was the most affected, followed by Bolivia, Peru, and Colombia. Along with deforestation, the Amazon is estimated to lose 4,000 to 6,000 plant and animal species each year.

COP 30

At the opening of the COP 30 Conference in Belém last week, Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, the President of Brazil pointed out that concrete climate action is possible and that deforestation in the Amazon has been halved just in the past two years. He declared that the “era of fine speeches and good intentions is over” and that Brazil’s COP 30 will be a ‘COP of Truth and Action’, “COPs cannot be mere showcases of good ideas or annual gatherings for negotiators. They must be moments of contact with reality and of effective action to tackle climate change.”

President da Silva also emphasized that Brazil is a global leader in biofuel production—renewable energy derived from organic materials such as plants, algae, and waste—stressing that “a growth model based on fossil fuels cannot last.” Indeed, at COP 30, the future of the world’s tropical forests, vital ecosystems, and the shared climate of humanity and other species is at stake.

“Truth and Action”

Notwithstanding President da Silva’s optimistic pronouncements at Belém, troubling developments continue on the climate front in Brazil and around the world. In preparation for COP 30, the Brazilian government—along with India, Italy, and Japan—launched an ambitious initiative in October 2025: the “Belém 4x” pledge, which aims to quadruple global sustainable fuel use by 2035. This goal is projected to more than double current biofuel consumption.

However, environmentalists have expressed concern that a massive expansion of biofuel production, if undertaken without strong safeguards, could accelerate deforestation, degrade land and water resources, harm ecosystems, and threaten food security—particularly as crops such as soy, sugarcane, and palm oil compete for land between energy and food production.

Just days before COP30, the Brazilian government granted the state-run oil company Petrobras a license to drill for oil near the mouth of the Amazon River. The government, including Minister for the Environment Marina da Silva, has defended the move, claiming that the project would help finance Brazil’s energy transition and help achieve its economic development goals.

Environmentalists have criticized the decision, accusing the government of promoting fossil fuel expansion and worsening global warming. They warn that drilling off the coast of the world’s largest tropical rainforest—a crucial carbon sink—poses a serious threat to biodiversity and indigenous communities in the Amazon region.

According to environmental activists, in the Amazon, “31 million hectares of Indigenous Peoples’ territories are already overlapped by oil and gas blocks, with an additional 9.8 million hectares threatened by mining concessions.”

Moreover, a controversial four-lane highway, Avenida Liberdade, built in Belém in preparation for the COP30 climate summit, is being defended by the Brazilian government as necessary infrastructure for the city’s growing population. Environmentalists and some locals are alarmed that clearing more than 100 hectares of protected Amazon Rainforest to build the road will accelerate deforestation, harm wildlife, and undermine the climate goals of the COP summit.

The onus of protecting the Amazon Rainforest—often called “the lungs of the planet”— cannot rest on Brazil alone; it is a shared responsibility of all humanity. Numerous studies show that the world can thrive without fossil and biofuels by adopting alternative renewable energy sources such as solar, wind, and hydroelectric power.

The global order, led by the United States and other Western nations, bears primary responsibility for the climate and environmental crises, as well as for deepening global inequality. Emerging powers from the Global South—particularly the BRICS nations, including Brazil—are now called to move beyond rhetoric and take concrete action. As President Lula da Silva himself has stated, COP 30 presents a critical opportunity to move decisively in that direction.

Negotiators and policymakers at COP 30 must take firm, principled moral action—resisting pressure from the fossil fuel lobby and prioritizing the interests of the planet and its people over short-term, profit-driven growth.

Dr Asoka Bandarage is the author of Women, Population and Global Crisis: A Politico-Economic Analysis (Zed Books, 1997), Sustainability and Well-Being: The Middle Path to Environment, Society and the Economy (Palgrave MacMillan, 2013) and numerous other publications on global political economy and the environment including “The Climate Emergency And Urgency of System Change” (2023) and ‘Existential Crisis, Mindfulness and the Middle Path to Social Action’ (2025). She serves on the Steering Committee of the Interfaith Moral Action on Climate.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

By Jomo Kwame Sundaram
MANILA, Philippines, Nov 11 2025 (IPS)

US President Trump’s economic strategy for his second term aims to get the rest of the world, especially its wealthy allies with greater means, to pay more to help strengthen the US economy.

Jomo Kwame Sundaram

Recent US initiatives have undoubtedly accelerated de-dollarisation but these have largely been unavoidable consequences of its own actions rather than due to any conspiracy by others to that end.

De-dollarisation distraction
Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff recently observed, “We are absolutely at the biggest inflection point in the global currency system since the Nixon shock to end the last vestige of the gold standard.”

After the Bretton Woods Conference in 1944, the gold price was set at $35 per ounce. In August 1971, US President Richard Nixon ended this gold-dollar parity.

De-dollarisation has gradually continued since, with occasional brief spurts and reversals. For example, capital flows abroad rose following the 2008-09 global financial crisis.

Growing weaponisation of economic relations has probably accelerated de-dollarisation. Rogoff observed, “this was happening for a decade before Trump. Trump is an accelerant.”

Governments, central banks and BRICS countries have been de-dollarising. Even US dollar hegemony advocates no longer deny alternatives to the dollar’s role as global reserve currency.

Meanwhile, private foreign investors, including foreign asset managers, investment banks and pension funds, do not want to be left behind.

Investment fund managers are increasingly ‘de-risking’ by cutting exposure to dollar-denominated assets.

Mar-a-Lago plan
Economist Stephen Miran has proposed a new Trump initiative to require other governments to pay the US for services purportedly rendered.

First appointed chair of Trump’s Council of Economic Advisers, Miran has since been appointed to the US Federal Reserve Board.

A few days after Trump announced his Liberation Day tariffs on April 2, Miran articulated five expectations. These expect other nations to pay the US for ‘public goods’ services it ostensibly provides the world.

Allies will be expected to pay the US more for the ‘security umbrella’ it provides to NATO and other allies. The US also expects those buying Treasury bonds to pay more for the ‘privilege’

In November 2024, Miran’s A User’s Guide to Restructuring the Global Trading System proposed the Mar-A-Lago accord, named for Trump’s exclusive Florida island resort and residence.

He also referred to the Plaza Accord, which the Reagan administration imposed on its G5 allies in September 1985. Then, the US forced Japan and Germany to appreciate their currencies against the dollar.

The yen’s appreciation fuelled a massive Japanese asset price bubble that burst with devastating consequences in 1989, ending its post-war boom.

Trump now seeks the appreciation of other major currencies. Already, he has succeeded in getting his European allies to agree.

However, it seems unlikely that Trump will get China and other BRICS economies to do so, as they are aware of how the Plaza Accord affected Japan.

Century bonds
Other national monetary authorities buying US Treasury bonds to stabilise their own currencies have long caused dollar appreciation.

They are now expected to help depreciate the dollar. Miran has proposed that the US issue century, i.e., 100-year bonds, at very low interest rates, well below the current rates for US Treasury securities.

Miran wants foreign central bank reserve currency managers to sell off their dollar-denominated assets. They should “term out” their “remaining reserve holdings” and refinance short-term debt with long-term borrowings.

Miran is explicit: “The US Treasury can effectively buy duration back from the market and replace that borrowing with century bonds sold to the foreign official sector.”

His plan thus intends to force foreign holders of US government debt (‘Treasuries’) to extend the duration of their loans.

Very low interest rates for century bonds will ensure that foreign bondholders effectively pay the US more for the ‘privilege’ of borrowing dollars.

For Miran, the appreciation of other currencies against the dollar will also strengthen the American economy. US manufacturing will strengthen as its exports become more competitive.

Thus, his Mar-A-Lago accord plan expects other nations to pay more to strengthen the world’s largest and richest economy.

Miran’s Mar-A-Lago plan is not yet official US policy. However, this can change with Miran’s likely appointment as the next Fed chair, replacing Trump 1.0 appointee Jerome Powell.

BRICS de-dollarisation?
However, Miran’s declared plan to strengthen the US economy by depreciating the dollar against other major currencies has also accelerated de-dollarisation.

In recent years, the BRICS have been accused of conspiring to accelerate de-dollarisation worldwide, but this is certainly not a shared ambition.

Lacking significant trade surpluses, Brazil and South Africa have long advocated de-dollarisation. But Russia’s complaints have more to do with recent NATO weaponisation of financial instruments against it.

There is no comparable enthusiasm among other BRICS member states, which have much healthier trade surpluses and more dollar assets.

Its recent membership expansion will make an official BRICS de-dollarisation stance even more unlikely.

Nevertheless, Trump’s leadership relies on the American public believing the rest of the world is conspiring against them.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');  

From fleets of e-bikes to individual riders, eWaka aims to sell across Africa's delivery market.

Former world number two Ons Jabeur announces that she is pregnant with her first child.

Family agriculture and land defenders in Colombia. Credit: Both Nomads/Forus

By Bibbi Abruzzini and Lucia Torres (Forus) and Jake Wieczorek (Hivos)
BELÉM, Brazil, Nov 10 2025 (IPS)

As the world prepares for the next COP30 summit, a quieter battle is raging in courtrooms. Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are the fossil-fuel industry’s new favourite weapon, turning justice systems into instruments of intimidation.

“Speak out, and you’ll pay for it”

On a humid morning in August 2025, two small environmental groups in Panama — Centro de Incidencia Ambiental and Adopta Bosque Panamá — found out through social media that they were being sued for “slander” and “crimes against the national economy.” Their offence? Criticising a port project on the country’s Pacific coast.

A few days later, across the border in Costa Rica, two environmental content creators woke up to find their bank accounts frozen and salaries withheld. Their “crime” was posting videos about a tourism project they said was damaging Playa Panamá’s fragile coastline.

In both cases, the message was straightforward: speak out, and you’ll pay for it.

These are part of a growing global trend that is particularly ominous as climate activists, Indigenous defenders, and journalists push their demands upon the upcoming COP30 negotiations. The battle to protect the planet increasingly comes with an additional cost: defending yourself in court.

SLAPPs: Lawsuits Designed to Scare, Not Win

The acronym sounds almost trivial — SLAPP — but its impact is anything but. SLAPP stands for Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation, a term coined decades ago to describe legal actions intended not to win on merit but to intimidate, exhaust, and silence those who speak out on matters of public interest.

According to Transparency International, “SLAPPs are also known as frivolous lawsuits or gag lawsuits, as they silence journalists, activists, whistleblowers, NGOs and anyone who brings facts to light in the public interest.”

These are not just lawsuits; they are in fact strategy. They don’t need to win, they just need to drain your time, your money, and your hope.

The claimants are usually powerful, ranging from corporations, politicians, or investors.

In the Costa Rican case, the company linked to the Playa Panama tourism project did not even allege material harm. Yet the court imposed “precautionary embargoes,” blocking credit cards, freezing wages, even restricting property rights, punishing through the process.

In Panama, the developers of the Puerto Barú port project filed a criminal complaint against environmental NGOs who had challenged the project’s environmental impact assessment before the Supreme Court. Those challenges are still pending. Rather than waiting for the judiciary’s ruling, the company launched a separate legal attack, accusing those NGOs of harming the national economy.

Observers call it “judicial intimidation.” The case triggered several alerts across the EU SEE Early Warning Mechanism, warning of a “chilling effect on civic participation.”

‘Unfortunately, in Panama, judicial harassment of journalists and activists by politicians and businesspeople is already common practice because criminal law allows it. Reform is needed in relation to so-called crimes against honour and the grounds for seizure of assets. International organisations such as the Inter-American Press Association have warned about this,’ says Olga de Obaldía, executive director of Transparency International – Panama Chapter, a national member of the EU SEE network.

In Costa Rica, the embargoes imposed on content creators Juan Bautista Alfaro and Javier Adelfang sparked outrage. Within days, 72 organisations and more than 3,000 individuals — from academics to Indigenous leaders — signed an open letter condemning the action as “an assault on public interest advocacy.”

The backlash worked: members of the Frente Amplio Party introduced a bill to restrict the use of preventive embargoes in cases involving public interest speech.

But for those already targeted, the damage – emotional, financial and reputational – has already been done.

We do not just see SLAPPs deployed in Latin America. Examples of SLAPPs as a means of lawfare by the rich and powerful have been around for a long time across the globe.

In Thailand, Thammakaset sued several members of the NGO Fortify Rights and other activists for denouncing abusive working conditions. Still today content posted by communities or NGOs, or even comments under local government posts, are often picked up and turned into criminal defamation cases.

Despite the existence of anti-SLAPP provisions in the Criminal Procedure Code, experiences indicate that they are largely ineffective. The constant threat of facing litigation based on online content disrupts CSO work and chills free speech.

Climate Activism Under Pressure

As the world heads toward another global climate summit in Brazil – where journalist Amanda Miranda faces a SLAPP by government officials for uncovering corruption – we face a paradox: while governments make promises about protecting the environment, environmental defenders are being prosecuted for holding them accountable.

Brazil’s baseline snapshot on an enabling environment also highlights a related trend: environmental defenders are frequently framed as “anti-development,” a narrative used to delegitimise their work and undermine public support. SLAPPs reinforce this strategy. Beyond draining time and resources, these lawsuits inflict reputational harm, serving as tools in broader campaigns to discredit and silence critics.

According to research from the Business & Human Rights Resource Centre, the highest number of SLAPPs – almost half of them – took place in Latin America, followed by Asia and the Pacific (25%), Europe & Central Asia (18%), Africa (8.5%), and North America (9%). Nearly three-quarters of cases were brought in countries in the Global South and 63% of cases involved criminal charges. Furthermore, most individuals and groups facing SLAPPs raised concerns about projects in four sectors: mining, agriculture and livestock, logging and lumber, and finally palm oil.

In an International Center for Non-Profit law – ICNL – study on over 80 cases of SLAPPs across the Global South, out of them “91% were brought by private companies or company officials(…) 41% brought by mining companies and (…) 34% brought by companies associated with agriculture.”

According to data from the CASE Coalition, SLAPP cases have risen sharply in recent years: from 570 cases in 2022 to over 820 in 2023 in Europe alone. Around half of those targeted climate, land, and labor rights defenders. Fossil fuel and extractive industries remain the most frequent initiators.

It is important to remember that those numbers under-represent the extent of SLAPP use, they are based on reported legal cases and can’t include the many cases in which the mere threat of a lawsuit was enough to silence before filing a complaint

The Business & Human Rights Resource Centre has documented that companies linked to mining, tourism, and large infrastructure projects are increasingly using SLAPPs to paralyse critics ahead of international events like COP, when scrutiny intensifies.

The danger of SLAPPs lies in their quietness. They happen behind closed doors, in legal language, far from the marches and hashtags. The trials often do not even end up in lawsuits. Yet their effect is profound. Every frozen bank account, every unpaid legal fee, every public apology extracted under duress weakens the collective courage needed to hold power to account.

Across regions, SLAPPs follow the same playbook: identify outspoken defenders, sue them on vague charges like “defamation” or “economic harm”, drag the process out for years, win by exhausting, not convincing.

Of course, the specific tactics vary by legal context. In some countries, certain charges carry strategic advantages. For example, in the Philippines, authorities frequently rely on serious, non-bailable allegations — including charges like illegal possession of firearms — to keep activists detained for extended periods.

The Philippines remains the most dangerous country in Asia for land and environmental defenders with frequent attacks linked to mining, agribusiness, and water projects.

Political repression persists and civil society groups continue to face “red-tagging” and SLAPPs, further enabled by the passage of the Anti-Terrorism Act, the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, and the Terrorism Financing Prevention and Suppression Act of 2012.

Authorities have also used fabricated firearms and explosives charges to target activists, journalists, and community leaders, often accompanied by asset freezes, surveillance, and prolonged detention. In these settings, SLAPPs can “weaponise” the criminal justice system itself to remove critics from public life entirely.

SLAPPs have become the invisible front of the climate struggle, a slow-motion suppression campaign that rarely makes headlines.

Tactics to Fight Back

In early 2024, the European Union adopted its first-ever Anti-SLAPP Directive, a milestone achievement after years of campaigning by journalists and civil society. It sets out minimum standards to prevent abusive lawsuits and protect public participation.

But implementation remains uncertain. The Vice-President of the European Commission, Vera Jourova, called the Directive “Daphne’s law,” in memory of the Maltese journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia, who was killed in 2017 while she was the victim of numerous legal proceedings against her, and whose tragic story helped raise awareness of the issue.

Beyond the European context, similar efforts to counter SLAPPs have emerged elsewhere, for example in Colombia with the Guerra v. Ruiz-Navarro case. This case illustrates the importance of investigating sexual violence and abuse of power, recognising it as a matter of public interest that warrants protection. This ruling sets a strong precedent against the misuse of courts to silence the press by influential figures and underscores that defending victims and informing the public are acts of defending human rights.

In Indonesia, another country where SLAPPs are being deployed, civil society groups continue to advocate for stronger legal protections, including legislation to protect from SLAPPs. A small step forward came in September 2024, when the Ministry of Environment and Forestry issued Regulation No. 10/2024, on legal protection for environmental defenders.

“While the Ministry of Environment and Forestry Regulation No. 10/2024 represents an initial step toward safeguarding environmental defenders, civil society organisations expect its effective implementation, coupled with broader anti-SLAPP legislation, to ensure comprehensive protection against retaliatory lawsuits and foster a secure environment for public participation in environmental governance,” says Intan Kusumaning Tiyas of INFID, national civil society platform in Indonesia.

Civil society groups are calling for action on immediate priorities.

These include stronger legal safeguards by enacting robust national anti-SLAPP laws that allow for early case dismissal, ensure defendants can recover legal costs, and penalise those who file abusive lawsuits.

Setting up solidarity and support through regional and global networks can quickly mobilise legal assistance, mental health support, and emergency funding for those targeted.

Finally, actions around visibility and accountability are needed to bring SLAPPs into the public eye and raise awareness. SLAPPs need to be framed not as ordinary legal conflicts, but as violations of human rights that weaken an enabling environment for civil society, democratic participation and obstruct climate justice.

At COP30, negotiators will debate carbon credits and transition funds. But the real test of climate commitment may lie in whether states protect the people defending rivers, forests, and coastlines from powerful interests.

Civil society hopes to push a bold message into COP30 discussions: defending the environment requires defending those who defend it and supporting an enabling environment for civil society.

This article was written with the support of the Forus team, particularly Lena Muhs, and members of the EU SEE network.

IPS UN Bureau

 

Follow @IPSNewsUNBureau
!function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],p=/^http:/.test(d.location)?'http':'https';if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src=p+'://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js';fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document, 'script', 'twitter-wjs');