The world is facing the existential threat of climate change crisis. Since this crisis, along with many others, including the ‘Pandemicene’ phenomenon, transcends boundaries, what is required is a meaningful global effort both in terms of sharing of technical know-how, availability of adequate level of climate finance, and overall sustainable development goals (SDGs)-related finance, given the polycrisis, and overlapping nature of crises requires a wholesome and deep response.
Unfortunately, decades of practice of neoliberal policies, for instance, in terms of shrinking role of government in regulation of markets have neither allowed adequately checking over-profiteering – in turn, contributing significantly to both issues of inequality, and lack of price stability — nor enabling reaching productive, and allocative efficiencies.
Moreover, Neoliberalism seeing the role of government as mainly a facilitator to private sector, and only one of reacting to market failures, rather than actively government playing a meaningfully active role in market creation that protects the interests of demos, has resulted in over-profiteering; it has also resulted in weak capacity of government and markets – including domestic- and global supply chains as was seen in the wake of the Covid pandemic – to deal with shocks.
In terms of trade, this has meant over-employment of intellectual property rights (IPRs) by the private sector to unduly protect profit interests in general, but particularly in sectors which are both of a global public good nature, for example vaccines, and which have also a significant contribution of taxpayer’s money.
Hence, the practice of neoliberal policy over the last four decades or so significantly weakened public service delivery by governments generally in individual countries, and meaningfully diminished multilateral spirit at the back of unjustifiably more inward-looking attitudes of leading rich, advanced countries both as a consequence of neoliberal policy, but also in response to increasing role of moneyed interest in influencing public policy at the back of their rising role in election campaign financing of political parties.
A lack of multilateral spirit became very pronounced during the days of the Covid pandemic, where rich, advanced countries practiced in general vaccine apartheid, while big pharmaceutical companies didn’t share vaccines at meaningfully lower prices, nor did firms share knowledge with each other –inside the country as well as globally – to come up with a more potent vaccine even though they had in general significant contribution from taxpayer’s money.
This was in contrast to the time of large-scale spread of polio when virtual absence of neoliberal policies and weak link of moneyed private interest and public policy, allowed virtually unhindered and very low-priced distribution of polio vaccine.
A 2024 ‘Journal of intellectual property law & practice’ article ‘Can you patent the sun? Towards a sui generis inclusive right to manage the relationship between intellectual property and Commons’ pointed out in this regard: ‘Although the Covid-19 pandemic seems now a far memory, it is important to not forget that experience. …One of these discussions relates to the complicated relationship between exclusivity and inclusivity, private property and public good, IP [intellectual property] and Commons. When in 1955 the journalist Edward R Murrow asked Jonas Salk, the inventor of the polio vaccine, who owned the patent for that pharmaceutical product, the scientist replied ‘The people, I would say.
There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?’ …This sums up the main argument of this paper: some pharmaceutical drugs should be considered as Commons, i.e., goods that are managed and owned by the public at large, and not as private property – exclusivity — of pharmaceutical companies. Thus, at least in relation to the vaccine and any other life-saving treatments against the spread of highly contagious diseases on a global scale (such as Covid-19), a renovated balance between IP and the Commons Theory must be pursued.’
Hence, neither the rich, advanced countries — which are mostly in the Global North — directly through provision of greater vaccines during the Covid pandemic, through their own supplies over and above local requirements, nor through their influence, given their significant funding and voting power in multilateral institutions like International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO), and World Trade Organization (WTO), were able to provide leadership and support to developing countries — which are mostly in the Global South — that was needed during the Covid pandemic, and in more generally in fighting the otherwise fast-unfolding climate change crisis.
In the wake of this lackluster attitude of rich, advanced countries, and multilateral institutions — for instance, while around $4 trillion annually needed according to United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) to adequately deal with climate change crisis, and sustainable development goals.
A March 6, 2024 UNCTAD published article ‘Trillion-dollar shift urgently needed to align global finance with climate and development goals’ pointed out in this regard: ‘An estimated $4 trillion needs to be mobilized each year to fight climate change and achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) UNCTAD’s latest Trade and Development Report says. This amounts to the GDP of Germany in 2022 and can only be accomplished through a major shift in global financial flows, entailing the reallocation of trillions of dollars currently funding — directly and indirectly — economic activities that undermine these goals. The estimated financing needs represent just 1 percent of total global financial assets, currently valued at more than USD 470 trillion.’
Be that as it may, only a few hundred billions is being provided in climate finance, along with not committing to allocating climate change related special drawing rights (SDRs) by IMF, which is otherwise much-needed, in addition to even G7 pushing for improving global debt restructuring framework even though they are mainly responsible for climate change crisis and the related ‘Pandemicene’ phenomenon through their deep carbon imprint over a very long period of time.
A 2022 UNCTAD report titled ‘South-South cooperation for climate adaptation and sustainable development’ highlighted lack of multilateral support coming from developed countries overall, and the need for greater regional cooperation for effectively dealing with climate change.
The report pointed out in this regard: ‘Climate change is a serious global challenge, but its ramifications are felt more severely by developing and the least developed countries because of the greater incidence of climate-related hazards (e.g., in small island developing states), their limited response capacities and lack of adequate financial and technical resources.
According to the Global Climate Risk Index 2021, the ten countries which have been most affected by climate change in the period 2000-2019 are all developing and least developed countries.
There is therefore an urgent need for developing countries to reduce their vulnerabilities through well planned national and regional climate adaptation policies which complement international efforts to build their resilience. While developed countries, accounting for the major share in historical global emissions, have acknowledged responsibility for the climate crisis and for solving it through “common but differentiated responsibilities” including transfers of finance and technology from developed to developing countries, these initiatives lack effective implementation.’
An important regional cooperation is the ‘South-South cooperation’ (SSC), which has increasingly gained more importance, given the lacklustre attitude of the ‘North-South cooperation’ in terms of provision of development assistance to developing, especially in the wake of increasing resilience related needs generated by the climate change crisis, and related ‘Pandemicene’ phenomenon.
A 2025 UNCTAD published ‘Manual for the framework to measure South-South cooperation’ pointed out in this regard: ‘Over the years, international development cooperation has been mostly dominated by official development assistance (ODA), also known as North-South cooperation, which involves developed economies providing financial and/or technical assistance to developing economies, typically focusing on poverty reduction and infrastructure development to promote economic welfare.
Notably, South-South cooperation (SSC) has emerged as a dynamic approach, reflecting a global shift where developing economies take on more central roles in shaping their own development trajectories. Within this evolving landscape, the concept of Triangular Cooperation (TrC), sometimes referred to as trilateral cooperation, has also gained prominence.’
Given the fast-unfolding nature of climate change crisis, and the high level of development finance needs generated in the wake of this existential threat, TrC with its ‘multistakeholder’ approach is much needed indeed.
The same ‘manual’ by UNCTAD indicated in this regard: ‘TrC has evolved and adapted to new requirements on the international development arena. It embraces a contemporary, multistakeholder approach, and can thus involve diverse stakeholders such as governments, international/ multilateral organizations, civil society, the private sector, and academia among others.’
Within the context of SSC, a significant development has taken over a number of years now in the shape of formation of BRICS+ (Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa Plus), a group which came into existence as BRIC in 2009, while South Africa joined the bloc next year. Later on, other countries joined; these countries, as the BRICS website, are ‘Egypt, Ethiopia, Indonesia, Iran, and the UAE’. Moreover, the website indicated ‘It aims to promote economic growth and development through collaboration and cooperation.’
Highlighting the significance of this bloc, and the high level of responsibility it needs to undertake given a world challenged by polycrisis, including the existential threat of climate change, a June 19 Project Syndicate (PS) published article ‘A BRICS+ development agenda for the Global South’ pointed out in this regard ‘…the BRICS+ brings together countries with diverse political, cultural, and civilizational outlooks, but which share a commitment to fostering South-South cooperation and pursuing a more equitable, multipolar global order. …An effective BRICS+ development agenda will require a coordinated mobilization of resources and institutional efforts, with the state playing a central role in steering the overall strategy.
More than just an investor or financier, the public sector is uniquely positioned to anchor private expectations in an increasingly uncertain world. Brazil’s BRICS+ presidency, which comes at a time of rising protectionism and global economic fragmentation, offers a historic opportunity to advance a model of cooperation attuned to the Global South’s economic realities and development imperatives.’
Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
The writer holds a PhD in Economics degree from the University of Barcelona, and has previously worked at the International Monetary Fund. His contact on ‘X’ (formerly ‘Twitter’) is @omerjaved7