A global debt crisis is looming. Even before COVID-19 swept the world, the IMF had issued a warning about developing countries’ public debt burdens, saying that half of all lower-income countries were “at high risk of or already in debt distress.”
As the economic crisis worsens, these countries are experiencing steep output contractions at the same time that COVID-19 relief and recovery efforts are demanding a massive increase in expenditures.
According to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, developing countries’ repayments on their public external debts are expected to cost US$2.6 trillion to US$3.4 trillion just this year and next year alone.
Hence, market analysts say that almost 40 percent of emerging and frontier-market sovereign external debt could be at risk of default in the next year.
Worse, measures to confront this debt crisis are likely to collide head-on with the global efforts to combat climate change, inequality and other escalating global crises. Creative thinking is therefore needed about how to advance multiple objectives at the same time.
A strong recovery from the pandemic-induced crisis must be achieved and trillions of dollars must be mobilized for the transition to a more financially stable, socially inclusive, low-carbon economy.
In April, G20 finance ministers endorsed a Debt Service Suspension Initiative to suspend debt service temporarily for the world’s poorest countries while they manage the COVID-19 crisis. Unfortunately, few debtor countries have taken up this offer, fearing how it might look to markets and rating agencies. Moreover, private-sector lenders have largely refused to offer meaningful forbearance of their own, thereby undercutting governments’ efforts.
In the absence of new forms of liquidity support and major debt relief, the world economy cannot possibly return to pre-pandemic levels of growth without risking severe climate distress and social unrest.
Climate scientists say that to meet the targets outlined in the Paris Agreement on climate change, global net carbon dioxide emissions must fall about 45 percent by 2030 and 100 percent by 2050.
Given that the effects of climate change are already being felt worldwide, countries urgently need to scale up their investments in climate adaptation and mitigation.
However, that would not be possible if governments are bogged down in a debt crisis. If anything, debt-service requirements are likely to push countries to pursue export revenues at any cost, including by cutting corners on climate-resilient infrastructure and stepping up their own fossil-fuel use and extraction of resources.
This course of events would further depress commodity prices, creating a doom loop for producer countries.
In light of these concerns, the G20 has called on the IMF “to explore additional tools that could serve its members’ needs as the crisis evolves, drawing on relevant experiences from previous crises.”
One such tool that should be considered is a “debt-for-climate swap” facility. In the 1980s and 1990s, developing countries and their creditors engaged in “debt-for-nature swaps,” whereby debt relief was linked to investments in reforestation, biodiversity and protections for indigenous people.
This concept should be broadened to include people-centered investments that address climate change and inequality.
Developing countries would need additional resources if they are to have any chance of leaving fossil fuels in the ground, investing sufficiently in climate adaptation and creating opportunities for 21st-century jobs. One source for such resources is debt relief conditioned on such investments.
A policy tool of this type would not only put us on the path to recovery, but could also help to prevent future debt-sustainability problems that might emerge as more fossil-fuel holdings and non-resilient infrastructure become “stranded assets.”
Moreover, the dramatic decline in the cost of renewable energy represents an opportunity for a big investment push in zero-carbon energy infrastructure, which itself would help to redress energy poverty and unsustainable growth.
Some economists estimate that putting the world economy on the trajectory needed to limit global warming to 1.5°C would generate about 150 million jobs worldwide. At the same time, the UN Environment Programme’s Production Gap Report has shown that current production plans would push atmospheric emissions far past the limit of what is sustainable.
Then, to meet the goals of the Paris Agreement, more than 80 percent of all proven fossil-fuel reserves would have to remain in the ground.
Given the realities of the climate crisis, it would be foolish to include high-risk investments in fossil-fuel extraction and infrastructure as a part of any recovery strategy.
Fortunately, with debt-for-climate swaps, the transition to a lower-carbon economy could be actively driven, while also stabilizing commodity prices and providing fiscal space for developing countries to invest in resilience and sustainable development.
There is no question that many countries will need debt relief to respond effectively to the COVID-19 crisis, and then to climate-proof their economies in a socially inclusive way. For many people in the countries that are most vulnerable to climate change, coming up with the resources for such investments is a matter of survival.
The G20 has called on the IMF to develop new tools and strategies to present at its summits this fall. An ambitious global arrangement to swap debts for climate action and social equity should be placed at the top of the agenda.
Shamshad Akhtar, a former governor of the State Bank of Pakistan, is chair of the board of directors of Karandaaz Pakistan. Kevin Gallagher is a professor of global development policy and director of the Global Development Policy Center at Boston University. Stephany Griffith-Jones is the financial markets program director at the Initiative for Policy Dialogue at Columbia University. Jorg Haas is head of international politics at the Heinrich Boll Foundation. Ulrich Volz, a senior research fellow at the German Development Institute, is director of the SOAS Center for Sustainable Finance and a reader in economics at the SOAS University of London.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
A failure by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to respond to Israel’s brilliant 12-day (June 12-23) bombing and special operations war against Iran, topped by US President Donald Trump’s ordering the June 21 bombing of Iranian deep underground nuclear weapons fuel processing sites, has been noted by some as demonstrating a profound lack of resolve, even “impotence,” by China. However, this would be a dangerous underestimation of CCP ambitions and its broader and more profound military response to the Trump Administration — a challenge that includes an acceleration of its strategies to assist nuclear proxy states, and developing a wide array
Jaw Shaw-kong (趙少康), former chairman of Broadcasting Corp of China and leader of the “blue fighters,” recently announced that he had canned his trip to east Africa, and he would stay in Taiwan for the recall vote on Saturday. He added that he hoped “his friends in the blue camp would follow his lead.” His statement is quite interesting for a few reasons. Jaw had been criticized following media reports that he would be traveling in east Africa during the recall vote. While he decided to stay in Taiwan after drawing a lot of flak, his hesitation says it all: If
Twenty-four Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers are facing recall votes on Saturday, prompting nearly all KMT officials and lawmakers to rally their supporters over the past weekend, urging them to vote “no” in a bid to retain their seats and preserve the KMT’s majority in the Legislative Yuan. The Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which had largely kept its distance from the civic recall campaigns, earlier this month instructed its officials and staff to support the recall groups in a final push to protect the nation. The justification for the recalls has increasingly been framed as a “resistance” movement against China and
Owing to the combined majority of the opposition Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), the legislature last week voted to further extend the current session to the end of next month, prolonging the session twice for a total of 211 days, the longest in Taiwan’s democratic history. Legally, the legislature holds two regular sessions annually: from February to May, and from September to December. The extensions pushed by the opposition in May and last week mean there would be no break between the first and second sessions this year. While the opposition parties said the extensions were needed to
RSS