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
They did it again. For the whole world to see: an image of a Taiwan flag crushed by an industrial press, and the horrifying warning that “it’s closer than you think.” All with the seal of authenticity that only a reputable international media outlet can give. The Economist turned what looks like a pastiche of a poster for a grim horror movie into a truth everyone can digest, accept, and use to support exactly the opinion China wants you to have: It is over and done, Taiwan is doomed. Four years after inaccurately naming Taiwan the most dangerous place on
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
RSS