With developing countries facing a debt crisis that will only get worse as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, it is already inevitable that massive debt relief will be necessary. The only question is whether it will be designed to address the even larger climate crisis that is approaching.
ISLAMABAD – A global debt crisis is looming. Even before COVID-19 swept the world, the International Monetary Fund had issued a warning about developing countries’ public debt burdens, noting 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 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, developing countries’ repayments on their public external debts will cost $2.6-3.4 trillion just in 2020 and 2021 alone.Hence, market analysts now suggest that almost 40% 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 will collide head-on with the global efforts to combat climate change, inequality, and other escalating global crises. We therefore need creative thinking about how to advance multiple objectives at the same time. We must both achieve a strong recovery from the pandemic-induced crisis and mobilize trillions of dollars 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 tell us that in order to meet the targets outlined in the Paris climate accord, global net carbon-dioxide emissions must fall by about 45% by 2030, and by 100% by 2050. Given that the effects of climate change are already being felt around the world, countries urgently need to scale up their investments in climate adaptation and mitigation.
But that will not be possible if governments are bogged down in a debt crisis. If anything, debt-service requirements will 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.
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
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 now be expanded to include people-centered investments that address both climate change and inequality. Developing countries will 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 twenty-first-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 also could 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 1.5ºC would generate about 150 million jobs worldwide. At the same time, the UN Environment Program’s Production Gap Report has shown that current production plans would push atmospheric emissions far past the limit of what is sustainable. To meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement, then, more than 80% of all proven fossil-fuel reserves will 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, we could actively drive the transition to a lower-carbon economy 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 in order 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.
To have unlimited access to our content including in-depth commentaries, book reviews, exclusive interviews, PS OnPoint and PS The Big Picture, please subscribe
With German voters clearly demanding comprehensive change, the far right has been capitalizing on the public's discontent and benefiting from broader global political trends. If the country's democratic parties cannot deliver, they may soon find that they are no longer the mainstream.
explains why the outcome may decide whether the political “firewall” against the far right can hold.
The Russian and (now) American vision of "peace" in Ukraine would be no peace at all. The immediate task for Europe is not only to navigate Donald’s Trump unilateral pursuit of a settlement, but also to ensure that any deal does not increase the likelihood of an even wider war.
sees a Korea-style armistice with security guarantees as the only viable option in Ukraine.
Rather than engage in lengthy discussions to pry concessions from Russia, US President Donald Trump seems committed to giving the Kremlin whatever it wants to end the Ukraine war. But rewarding the aggressor and punishing the victim would amount to setting the stage for the next war.
warns that by punishing the victim, the US is setting up Europe for another war.
Within his first month back in the White House, Donald Trump has upended US foreign policy and launched an all-out assault on the country’s constitutional order. With US institutions bowing or buckling as the administration takes executive power to unprecedented extremes, the establishment of an authoritarian regime cannot be ruled out.
The rapid advance of AI might create the illusion that we have created a form of algorithmic intelligence capable of understanding us as deeply as we understand one another. But these systems will always lack the essential qualities of human intelligence.
explains why even cutting-edge innovations are not immune to the world’s inherent unpredictability.
ISLAMABAD – A global debt crisis is looming. Even before COVID-19 swept the world, the International Monetary Fund had issued a warning about developing countries’ public debt burdens, noting 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 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, developing countries’ repayments on their public external debts will cost $2.6-3.4 trillion just in 2020 and 2021 alone.Hence, market analysts now suggest that almost 40% 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 will collide head-on with the global efforts to combat climate change, inequality, and other escalating global crises. We therefore need creative thinking about how to advance multiple objectives at the same time. We must both achieve a strong recovery from the pandemic-induced crisis and mobilize trillions of dollars 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 tell us that in order to meet the targets outlined in the Paris climate accord, global net carbon-dioxide emissions must fall by about 45% by 2030, and by 100% by 2050. Given that the effects of climate change are already being felt around the world, countries urgently need to scale up their investments in climate adaptation and mitigation.
But that will not be possible if governments are bogged down in a debt crisis. If anything, debt-service requirements will 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.
Winter Sale: Save 40% on a new PS subscription
At a time of escalating global turmoil, there is an urgent need for incisive, informed analysis of the issues and questions driving the news – just what PS has always provided.
Subscribe to Digital or Digital Plus now to secure your discount.
Subscribe Now
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 now be expanded to include people-centered investments that address both climate change and inequality. Developing countries will 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 twenty-first-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 also could 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 1.5ºC would generate about 150 million jobs worldwide. At the same time, the UN Environment Program’s Production Gap Report has shown that current production plans would push atmospheric emissions far past the limit of what is sustainable. To meet the goals of the Paris climate agreement, then, more than 80% of all proven fossil-fuel reserves will 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, we could actively drive the transition to a lower-carbon economy 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 in order 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.