SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
developing countries
The US Can Make Billions Available to Ukraine at No Cost to Itself
Indebted middle-income countries like Ukraine should not be expected to subsidize IMF lending when better alternatives exist. And the U.S. has more than enough influence to help the international lending body change course on these counterproductive policies.
Oct 04, 2024
The United States has a chance to save Ukraine billions of dollars, and at no cost to U.S. taxpayers, by pushing for an end to the unfair and harmful surcharge policy of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The IMF is currently reviewing this surcharge policy, which hits Ukraine—and other highly indebted borrowers like Kenya, Ecuador, Argentina, Barbados, and Egypt—with additional charges on top of standard interest and service fees. Human rights and development experts consider surcharges to be counterproductive and contrary to international human rights law. The IMF should take this opportunity to permanently end its surcharge policy for highly indebted borrowers.
Surcharges are penalty fees levied on middle-income countries with high levels of IMF debt. There are two types of surcharges exacted by the IMF: level-based surcharges and time-based surcharges. Level-based surcharges add 2 percentage points in fees to a country’s outstanding IMF credit when it surpasses 187.5% of a country’s quota to the Fund. Time-based surcharges add another percentage point of fees when a country’s IMF debt exceeds this threshold for over 36 or 51 months, depending on the lending facility. Some countries, including Ukraine, are paying both surcharges, amounting to an additional 3% points of fees.
In Ukraine’s case, surcharges will add nearly $3 billion to the war-ravaged country’s debt burden over the next decade even as it needs an estimated $9.5 billion in emergency financing for recovery and reconstruction just this year.
The IMF and Treasury Secretary Yellen have previously claimed that surcharges incentivize timely repayment to the IMF. However, countries are struggling to repay the IMF due to exogenous shocks, not a lack of appropriate incentives. Surcharges are counterproductive as they push countries facing crises—including war, the COVID-19 pandemic, and climate disaster —further into debt. It is no coincidence that, prior to the pandemic, only eight countries were paying IMF surcharges; today 23 countries are paying these fees.
In Ukraine’s case, surcharges will add nearly $3 billion to the war-ravaged country’s debt burden over the next decade even as it needs an estimated $9.5 billion in emergency financing for recovery and reconstruction just this year. Experts say efforts to relieve Ukraine’s debts could change the course of the war. Ukraine recently reached a much-needed deal to restructure its debts. Keeping surcharges in place would diminish the benefits of this restructuring, as it sends $3 billion that could be spent on recovery, reconstruction, and defense back to the IMF. Surcharges have already cost Ukraine $621 million between 2018 and 2023. Discontinuing surcharges would save Ukraine billions of dollars in its hour of need.
Following intense criticism of surcharges by leading economists, developing countries, and U.S. members of Congress, the IMF announced earlier this year that it would carry out a review of the controversial policy. Following consultations with IMF stakeholders— in particular, the US Treasury Department—the Fund is expected to announce the results of its review, and any recommendations of changes to the policy, before the IMF’s Annual Meetings in October. It’s worth noting that the IMF has previously recognized the profoundly harmful and counterproductive consequences of similar past policies, moving to discontinue them in 1974, 1981, and 1992.
Yet, among wealthy countries, there appears to be resistance to terminating, or even significantly reforming, the current surcharge policy. It is particularly troubling that much of this resistance appears to be rooted in the hope that the income from surcharges can supplement projected funding shortfalls for the IMF’s Poverty Reduction and Growth Trust (PRGT) facility, which offers low-income countries interest-free and concessional loans. The IMF, the US Treasury, and other observers have previously discussed surcharges as a source of income for IMF lending via the PRGT.
Among wealthy countries, there appears to be resistance to terminating, or even significantly reforming, the current surcharge policy.
Post-pandemic funding needs have depleted PRGT resources and the program is in need of replenishment. It may be necessary for the IMF to increase its lending through the PRGT in response to the growing needs of developing countries. However, squeezing highly indebted countries such as Ukraine to do so would be a perverse solution. These same middle-income countries have also largely been left out of pandemic-related debt relief initiatives and are struggling to recover under the weight of a failing international financial architecture. Funding for the PRGT shouldn’t come at the expense of these countries.
There are better and more effective alternatives to relying on surcharges to fund the PRGT. These include: donations from the U.S. and other advanced economies, gold sales, and changes to the IMF’s internal accounting practices. Surcharges are infinitesimal compared to the IMF’s much-vaunted $1 trillion lending firepower. The IMF has vast reserves of gold that remain largely undervalued. These gold reserves are currently valued at the 1960s rate of approximately $47 per ounce. Valued at current market rates of approximately $2,556 per ounce, the IMF’s gold reserves would be worth $228 billion. The IMF could sell a portion of these reserves or adopt mark-to-market accounting practices to fund the PRGT.
Indebted middle-income countries like Ukraine should not be expected to subsidize PRGT lending when better alternatives exist. A permanent end to surcharges would eliminate an increasingly significant barrier to sustainable recovery in many developing countries. Given that the U.S. holds a de facto veto over IMF policy changes, the stance of the U.S. Treasury Department will be instrumental. Refusing to change the surcharge policy today would be a major missed opportunity for Secretary Yellen and the world.
Keep ReadingShow Less
COP28 Loss and Damage Fund Called 'Drop in the Ocean'
The United States' contribution of $17.5 million, in particular, was denounced as "embarrassing" for the wealthiest country in the world.
Nov 30, 2023
International campaigners who for years have demanded a global "loss and damage" fund to help developing countries confront the climate emergency were encouraged on Thursday as the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference began with an agreement to make the fund operational—but said the details of the deal made clear that wealthy countries are still largely abandoning communities that have contributed the least fossil fuel emissions, only to suffer the worst climate injustices.
A recent study from the University of Delaware showed that "the unweighted percentage of global GDP lost" due to climate impacts such as long-lasting drought, catastrophic flooding, and wildfires is estimated at 1.8%, or about $1.5 trillion, and low- and middle-income countries "have experienced $2.1 trillion in produced capital losses due to climate change."
To meet the need, developing countries have said they already require about $400 billion annually in a loss and damage fund that could help governments rebuild communities, restore crucial wildlife habitats, or relocate people who have been displaced by the climate emergency—so advocates on Thursday were left wondering why the fund agreed upon at COP28 was expected to provide only about $100 billion per year by 2030.
The shortfall threatened to ensure the loss and damage fund will remain "an empty promise," said Fanny Petitbon, head of advocacy for Care France.
"We hope the agreement will result in rapid delivery of support for communities on the frontlines of the climate crisis," said Petitbon. "However, it has many shortcomings. It enables historical emitters to evade their responsibility. It also fails to establish the scale of finance needed and ensure that the fund is anchored in human rights principles."
"We urgently call on all governments who are most responsible for the climate emergency and have the capacity to contribute to announce significant pledges in the form of grants," she added. "Historical emitters must lead the way."
The United States, the largest historical contributor of the planet-heating emissions that scientists agree are fueling the climate crisis, has objected to tying loss and damage funding to each wealthy nation's emissions—perhaps partially explaining why the Biden administration pledged only $17.5 million to the fund.
Such contributions are "a drop in the ocean compared to the scale of the need they are to address," said Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa.
"In particular, the amount announced by the U.S. is embarrassing for President [Joe] Biden and [Special Presidential Climate Envoy] John Kerry," said Adow. "It just shows how this must be just the start."
Campaigners also objected to the agreement's stipulation that the World Bank will host the fund for the first four years—a demand that had been made by the U.S. and other wealthy countries—with voluntary payments from powerful governments that will be "invited," not required, to contribute.
"Although rules have been agreed regarding how the fund will operate there are no hard deadlines, no targets, and countries are not obligated to pay into it, despite the whole point being for rich, high-polluting nations to support vulnerable communities who have suffered from climate impacts," said Adow.
"The most pressing issue now is to get money flowing into the fund and to the people that need it," he added. "The pledged funds must not just be repackaged commitments. We need new money, in the form of grants, not loans, otherwise it will just pile more debt onto some of the poorest countries in the world, defeating the point of a fund designed to improve lives."
The United Arab Emirates, which is hosting COP28, pledged $100 million to the fund, a sum that was matched by Germany. The United Kingdom committed to contributing 60 million British pounds, or about $75 million, while Japan pledged $10 billion. The U.S. also said it would provide $4.5 million to the Pacific Resilience Facility, which will offer loss and damage funding to Pacific Island nations, and $2.5 million for the Santiago Network, which will provide technical support to developing countries.
Izzie McIntosh, climate campaign manager at U.K.-based Global Justice Now, called the creation of the global loss and damage fund was called a "welcome, yet long overdue, step forward for our climate," and one that "reflects the utter devastation caused by climate change in the global south, and the need for rich countries to pay what they owe for their role in it."
Rich countries, however, "have weakened the commitment they made to climate justice by insisting on the World Bank as interim host," added McIntosh. "This decision risks both excluding countries due to its outdated rules and deepening the debt crisis if support is provided through loans, not grants. If loss and damage funding is to be truly impactful, it must be funded and designed adequately, or risk being all talk and no action."
At COP27 in Egypt one year ago, noted Christian Aid global advocacy lead Mariana Paoli, policymakers did not even place the loss and damage fund on the agenda.
"It's a testament to the determination of developing country negotiators that we now already have the fund agreed and established," she said. "It's now vital we see the fund filled. People who have contributed the least to the climate crisis are already suffering climate losses and damages. The longer they are forced to wait for financial support to cover these costs, the greater the injustice."
Before COP28 wraps up on December 12, Paoli added, campaigners are hoping they will "see significant new and additional pledges of money to the loss and damage fund, and not just repackaged climate finance that has already been committed."
A fully funded, impactful loss and damage fund must be paired with a commitment by countries to end fossil fuel expansion, added Romain Ioualalen, global policy manager at Oil Change International, with rich countries "redirecting trillions in fossil industry handouts to triple renewable energy and double energy efficiency."
"We have had enough delays," said Ioualalen, "and this must happen now to secure a livable future."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular