In a world beset by rising temperatures, extreme weather patterns and escalating natural disasters, the urgency of decisive action on climate change and the threat of future pandemics has never been more apparent.
Both threats will affect us all, but the countries between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn — including the Caribbean and Pacific states, and parts of Latin America, Africa and Asia where another 40 percent of the global population lives — are experiencing loss and damage four times greater than elsewhere.
As we navigate these daunting challenges, we must forge robust partnerships based on trust and respect. The global climate crisis can be tackled only with a global mobilization. The Bridgetown Initiative, launched in Barbados last summer and recently updated, calls on us all to maximize our efforts to prevent and respond to climatic events and pandemics. We must invest now to avert higher costs later. The window is closing, and we must act before irreversible damage is visited on those who can least withstand it.
Illustration: Mountain People
Our task is fourfold: We need to make the global financial system more shock-resistant. We need to unblock flows of private capital so that we can accelerate climate-change mitigation and medical research. We need to ramp up long-term, low-cost lending to governments so that they can make their citizens, communities and countries more resilient to climate-related disasters and pandemics. And we need to find new non-debt resources to finance post-disaster reconstruction.
The Bridgetown Initiative proposes urgent reforms to the global financial architecture to meet these objectives, and it calls for a tripling of concessional loans and grants to the world’s poorest countries.
However, we must also maximize the availability and use of resources that we can leverage the most: capital at development banks. Multilateral development banks (MDBs) have a unique role to play in the global mission to prevent and respond to climate change and pandemics. Institutions such as the European Investment Bank are already ramping up climate-related finance in pursuit of the 2025 goals set at the 2019 UN Climate Action Summit.
Looking ahead, better integration with the broader set of public development banks — including national ones, which collectively lend more than US$2 trillion per year — could further improve the effectiveness of existing lending.
Estimates by economists Vera Songwe, Nicholas Stern and Amar Bhattacharya suggest that the developing world needs at least US$350 billion more per year of low-cost finance to build resilience against climate and pandemic risks. That would require a near tripling of MDB lending beyond what is currently extended to the poorest.
To that end, we must make the best use of all forms of existing capital available at the development banks.
However, as not everyone can pursue this option, we also welcome initiatives to redirect allocations of the IMF’s special drawing rights — the IMF’s reserve asset — to multilateral development banks so that they can boost lending. This is one area where the European Investment Bank is engaging countries such as Rwanda and Barbados.
We also should leverage development-bank balance sheets through risk-sharing and risk transfers — an area where the European Investment Bank has a lot of expertise.
However, to get close to a target of tripling lending for climate resilience, development banks would need more paid-in capital. That is why the updated Bridgetown Initiative includes a call to raise US$100 billion more for MDBs.
To make the most of this capital, we will need to modernize how we allocate MDB support. While development banks are right to focus on the poorest countries, 70 percent of the world’s poor people live in middle-income countries that are ineligible for concessional and grant-like resources. Worse, millions of people are now at risk of becoming poorer in the wake of a climate disaster or a pandemic. Short of changing existing concessional arrangements, we need new long-term, low-cost lending instruments to target investments in building resilience among vulnerable populations in middle-income countries.
Hence, the European Investment Bank recently approved the extension of loan maturities for sovereign counterparts for up to 30 years, with a 10-year grace period.
Development banks should recognize that in today’s world of global shocks, global initiatives are essential to tackle poverty and support climate mitigation, biodiversity, early-warning systems for natural disasters, and pandemic preparedness and response. Success will require sticking to the goal of poverty reduction and growth, but moving beyond narrowly focused projects.
The European Investment Bank fully supports these aims and is working toward them in partnership with other MDBs. Following a call to action last year at COP27, the MDB Climate Group is advocating an approach that addresses resilience at the level of whole countries. This means focusing on policy, investment and capacity-building measures that foster a green transition in accordance with a country’s own priorities. Such an approach will allow us to shift from incremental, project-by-project climate finance to a more comprehensive approach that emphasizes national and global outcomes.
As we navigate the daunting challenges posed by climate change and pandemics, everyone — but especially Europeans and others championing the transition to net zero emissions — must support expanded financing. With its public-interest model and innovative capabilities, the public development bank system can be the mechanism with which we achieve common global goals.
Unless our commitments under the Sustainable Development Agenda and the Paris climate agreement prevail, we will have failed to alleviate the suffering of billions.
We can achieve a sustainable future only by reforming the financial system, scaling up climate investment and listening to vulnerable states. With our joint commitment to solidarity, fairness and mutual respect, we must work together to make the Bridgetown Initiative’s transformative vision a reality.
Mia Mottley is prime minister of Barbados. Werner Hoyer is president of the European Investment Bank.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS