Africa in the news: Energy and climate finance updates, Mozambique’s debt write-off, and US COVID-19 vaccine donation
Africa proposes expanding and tracking climate finance; Egypt and Greece plan to link electrical grids; South Africa seeks low-cost financing for clean energy
Frustrated with a lack of climate-related funding from wealthy nations, Africa’s lead climate negotiator proposed this week to build a new system to track climate finance contributions by country. Indeed, funding has fallen short of the 2006 agreement to raise $100 billion per year for climate change-related financing by 2020. From the existing pool, African countries only received 26 percent of the funding in 2016-2019, compared to 43 percent on average by Asian countries. African countries are now pushing to scale up funding tenfold by 2030 for global climate change mitigation and adaptation finance, calling the $100 billion package a political commitment and “not based on the real needs of developing countries to tackle climate change.”
Following the signing of an agreement on October 14, 2021 between Egypt and Greece to construct undersea interconnectors, transmission cables used to link electrical grids between countries, the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis pledged on Tuesday to connect Egypt with the European Union’s electricity market via an undersea cable network running beneath the Mediterranean Sea. Although formal details of the project have not been released, Prime Minister Mitsotakis is confident that connecting Egypt’s energy grid to Greece, and ultimately Europe, will promote energy security during times of global turbulence in the energy market and energy diversification.
In related energy news, South Africa continues its search for low-cost financing to develop its clean energy infrastructure and decommission coal-burning power plants. The world’s 12th largest carbon emitter seeks 400 billion rand ($27.6 billion) of electricity infrastructure for its energy transition, earmarking 180 billion rand for cleaner energy technology and 120 billion rand for transmission gear. The rest of the funding will go toward transformers, substations, and electrical distribution technology. With more than 80 percent of South Africa’s electricity generated by burning coal, the state energy company, Eskom, plans to decommission between 8,000 to 12,000 megawatts of coal-derived electricity over the next decade and replace this electrical capacity with other energy sources such as wind, photovoltaic, and natural gas.
Credit Suisse to write off $200 in Mozambican debt after defrauding prosecutors
Regulators announced on Tuesday, October 19, that Credit Suisse will forgive $200 million worth of Mozambican debt as part of a settlement with UK, Swiss, and U.S. authorities due to corruption issues. The regulators alleged that Credit Suisse employees received and paid bribes while they arranged industry loans totaling $1.3 billion. According to U.S. prosecutors, three Credit Suisse bankers, two middlemen, and three Mozambican government officials diverted at least $200 million of the loans for their private use. The debt write-off is part of a settlement agreement with regulators that includes a $175 million fine to the U.S. Justice Department, a $99 million fine to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and a $200 million fine to Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority. The SEC indicated on Tuesday that the Credit Suisse staff and their intermediaries have been indicted by the U.S, Department of Justice.
On Thursday, October 21, the Budget Monitoring Forum (FMO), an independent public finance organization based in Mozambique, called Credit Suisse’s offer insufficient and instead demanded the “full cancellation of illegal debts.” As of Friday, October 21, Mozambican officials have yet to comment publicly on the debt forgiveness.
US announces COVID-19 vaccine donations for Africa as South Africa rejects Sputnik V
On October 14, U.S. President Biden met with President Kenyatta of Kenya where Biden promised an additional donation of 17 million doses of the Johnson and Johnson (J&J) vaccine to the African Union . Indeed, this announcement is timely as the World Health Organization (WHO) announced in September that in order to fully vaccinate 70 percent of the continent by September 2022, COVID-19 vaccine shipments must increase from 20 million per month to 150 million.
In other related news, South Africa’s drug regulator has rejected the Russian Sputnik V vaccine due to safety concerns. According to the Associated Press, regulators asked the makers of Sputnik V for data proving the vaccine’s safety but their request was not suitably addressed. Sputnik V is currently being reviewed for authorization by WHO and the European Medicines Agency. Both AstraZeneca and J&J have been approved in South Africa.
Africa in the news: Energy and climate finance updates, Mozambique’s debt write-off, and US COVID-19 vaccine donation
Africa proposes expanding and tracking climate finance; Egypt and Greece plan to link electrical grids; South Africa seeks low-cost financing for clean energy
Frustrated with a lack of climate-related funding from wealthy nations, Africa’s lead climate negotiator proposed this week to build a new system to track climate finance contributions by country. Indeed, funding has fallen short of the 2006 agreement to raise $100 billion per year for climate change-related financing by 2020. From the existing pool, African countries only received 26 percent of the funding in 2016-2019, compared to 43 percent on average by Asian countries. African countries are now pushing to scale up funding tenfold by 2030 for global climate change mitigation and adaptation finance, calling the $100 billion package a political commitment and “not based on the real needs of developing countries to tackle climate change.”
Tamara White
Research and Project Assistant – Global Economy and Development, Africa Growth Initiative
Twitter
_TamaraDWhite
Following the signing of an agreement on October 14, 2021 between Egypt and Greece to construct undersea interconnectors, transmission cables used to link electrical grids between countries, the Greek Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis pledged on Tuesday to connect Egypt with the European Union’s electricity market via an undersea cable network running beneath the Mediterranean Sea. Although formal details of the project have not been released, Prime Minister Mitsotakis is confident that connecting Egypt’s energy grid to Greece, and ultimately Europe, will promote energy security during times of global turbulence in the energy market and energy diversification.
In related energy news, South Africa continues its search for low-cost financing to develop its clean energy infrastructure and decommission coal-burning power plants. The world’s 12th largest carbon emitter seeks 400 billion rand ($27.6 billion) of electricity infrastructure for its energy transition, earmarking 180 billion rand for cleaner energy technology and 120 billion rand for transmission gear. The rest of the funding will go toward transformers, substations, and electrical distribution technology. With more than 80 percent of South Africa’s electricity generated by burning coal, the state energy company, Eskom, plans to decommission between 8,000 to 12,000 megawatts of coal-derived electricity over the next decade and replace this electrical capacity with other energy sources such as wind, photovoltaic, and natural gas.
Credit Suisse to write off $200 in Mozambican debt after defrauding prosecutors
Regulators announced on Tuesday, October 19, that Credit Suisse will forgive $200 million worth of Mozambican debt as part of a settlement with UK, Swiss, and U.S. authorities due to corruption issues. The regulators alleged that Credit Suisse employees received and paid bribes while they arranged industry loans totaling $1.3 billion. According to U.S. prosecutors, three Credit Suisse bankers, two middlemen, and three Mozambican government officials diverted at least $200 million of the loans for their private use. The debt write-off is part of a settlement agreement with regulators that includes a $175 million fine to the U.S. Justice Department, a $99 million fine to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and a $200 million fine to Britain’s Financial Conduct Authority. The SEC indicated on Tuesday that the Credit Suisse staff and their intermediaries have been indicted by the U.S, Department of Justice.
On Thursday, October 21, the Budget Monitoring Forum (FMO), an independent public finance organization based in Mozambique, called Credit Suisse’s offer insufficient and instead demanded the “full cancellation of illegal debts.” As of Friday, October 21, Mozambican officials have yet to comment publicly on the debt forgiveness.
US announces COVID-19 vaccine donations for Africa as South Africa rejects Sputnik V
On October 14, U.S. President Biden met with President Kenyatta of Kenya where Biden promised an additional donation of 17 million doses of the Johnson and Johnson (J&J) vaccine to the African Union . Indeed, this announcement is timely as the World Health Organization (WHO) announced in September that in order to fully vaccinate 70 percent of the continent by September 2022, COVID-19 vaccine shipments must increase from 20 million per month to 150 million.
In other related news, South Africa’s drug regulator has rejected the Russian Sputnik V vaccine due to safety concerns. According to the Associated Press, regulators asked the makers of Sputnik V for data proving the vaccine’s safety but their request was not suitably addressed. Sputnik V is currently being reviewed for authorization by WHO and the European Medicines Agency. Both AstraZeneca and J&J have been approved in South Africa.
Greater transparency for development finance institutions
Development finance is critical to global development, including for the achievement of the sustainable development goals, low-income countries’ recovery from the pandemic, and the $100 billion commitment for climate finance. But to know whether finance and development goals are being met—and to keep institutions on track—we need better information on financial flows and how they impact development. Despite the scale of financing by development finance institutions (DFIs), few share detailed information on their private sector portfolios. This makes it difficult to assess their development impact and to foster learning within this space. Greater transparency will lay the foundation for more informed decisionmaking, more accountability, and better allocation of resources.
On November 3, the Center for Sustainable Development at Brookings will host a virtual event to create space for DFIs, civil society organizations, and the private sector to engage with key issues on DFI transparency. As part of the event, Publish What You Fund will launch the report “Advancing DFI Transparency – The rationale and roadmap for better impact, accountability, and markets.” A panel will discuss recommendations for greater global disclosure and how donors can better engage with national stakeholders and improve the publication of their development financing. The event will introduce a new DFI Transparency Tool.
Questions for the panelists may be submitted with registration. During the live event, the audience may submit questions by emailing events@brookings.edu or by using the Twitter hashtag #DFItransparency.
Greater transparency for development finance institutions
Development finance is critical to global development, including for the achievement of the sustainable development goals, low-income countries’ recovery from the pandemic, and the $100 billion commitment for climate finance. But to know whether finance and development goals are being met—and to keep institutions on track—we need better information on financial flows and how they impact development. Despite the scale of financing by development finance institutions (DFIs), few share detailed information on their private sector portfolios. This makes it difficult to assess their development impact and to foster learning within this space. Greater transparency will lay the foundation for more informed decisionmaking, more accountability, and better allocation of resources.
On November 3, the Center for Sustainable Development at Brookings will host a virtual event to create space for DFIs, civil society organizations, and the private sector to engage with key issues on DFI transparency. As part of the event, Publish What You Fund will launch the report “Advancing DFI Transparency – The rationale and roadmap for better impact, accountability, and markets.” A panel will discuss recommendations for greater global disclosure and how donors can better engage with national stakeholders and improve the publication of their development financing. The event will introduce a new DFI Transparency Tool.
Questions for the panelists may be submitted with registration. During the live event, the audience may submit questions by emailing events@brookings.edu or by using the Twitter hashtag #DFItransparency.
Financial risk assessment and management in times of compounding climate and pandemic shocks
More than 4 million people have died from COVID-19, and many others face long-lasting effects on their lives and livelihoods. While the full social, economic, and financial implications of COVID-19 are yet to be seen, millions have lost their jobs, and incomes in many countries have sharply declined. This raises concerns about sovereign debt sustainability and financial vulnerability in the medium term, particularly in developing countries and emerging markets.
The pandemic diverted the attention from another ongoing crisis: Climate change has affected the lives of more than 130 million people and resulted in over 15,000 deaths since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Natural hazards such as tropical cyclones, floods, and wildfires are expected to become more frequent and intense in the coming years.
Understanding the economic and financial impacts of compound risks
With worsening climate change, compound risks (e.g., floods and droughts or pandemics and hurricanes hitting the same country shortly thereafter) could be more likely in the future. This should be the main concern for governments and financial supervisors because compound risks could exacerbate social and financial vulnerabilities. For instance, natural hazards destroying socioeconomic infrastructures, such as hospitals, provide a fertile ground for pandemics to spread, thus strengthening the pandemic’s socioeconomic toll and delaying recovery. In countries with limited fiscal space and capacity to respond, compound risk can lead to substantial fiscal impacts and slowed recovery.
The assessment and management of compound risks require a better understanding of how shocks of different nature (e.g., pandemics, climate change) are entering and passing through the economy. Eventually, we need to identify which assets and sectors are most vulnerable yet relevant in shocks’ transmission and amplification, in the economy and finance. This information would support policymakers and financial supervisors, answering the following questions “What are direct and indirect impacts of compound COVID-19 and climate physical risks, and how do they affect socio-economic and financial stability?” “Under which conditions can effective recovery policies be implemented?” “To what extent can countries strengthen their financial resilience to compound risks?”
Fit for purpose tools to assess compound risk
Answering these questions calls for macroeconomic models where heterogeneous agents—such as banks, firms, households, government, and a central bank—interact and adapt their investment and financing behavior, based on available information and on their expectations about the future. Consistently with the real world we live in, agents differ with regard to access to information (for instance, asset managers may have better information about financial market reaction to COVID-19 than car dealers) and risk management tools. Agents endowed with different access to information, preferences, and expectations, may diverge in their risk assessment and management strategies, with implications for the shock recovery.
Compound risk can amplify losses
A recent paper applies such a macroeconomic model to Mexico and shows that when shocks compound, such as the case of COVID-19 and natural disasters, losses could get amplified. Economic impacts are shock dependent, as a hurricane that might affect the supply side first by destroying productive plants and infrastructure differs from COVID-19 that enters as an aggregate demand shock by curbing people’s ability and willingness to spend money. The interplay between supply and demand shocks in the case of compound risk matters for the shock transmission through the economy and thus overall economic, private, and public finance impacts. This amplified impact is captured by the compound risk indicator in Figure 1, which compares GDP impacts of compound risks versus the sum of individually occurring pandemic and climate risk. A value of the indicator higher than 100 signals that the impact of the compound shocks is higher than the impact of the sum of individual shocks. In the case of a compounding strong climate physical shocks with COVID-19, non-linear amplification effects emerge.
Figure 1. Compound risk indicator for Mexico
Source: Dunz et al. 2021.
Drivers of shocks mitigation and amplification
Diverging preferences, expectations, and risk assessment are a main driver of compound shock amplification. Timely governments’ fiscal response is crucial to support the economic recovery and influence economic expectations. However, procyclical banks’ lending can counteract the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus by limiting firms’ recovery investments, creating the conditions for public finance distress (e.g., public debt sustainability). For instance, banks may revise their lending conditions to firms due to the uncertainty about the duration of the crisis, despite government and central banks’ actions (e.g., credit guarantees, recovery investments). By limiting the ability of firms to invest and of households to consume, procyclical lending can trigger persistent and nonlinear macroeconomic effects, such as higher unemployment and lower GDP (Figure 1).
Banks’ lending behavior is thus relevant for the success of government fiscal policies, and for their financial sustainability. Indeed, government’s recovery funds, financed by issuance of debt, are less effective in fostering the economic recovery in presence of credit and labor constraints. Coordination of fiscal and financial policies could help to tackle the complexity of the implications of compound risk, creating the conditions for functioning credit markets, and preserving sovereign debt sustainability.
Insights to build back better
Introducing compound risk considerations in fiscal and financial risk management can help governments and financial authorities build resilience to compounding shocks that could be more likely in the near future. Nevertheless, the assessment of compound risks requires an adaptation of the analytical tools that support policy making. Accounting for adaptive expectations and finance-economy interactions (e.g., bank lending conditions) that affect economic and financial agents’ response (e.g., investment, consumption) in times of crises could improve our understanding of how and why individual and compounding shock impacts might amplify. Such a new generation of macroeconomic models can thus support investors and policy makers in the assessment of risk and in the design of better-informed risk financing strategies. This, in turn, would enable the role of public and private finance in building resilience to compounding climate, pandemic, and other risks, for the benefit of the environment, the economy, and society.
Financial risk assessment and management in times of compounding climate and pandemic shocks
More than 4 million people have died from COVID-19, and many others face long-lasting effects on their lives and livelihoods. While the full social, economic, and financial implications of COVID-19 are yet to be seen, millions have lost their jobs, and incomes in many countries have sharply declined. This raises concerns about sovereign debt sustainability and financial vulnerability in the medium term, particularly in developing countries and emerging markets.
Irene Monasterolo
Professor of Climate Finance, EDHEC Business School – EDHEC-Risk Institute, Nice, France
Senior Research Fellow – Vienna University of Economics and Business
Senior Research Fellow – Boston University
Nepomuk Dunz
Junior Professional Officer – World Bank
Andrea Mazzocchetti
Postdoctoral Researcher – Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy
Arthur H. Essenfelder
Lead Researcher on Performance Assessment of Disaster Risk Reduction Strategies – Euro-Mediterranean Centre on Climate Change and Ca’ Foscari University of Venice, Italy
The pandemic diverted the attention from another ongoing crisis: Climate change has affected the lives of more than 130 million people and resulted in over 15,000 deaths since the beginning of the COVID-19 crisis. Natural hazards such as tropical cyclones, floods, and wildfires are expected to become more frequent and intense in the coming years.
Understanding the economic and financial impacts of compound risks
With worsening climate change, compound risks (e.g., floods and droughts or pandemics and hurricanes hitting the same country shortly thereafter) could be more likely in the future. This should be the main concern for governments and financial supervisors because compound risks could exacerbate social and financial vulnerabilities. For instance, natural hazards destroying socioeconomic infrastructures, such as hospitals, provide a fertile ground for pandemics to spread, thus strengthening the pandemic’s socioeconomic toll and delaying recovery. In countries with limited fiscal space and capacity to respond, compound risk can lead to substantial fiscal impacts and slowed recovery.
Related
Report
What’s the Fed doing in response to the COVID-19 crisis? What more could it do?
Jeffrey Cheng, Tyler Powell, Dave Skidmore, and David Wessel
Tuesday, March 30, 2021
Future Development
Agricultural insurance: The antidote to many economic illnesses
Gracelin Baskaran and Barry Maher
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
Future Development
Navigating the debt legacy of the pandemic
M. Ayhan Kose, Franziska Ohnsorge, and Naotaka Sugawara
Wednesday, October 20, 2021
The assessment and management of compound risks require a better understanding of how shocks of different nature (e.g., pandemics, climate change) are entering and passing through the economy. Eventually, we need to identify which assets and sectors are most vulnerable yet relevant in shocks’ transmission and amplification, in the economy and finance. This information would support policymakers and financial supervisors, answering the following questions “What are direct and indirect impacts of compound COVID-19 and climate physical risks, and how do they affect socio-economic and financial stability?” “Under which conditions can effective recovery policies be implemented?” “To what extent can countries strengthen their financial resilience to compound risks?”
Fit for purpose tools to assess compound risk
Answering these questions calls for macroeconomic models where heterogeneous agents—such as banks, firms, households, government, and a central bank—interact and adapt their investment and financing behavior, based on available information and on their expectations about the future. Consistently with the real world we live in, agents differ with regard to access to information (for instance, asset managers may have better information about financial market reaction to COVID-19 than car dealers) and risk management tools. Agents endowed with different access to information, preferences, and expectations, may diverge in their risk assessment and management strategies, with implications for the shock recovery.
Compound risk can amplify losses
A recent paper applies such a macroeconomic model to Mexico and shows that when shocks compound, such as the case of COVID-19 and natural disasters, losses could get amplified. Economic impacts are shock dependent, as a hurricane that might affect the supply side first by destroying productive plants and infrastructure differs from COVID-19 that enters as an aggregate demand shock by curbing people’s ability and willingness to spend money. The interplay between supply and demand shocks in the case of compound risk matters for the shock transmission through the economy and thus overall economic, private, and public finance impacts. This amplified impact is captured by the compound risk indicator in Figure 1, which compares GDP impacts of compound risks versus the sum of individually occurring pandemic and climate risk. A value of the indicator higher than 100 signals that the impact of the compound shocks is higher than the impact of the sum of individual shocks. In the case of a compounding strong climate physical shocks with COVID-19, non-linear amplification effects emerge.
Figure 1. Compound risk indicator for Mexico
Source: Dunz et al. 2021.
Drivers of shocks mitigation and amplification
Diverging preferences, expectations, and risk assessment are a main driver of compound shock amplification. Timely governments’ fiscal response is crucial to support the economic recovery and influence economic expectations. However, procyclical banks’ lending can counteract the effectiveness of fiscal stimulus by limiting firms’ recovery investments, creating the conditions for public finance distress (e.g., public debt sustainability). For instance, banks may revise their lending conditions to firms due to the uncertainty about the duration of the crisis, despite government and central banks’ actions (e.g., credit guarantees, recovery investments). By limiting the ability of firms to invest and of households to consume, procyclical lending can trigger persistent and nonlinear macroeconomic effects, such as higher unemployment and lower GDP (Figure 1).
Banks’ lending behavior is thus relevant for the success of government fiscal policies, and for their financial sustainability. Indeed, government’s recovery funds, financed by issuance of debt, are less effective in fostering the economic recovery in presence of credit and labor constraints. Coordination of fiscal and financial policies could help to tackle the complexity of the implications of compound risk, creating the conditions for functioning credit markets, and preserving sovereign debt sustainability.
Insights to build back better
Introducing compound risk considerations in fiscal and financial risk management can help governments and financial authorities build resilience to compounding shocks that could be more likely in the near future. Nevertheless, the assessment of compound risks requires an adaptation of the analytical tools that support policy making. Accounting for adaptive expectations and finance-economy interactions (e.g., bank lending conditions) that affect economic and financial agents’ response (e.g., investment, consumption) in times of crises could improve our understanding of how and why individual and compounding shock impacts might amplify. Such a new generation of macroeconomic models can thus support investors and policy makers in the assessment of risk and in the design of better-informed risk financing strategies. This, in turn, would enable the role of public and private finance in building resilience to compounding climate, pandemic, and other risks, for the benefit of the environment, the economy, and society.
Sub-Saharan Africa’s debt problem: Mapping the pandemic’s effect and the way forward
Background
The COVID-19 pandemic has, thus far, spared Africa from the high number of cases and deaths seen in other regions in the world (Figure 1). As of April 2021, sub-Saharan Africa accounted for just 3 percent of the world’s cases and 4 percent of its deaths. Some experts attribute the relatively low case counts in sub-Saharan Africa to the region’s extremely young population or, importantly, the swift and preemptive lockdowns that many countries implemented in March 2020. While these lockdowns have likely saved lives, they have also left significant scars on the fiscal position of sub-Saharan Africa and the market conditions it faces. Dwindling revenues following the fall in global trade met a wave of unemployment among a population that lacks widespread access to safety nets and health infrastructure.
Figure 1. Population, COVID cases, and COVID deaths, sub-Saharan Africa vs. world
Source: Our World in Data, 2021. Data taken on September 1, 2021.
In response, African governments have, by and large, borrowed to finance stimulus packages to support at-risk groups, struggling businesses, creative education solutions, and health-related infrastructure. International and regional financial institutions, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), African Development Bank (AfDB), and European Union (EU) countries (both bilaterally and multilaterally) have responded through debt relief measures and restructurings. The fiscal and monetary responses of sub-Saharan Africa and various financial institutions will have important consequences for indebtedness, debt servicing capacity, and debt sustainability more broadly.
Debt was an increasing problem across all income groups of African countries prior to COVID-19, and the pandemic has only exacerbated the problem. In fact, African countries had been borrowing heavily in the global financial markets in recent years—a trend that has created both new opportunities and new challenges. Rising debt levels have corresponded with rising debt service cost, but countries have not necessarily improved their ability to finance such obligations. Indeed, failure to meet debt service obligations will have devastating impacts, including downgrading of credit ratings (and, hence, future higher costs), heightened pressure on foreign exchange reserves and domestic currency depreciation, and the real possibility of being rationed out of the market—and negative reputational consequences.
This paper utilizes new data to study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on debt sustainability and vulnerability in sub-Saharan Africa and sheds light on the channels through which these impacts have taken place. We find that debt levels have risen substantially in sub-Saharan Africa since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We utilize IMF projections as a comparison to analyze the impacts on the pandemic on debt levels and how they covary with key determinants of growth and fiscal space.
Related Content
In particular, sub-Saharan Africa experienced a 4.5 percent increase in “pandemic debt”—the debt taken on above and beyond projections due to the COVID-19 crisis. HIPC countries in particular saw large increases in pandemic debt, with levels 8.5 percent higher than projected. Non-HIPC countries took on mostly planned debt and borrowed from both private and official (that is, bilateral or multilateral) credit markets alike. HIPC countries, on the other hand, were largely shut out of private credit markets and instead relied on official credit to fund increases in (largely unplanned) debt. We also find that the domestic bond market played a more important role in private borrowing than it has in recent years and that eurobond issuance was relatively scarce. Countries that rely on metal exports issued less pandemic debt than did those that rely on oil, thanks to the strong growth and relative stability of metal prices during the pandemic.
Despite taking on substantial pandemic debt, HIPC countries experienced less extreme drops in GDP compared to their non-HIPC counterparts, underscoring the need for HIPC countries to accelerate financial sector development and enhance public-sector financial management, including mitigating financial leakages, curbing illicit follows, and galvanizing domestic resource mobilization. Looking forward, this paper argues that both sub-Saharan Africa’s recovery and debt sustainability depend on two factors: the success of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) and obtaining the participation of private partners in debt restructuring. Economic recovery, in this regard, will affect the millions of informal workers that have lost their jobs at the hands of the pandemic as well as revenue levels that coincide to some degree with the workers’ eventual participation in the formal economy.
Key findings
Debt levels in 2020 were 4.5 percent higher in sub-Saharan Africa than projections. The increase was particularly acute in HIPC countries, whose debt had mirrored non-HIPC countries the decade prior.
Non-HIPC countries and especially upper-middle-income countries retained access to credit markets and used a mixture of private and official creditors to finance increases in debt (which were largely in line with projections).
HIPC countries were largely shut out of private debt markets and instead relied on unplanned borrowing from official creditors.
Domestic bond markets played a relatively more important role in private borrowing. Eurobond issuance dropped sharply.
Some resource-rich countries saw sharp increases in bond yields despite having comparatively low yields pre-pandemic.
Metal prices showed more stability and higher growth than oil prices during the pandemic. Consequently, top metal exporters took on less debt than top oil-exporting countries.
Many sectors, especially manufacturing, witnessed “formalization” of employment during the pandemic.
Policy recommendations
Obtain full participation of all creditors, including private ones, in debt restructuring
Accelerate financial sector development
Enhance public financial management and internal resource mobilization
Mitigate financial leakages and illicit flows
Harness and accelerate opportunities afforded by AfCFTA
Design incentive-compatible and state-contingent contracts
Revisit existing institutional mechanisms for debt resolution
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 begins by taking brief stock of the region’s debt landscape prior to the advent of COVID-19, before illustrating how the debt burden has changed during the pandemic. It also reviews key reasons why indebtedness has risen, including stimulus packages, current account deficits, and borrowing costs. Section 3 examines key economic channels along which the pandemic shock unfolded. Section 4 considers the magnitude of revenue loss and the vulnerability of the informal workers during the pandemic. Section 5 discusses attempts to rectify the unexpected, unsustainable increases in debt (or “pandemic debt”) and explores important considerations of which effective policies must take account. Section 6 recommends a number of policies and the way forward.
Download the full report
Sub-Saharan Africa’s debt problem: Mapping the pandemic’s effect and the way forward
Background
The COVID-19 pandemic has, thus far, spared Africa from the high number of cases and deaths seen in other regions in the world (Figure 1). As of April 2021, sub-Saharan Africa accounted for just 3 percent of the world’s cases and 4 percent of its deaths. Some experts attribute the relatively low case counts in sub-Saharan Africa to the region’s extremely young population or, importantly, the swift and preemptive lockdowns that many countries implemented in March 2020. While these lockdowns have likely saved lives, they have also left significant scars on the fiscal position of sub-Saharan Africa and the market conditions it faces. Dwindling revenues following the fall in global trade met a wave of unemployment among a population that lacks widespread access to safety nets and health infrastructure.
Figure 1. Population, COVID cases, and COVID deaths, sub-Saharan Africa vs. world
Source: Our World in Data, 2021. Data taken on September 1, 2021.
In response, African governments have, by and large, borrowed to finance stimulus packages to support at-risk groups, struggling businesses, creative education solutions, and health-related infrastructure. International and regional financial institutions, such as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF), African Development Bank (AfDB), and European Union (EU) countries (both bilaterally and multilaterally) have responded through debt relief measures and restructurings. The fiscal and monetary responses of sub-Saharan Africa and various financial institutions will have important consequences for indebtedness, debt servicing capacity, and debt sustainability more broadly.
Chris Heitzig
Research Analyst – Africa Growth Initiative
Twitter
ChrisHeitzig
Aloysius Uche Ordu
Director – Africa Growth Initiative
Senior Fellow – Global Economy and Development
Twitter
AloysiusOrdu
Lemma Senbet
William E. Mayer Chair Professor of Finance – University of Maryland
Member, Distinguished Advisory Group – Africa Growth Initiative
Twitter
lsenbet
Debt was an increasing problem across all income groups of African countries prior to COVID-19, and the pandemic has only exacerbated the problem. In fact, African countries had been borrowing heavily in the global financial markets in recent years—a trend that has created both new opportunities and new challenges. Rising debt levels have corresponded with rising debt service cost, but countries have not necessarily improved their ability to finance such obligations. Indeed, failure to meet debt service obligations will have devastating impacts, including downgrading of credit ratings (and, hence, future higher costs), heightened pressure on foreign exchange reserves and domestic currency depreciation, and the real possibility of being rationed out of the market—and negative reputational consequences.
This paper utilizes new data to study the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on debt sustainability and vulnerability in sub-Saharan Africa and sheds light on the channels through which these impacts have taken place. We find that debt levels have risen substantially in sub-Saharan Africa since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. We utilize IMF projections as a comparison to analyze the impacts on the pandemic on debt levels and how they covary with key determinants of growth and fiscal space.
Related Content
Africa in Focus
SDRs for COVID-19 relief: The good, the challenging, and the uncertain
Ali Zafar, Jan Muench, and Aloysius Uche Ordu
Thursday, October 21, 2021
Africa in Focus
The role of fiscal decentralization in promoting effective domestic resource mobilization in Africa
Leo Holtz and Aloysius Uche Ordu
Monday, August 30, 2021
Report
The ruinous price for Africa of pernicious ‘perception premiums’
Hippolyte Fofack
Thursday, October 7, 2021
In particular, sub-Saharan Africa experienced a 4.5 percent increase in “pandemic debt”—the debt taken on above and beyond projections due to the COVID-19 crisis. HIPC countries in particular saw large increases in pandemic debt, with levels 8.5 percent higher than projected. Non-HIPC countries took on mostly planned debt and borrowed from both private and official (that is, bilateral or multilateral) credit markets alike. HIPC countries, on the other hand, were largely shut out of private credit markets and instead relied on official credit to fund increases in (largely unplanned) debt. We also find that the domestic bond market played a more important role in private borrowing than it has in recent years and that eurobond issuance was relatively scarce. Countries that rely on metal exports issued less pandemic debt than did those that rely on oil, thanks to the strong growth and relative stability of metal prices during the pandemic.
Despite taking on substantial pandemic debt, HIPC countries experienced less extreme drops in GDP compared to their non-HIPC counterparts, underscoring the need for HIPC countries to accelerate financial sector development and enhance public-sector financial management, including mitigating financial leakages, curbing illicit follows, and galvanizing domestic resource mobilization. Looking forward, this paper argues that both sub-Saharan Africa’s recovery and debt sustainability depend on two factors: the success of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AfCFTA) and obtaining the participation of private partners in debt restructuring. Economic recovery, in this regard, will affect the millions of informal workers that have lost their jobs at the hands of the pandemic as well as revenue levels that coincide to some degree with the workers’ eventual participation in the formal economy.
Key findings
Debt levels in 2020 were 4.5 percent higher in sub-Saharan Africa than projections. The increase was particularly acute in HIPC countries, whose debt had mirrored non-HIPC countries the decade prior.
Non-HIPC countries and especially upper-middle-income countries retained access to credit markets and used a mixture of private and official creditors to finance increases in debt (which were largely in line with projections).
HIPC countries were largely shut out of private debt markets and instead relied on unplanned borrowing from official creditors.
Domestic bond markets played a relatively more important role in private borrowing. Eurobond issuance dropped sharply.
Some resource-rich countries saw sharp increases in bond yields despite having comparatively low yields pre-pandemic.
Metal prices showed more stability and higher growth than oil prices during the pandemic. Consequently, top metal exporters took on less debt than top oil-exporting countries.
Many sectors, especially manufacturing, witnessed “formalization” of employment during the pandemic.
Policy recommendations
Obtain full participation of all creditors, including private ones, in debt restructuring
Accelerate financial sector development
Enhance public financial management and internal resource mobilization
Mitigate financial leakages and illicit flows
Harness and accelerate opportunities afforded by AfCFTA
Design incentive-compatible and state-contingent contracts
Revisit existing institutional mechanisms for debt resolution
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 begins by taking brief stock of the region’s debt landscape prior to the advent of COVID-19, before illustrating how the debt burden has changed during the pandemic. It also reviews key reasons why indebtedness has risen, including stimulus packages, current account deficits, and borrowing costs. Section 3 examines key economic channels along which the pandemic shock unfolded. Section 4 considers the magnitude of revenue loss and the vulnerability of the informal workers during the pandemic. Section 5 discusses attempts to rectify the unexpected, unsustainable increases in debt (or “pandemic debt”) and explores important considerations of which effective policies must take account. Section 6 recommends a number of policies and the way forward.
Download the full report
SDRs for COVID-19 relief: The good, the challenging, and the uncertain
In August 2020, as a response to the pernicious impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy and on the finances of member states, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) decided to issue $650 billion of special drawing rights (SDRs). Conceptually, SDRs are a form of unconditional financing for addressing urgent liquidity challenges.
SDRs were created in the late 1960s as a precautionary mechanism to address potential sovereign liquidity shortfalls in the context of the rigid monetary order of fixed exchange rates of the Bretton Woods system. SDRs were designed to serve as a low-cost reserve asset that could be sold by a government via the IMF acting as intermediary to another government and thereby converted into currency using an exchange rate pegged to a basket representing five of the world’s leading currencies. Currently, these five currencies are the U.S. dollar, the Chinese renminbi, the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound sterling. SDRs are not technically the IMF’s currency but a claim on reserves. To that effect, SDRs are not money per se but rather a means to establish a line of credit with a sovereign lender (government) acting as buyer of SDRs. Besides paying a low rate of interest on SDR use, countries benefit from the absence of refinancing risks imposed by conventional maturities. For foreign currency-strapped economies, many emerging markets, and lower-income economies in Africa, SDRs can, therefore, provide the immediate means to pay for vaccines and/or other health care investments.
The Good
As the pandemic has wreaked havoc on both developed and developing country finances, the IMF moved to address the liquidity shortfalls in the global economic system and help provide financing for many countries. Given the pronounced contraction in output and employment, this injection of liquidity represents a lifeline to countries with scarce reserves. SDRs buy time as they can be used to finance critical expenditure, build reserves, and service debts, although they do not provide a long-term remedy for underlying problems. In operational terms, the IMF SDR department facilitates the exchange of existing SDRs between countries and reduces any transaction costs.
The Challenging
The formula for SDR allocation is based on a country’s quota within the IMF, which reflects its relative position in the world economy (Table 1). The problem with the SDR allocation is that richer countries receive more than poorer countries. In fact, barely 3 percent of the $650 billion total in pandemic response went to low-income countries, and only 30 percent went to middle-income emerging markets. In other words, the countries that are most in need of financial relief and support are not the top beneficiaries of the SDRs. Instead, countries like the U.S., which can print its money, and China, which has several trillions in reserves, benefit the most.
Related Content
This disconnect occurs because SDRs were created to address potential liquidity shortfalls in an entirely different monetary system rather than in the present context. As a result, experts are proposing reforms to this system. In October 2021, the IMF began building support among members for a proposed “Resilience and Sustainability Trust”—a funding mechanism that would allow richer countries to channel their IMF reserves to poorer countries in need. By lending at cheaper rates and with longer maturities than the IMF’s traditional lending terms, and with funding targeted toward areas such as climate and pandemic preparedness, the trust could help channel funds toward development projects. Another potentially good option is for the IMF to work closely with the regional development banks, such as the African Development Bank, to channel some of the SDR financing through the regional bank’s lending program. Given the regional banks’ proximity to the client, this approach could help to ensure greater links to the development strategies and programs of member states.
Table 1. Select country SDR quotas and SDR allocations
Country
Quota (%)
Allocation (USD billions)
USA
17.43
79.5
China
6.4
29.2
France
4.23
19.3
United Kingdom
4.23
19.3
Nigeria
0.52
2.4
South Africa
0.64
2.9
Cote d’Ivoire
0.14
0.62
Kenya
0.11
0.52
Mali
0.04
0.18
Source: IMF.
The Uncertain
SDRs were not originally designed as open-ended cash transfers. For one, SDRs are not included in the assessment of debt sustainability. While the SDRs can provide liquidity, there is no mechanism for ensuring that money is used productively and reaches those in need. Conversion of SDRs into foreign currency happens on a sovereign level with few strings attached, meaning multilateral leaders cannot ensure that the SDRs are properly used for COVID-19 relief. There is also no discrimination between progressive or dictatorial countries in terms of SDR allocation. Some of the SDRs can end up being used by developing-country governments to pay debt service to public and private creditors in the absence of debt restructuring. For instance, SDRs can be used to boost reserves in Nigeria and South Africa, to pay back debt in the case of Argentina or, in the case of the CFA franc zone, especially in countries like Equatorial Guinea and Republic of Congo, to postpone necessary governance and exchange rate reforms. In this context, it would be good to have oversight by international experts to ensure SDRs are used for developmental impact. However, even assuming effective governance frameworks, for low-income African countries, the flows of SDRs may be too low to have a strong impact anyway.
Conclusion
Unless we believe limited liquidity shortfalls of a more-or-less temporary nature are the only consequence of current macroeconomic and public health stresses, policymakers should not just fall back on SDRs to avoid the more complex questions typically raised in the context of conventional debt or more permanent financial transfers. Beyond a limited (and welcome boost), liquidity SDRs appear to be an imperfect substitute for a financing package able to serve both specific pandemic relief and long-term development objectives. In sum, SDRs represent a second-best solution to a complex problem, with clear advantages and clear shortcomings.
SDRs for COVID-19 relief: The good, the challenging, and the uncertain
In August 2020, as a response to the pernicious impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the global economy and on the finances of member states, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) decided to issue $650 billion of special drawing rights (SDRs). Conceptually, SDRs are a form of unconditional financing for addressing urgent liquidity challenges.
Ali Zafar
Author – The CFA Franc Zone: Economic Development and the Post-COVID Recovery
Macroeconomist
Twitter
zafarglobal
Jan Muench
Banker
Aloysius Uche Ordu
Director – Africa Growth Initiative
Senior Fellow – Global Economy and Development
Twitter
AloysiusOrdu
SDRs were created in the late 1960s as a precautionary mechanism to address potential sovereign liquidity shortfalls in the context of the rigid monetary order of fixed exchange rates of the Bretton Woods system. SDRs were designed to serve as a low-cost reserve asset that could be sold by a government via the IMF acting as intermediary to another government and thereby converted into currency using an exchange rate pegged to a basket representing five of the world’s leading currencies. Currently, these five currencies are the U.S. dollar, the Chinese renminbi, the euro, the Japanese yen, and the British pound sterling. SDRs are not technically the IMF’s currency but a claim on reserves. To that effect, SDRs are not money per se but rather a means to establish a line of credit with a sovereign lender (government) acting as buyer of SDRs. Besides paying a low rate of interest on SDR use, countries benefit from the absence of refinancing risks imposed by conventional maturities. For foreign currency-strapped economies, many emerging markets, and lower-income economies in Africa, SDRs can, therefore, provide the immediate means to pay for vaccines and/or other health care investments.
The Good
As the pandemic has wreaked havoc on both developed and developing country finances, the IMF moved to address the liquidity shortfalls in the global economic system and help provide financing for many countries. Given the pronounced contraction in output and employment, this injection of liquidity represents a lifeline to countries with scarce reserves. SDRs buy time as they can be used to finance critical expenditure, build reserves, and service debts, although they do not provide a long-term remedy for underlying problems. In operational terms, the IMF SDR department facilitates the exchange of existing SDRs between countries and reduces any transaction costs.
The Challenging
The formula for SDR allocation is based on a country’s quota within the IMF, which reflects its relative position in the world economy (Table 1). The problem with the SDR allocation is that richer countries receive more than poorer countries. In fact, barely 3 percent of the $650 billion total in pandemic response went to low-income countries, and only 30 percent went to middle-income emerging markets. In other words, the countries that are most in need of financial relief and support are not the top beneficiaries of the SDRs. Instead, countries like the U.S., which can print its money, and China, which has several trillions in reserves, benefit the most.
Related Content
Report
Debt service risks, Special Drawing Rights allocations, and development prospects
Homi Kharas and Meagan Dooley
Tuesday, September 7, 2021
Africa in Focus
Addressing the perception premium for sustainable development in Africa
Hippolyte Fofack
Friday, October 8, 2021
Africa in Focus
How special drawing rights could help Africa recover from COVID-19
Ahunna Eziakonwa
Wednesday, March 24, 2021
This disconnect occurs because SDRs were created to address potential liquidity shortfalls in an entirely different monetary system rather than in the present context. As a result, experts are proposing reforms to this system. In October 2021, the IMF began building support among members for a proposed “Resilience and Sustainability Trust”—a funding mechanism that would allow richer countries to channel their IMF reserves to poorer countries in need. By lending at cheaper rates and with longer maturities than the IMF’s traditional lending terms, and with funding targeted toward areas such as climate and pandemic preparedness, the trust could help channel funds toward development projects. Another potentially good option is for the IMF to work closely with the regional development banks, such as the African Development Bank, to channel some of the SDR financing through the regional bank’s lending program. Given the regional banks’ proximity to the client, this approach could help to ensure greater links to the development strategies and programs of member states.
Table 1. Select country SDR quotas and SDR allocations
Country
Quota (%)
Allocation (USD billions)
USA
17.43
79.5
China
6.4
29.2
France
4.23
19.3
United Kingdom
4.23
19.3
Nigeria
0.52
2.4
South Africa
0.64
2.9
Cote d’Ivoire
0.14
0.62
Kenya
0.11
0.52
Mali
0.04
0.18
Source: IMF.
The Uncertain
SDRs were not originally designed as open-ended cash transfers. For one, SDRs are not included in the assessment of debt sustainability. While the SDRs can provide liquidity, there is no mechanism for ensuring that money is used productively and reaches those in need. Conversion of SDRs into foreign currency happens on a sovereign level with few strings attached, meaning multilateral leaders cannot ensure that the SDRs are properly used for COVID-19 relief. There is also no discrimination between progressive or dictatorial countries in terms of SDR allocation. Some of the SDRs can end up being used by developing-country governments to pay debt service to public and private creditors in the absence of debt restructuring. For instance, SDRs can be used to boost reserves in Nigeria and South Africa, to pay back debt in the case of Argentina or, in the case of the CFA franc zone, especially in countries like Equatorial Guinea and Republic of Congo, to postpone necessary governance and exchange rate reforms. In this context, it would be good to have oversight by international experts to ensure SDRs are used for developmental impact. However, even assuming effective governance frameworks, for low-income African countries, the flows of SDRs may be too low to have a strong impact anyway.
Conclusion
Unless we believe limited liquidity shortfalls of a more-or-less temporary nature are the only consequence of current macroeconomic and public health stresses, policymakers should not just fall back on SDRs to avoid the more complex questions typically raised in the context of conventional debt or more permanent financial transfers. Beyond a limited (and welcome boost), liquidity SDRs appear to be an imperfect substitute for a financing package able to serve both specific pandemic relief and long-term development objectives. In sum, SDRs represent a second-best solution to a complex problem, with clear advantages and clear shortcomings.