New UN Report Charts Path Out Of Debt Crisis Threatening Global Development
She was joined by experts Mahmoud Mohieldin and Paolo Gentiloni, along with Rebeca Grynspan, Head of the UN Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD).
A growing crisis
'Borrowing is critical for development,' Ms. Mohammed said, but today, 'borrowing is not working for many developing countries, over two-thirds of our low income countries are either in debt distress or at a high risk of it.'
The crisis is accelerating, Ms. Grynspan warned.
More than 3.4 billion people now live in countries that spend more on interest payments than on health or education – 100 million more than last year.
Debt service payments by developing countries have soared by $74 billion in a single year, from $847 billion to $921 billion.
'The nature of this crisis is mostly connected to the increase of debt servicing costs,' Mr. Gentiloni explained. 'Practically, the debt services costs doubled in the last ten years.'
Prepared by the UN Secretary-General's Expert Group on Debt, the report reinforces the commitments put forward in the Compromiso de Sevilla, the outcome document of the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development – taking place next week.
A path forward
The report outlines 11 actions that are both technically feasible and politically viable.
Mr. Mohieldin explained that the recommendations fall under two key goals: providing meaningful debt relief and preventing future crises.
It identifies three levels of action:
At the multilateral level: repurpose and replenish funds to inject liquidity into the system, with targeted support for low-income countries.
At the international level: establish a platform for borrowers and creditors to engage directly.
At the national level: strengthen institutional capacity, improve policy coordination, manage interest rates, and bolster risk management.
'These are eleven proposals that are doable and that only need the political will of all the actors to be able to make them real,' Ms. Grynspan stressed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RNZ News
an hour ago
- RNZ News
Here's what was in Winston Peters' letter to UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights
Winston Peters sent the letter in his capacity as Foreign Minister. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii Foreign Minister Winston Peters' response to a UN official raising concerns about the government's approach is far milder than the one initially sent by ACT leader David Seymour. Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Prime Minister Christopher Luxon after writing back to the Geneva-based UN Rapporteur on Indigenous Rights Dr Albert K Barume, who raised concerns about the Regulatory Standards Bill. His letter, in his capacity as Regulations Minister, said Barume's views on the government's agenda were wrong and an affront to New Zealand's sovereignty, and Barume's letter itself was "presumptive, condescending and wholly misplaced". Peters and Luxon at the time said the Foreign Minister - who the letter was addressed to - was the appropriate person to send New Zealand's official response. While Luxon said he "fully agreed" with the contents of Seymour's message, Peters rejected Seymour's suggestion his official response would "make the same points". That official response , published on Monday night with a handful of redactions by the UN, said New Zealand "deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate the opportunity to put the record straight". It said the Regulatory Standards Bill was "a result of a Coalition Agreement between two of the three political parties that currently comprise the New Zealand Government", and was "intended to reduce the amount of unnecessary and poor-quality legislation". David Seymour was rebuked by Peters and Christopher Luxon. Photo: RNZ / Mark Papalii The letter also pointed out the bill was being considered by a select committee. "As a mature democracy, New Zealand has well established systems for developing legislation in a way that takes account of a wide range of interests." It said New Zealand "honours the undertakings that the Crown has made through past Treaty of Waitangi settlements and continues to address historical Treaty grievance claims", pointing to 101 such claims having been signed by iwi, hapū and the Crown. An appendix to the letter also provided further information about "relevant constitutional provisions", pointing out that "all legislative proposals that are submitted to the New Zealand Cabinet must consider the human rights and Treaty of Waitangi implications of the proposal". A second appendix on the Regulatory Standards Bill set out the bill's purpose, and how it aimed to achieve that - providing a straightforward explanation of how the bill would work, with links to public consultation and other publicly available information, noting it would not constrain Parliament's ability to make laws. It also noted "nothing in the bill will prevent any additional principles from being considered in the process of lawmaking, or in the review of existing law", and stated the absence of the Treaty of Waitangi from the bill "reflects a decision to focus on a discrete set of goals, including promoting the accountability of the Executive to Parliament". RNZ has sought comment from David Seymour.
NZ Herald
an hour ago
- NZ Herald
‘Deeply regret': Winston Peters' writes to United Nations after David Seymour letter
'We ... understand that you did not directly receive the letter to you by my colleague [REDACTED - likely to be David Seymour], but rather that you learned about its existence from reports in the media. 'We deeply regret this breakdown in protocol and appreciate this opportunity to put the record straight,' Peters said. It is not clear why Seymour's letter did not reach Barume. Peters went on to say that he understood Barume's letter to the Government did not convey his or the UN's official views, but merely sought the Government's response to concerns that had been raised by others with the United Nations, implying that Seymour's initial letter misunderstood this. The letter sets out the Government's position on the Regulatory Standards Bill and the Treaty settlement process and notes that the Government was 'committed to improving outcomes for all New Zealanders'. 'We are focused on reaching targets to improve outcomes in health, education, law and order, work and housing and on providing public services to all New Zealanders including working with iwi (tribes) and Māori to accelerate Māori economic growth and enable targeted investment in Maori social development.' Seymour was meant to be consulted on the new letter. The Herald understands he was consulted and wanted the contents of his original letter to be sent again, this time through Peter's' letter. Seymour did not see the final copy of the letter before it was sent, which did not include any of his earlier remarks. Peters included three appendices to his letter. One detailed New Zealand's relevant constitutional arrangements, including a section on MMP and the realities of coalition government. It also detailed the status of the Māori seats, the Bill of Rights Act, and the Waitangi Tribunal.
Otago Daily Times
5 hours ago
- Otago Daily Times
NZ mulls recognition of Palestinian state
By Russell Palmer of RNZ New Zealand will make a decision on whether to recognise Palestine as a state over the next month, Foreign Minister Winston Peters has confirmed. In a statement this afternoon, Peters confirmed he spoken about the matter at Cabinet today, and the government would formally consider the move - coming to a decision in September. He will travel to the UN Leaders Meeting in at the General Assembly in New York in late September, and will present the government's approach to the UN at that time. While the announcement does not change New Zealand's position on Gaza or Palestinian statehood, the deadline of next month suggests New Zealand may join other Western partners in moving forward with recognition. Shortly after the statement, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese confirmed Australia would move ahead with recognising Palestinian statehood. This would be done at the UN General Assembly in September. He said the decision had been reached after conversations with a range of other world leaders, including New Zealand's Prime Minister Christopher Luxon, whom he met over the weekend. It follows multiple other Western countries signalling they intended to recognise Palestinian statehood, including France, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Peters' statement said the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza was rightly at the forefront of the global agenda, and New Zealand "has been giving this issue careful, methodical and deliberate attention". "New Zealand has long asked whether the pre-requisites for a viable and legitimate Palestinian state - in security, political, diplomatic and economic terms - exist. Fundamentally, we will need to weigh up whether sufficient progress is being made against these benchmarks in order to warrant New Zealand recognising a Palestinian state at this juncture," he said. "We will be taking heed of the facts on the ground deteriorating rapidly, our close partners being divided on the issue of recognition, and a range of Arab states making clear Hamas must disarm and must have no future role in Palestinian governance. "This is not a straightforward, clear-cut issue," Peters said. "There are a broad range of strongly held views within our government, Parliament and indeed New Zealand society over the question of recognition of a Palestinian state."
