Tag: news

  • Exclusive VIP audience with trade finance professionals and academics

    Transcription, The New World Disorder 

    An audience with Dr Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Director-General of the WTO 

    And Alec Russell, Foreign Editor of the FT 

    A WTO report on the organisation’s activities in 2025 highlighted that despite political headwinds, 

    “Trade…can be a powerful enabler of inclusive AI -supported growth by helping economies access AI-enabling goods, such as raw materials, semiconductors and intermediate inputs. The WTO report estimates that global trade in these goods totalled USD 2.3 trillion in 2023. 

    The Trade-Related Aspects of International Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement lays down a common regulatory framework under which members can act to protect their IP, in areas including copyright, patents and trademarks. There is a separate section addressing protected business processes, industrial designs and layout designs of integrated circuits, and the semiconductor market globally relies on the WTO to intermediate disputes where a country’s collective expertise is threatened by trade practices undercutting prices or otherwise manipulating market conditions for these items. 

    In July, the Dispute Resolution Mechanism was triggered by the EU under Article 12 with a WTO dispute panel mediating in regards to “China — Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights” (DS611). 

    The panel found the following to be true: 

    As to the consistency of the ASI policy with the TRIPS Agreement, the Panel found that the European Union had not demonstrated an inconsistency with: Article 28.1, whether or not read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence (concerning certain exclusive rights of patent holders); Article 28.2 read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence (concerning patent holders’ right to licence their patents); Article 41.1 (concerning intellectual property enforcement procedures); and Article 44.1, first sentence, read in conjunction with Article 1.1, first sentence (concerning injunctions). In particular, the Panel found that the obligation in Article 1.1, first sentence stating that Members must “give effect” to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement requires Members to implement the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement within their own domestic legal systems. The Panel concluded that Article 1.1, first sentence contains no additional obligation relating to frustrating the object and purpose of the TRIPS Agreement or other WTO Members’ implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. 

    With respect to the consistency of the five individual Chinese court decisions granting ASIs with the TRIPS Agreement, the European Union had advanced identical claims and arguments as those raised with respect to the ASI policy. The Panel therefore declined to make findings on these claims concerning the five individual decisions, as any findings would be duplicative of the findings on the ASI policy. 

    With respect to the transparency obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, the Panel found that China had acted inconsistently with the publication obligation in Article 63.1 of the TRIPS Agreement by failing to publish the decision issuing an ASI in Xiaomi v. InterDigital, read together with the reconsideration decision in the same case. The Panel found that China was not prepared to supply information requested by the European Union and had thus acted inconsistently with Article 63.3, first sentence. The Panel found that the European Union’s claim with respect to the provision of specific judicial decisions under Article 63.3, second sentence was outside its terms of reference. 

    Finally, with respect to the European Union’s claims that the five ASI decisions by Chinese courts were inconsistent with Section 2(A)(2) of China’s Accession Protocol, the Panel found that the European Union had not demonstrated that Chinese courts had applied China’s laws, regulations, or other measures in a non-uniform, not impartial, or unreasonable manner. 

    This panel finding demonstrates the continuing necessity for multilateral arbitration in trade disputes, and for a level of transparency to assure trust in imports from assignatory countries. Iweala explained the context of the decision as being “a commonly agreed approach to valuation… without trust in what you’re trading, there’s no appropriate unified valuation approach.”   

    She cited, separately, the Technical Business to Trade Agreement, which establishes rules to ensure non-discriminatory product standards and regulations that don’t unnecessarily hinder trade, while also encouraging the use of international standards and transparency to create a stable trading environment.   

    With regard to US Tariffs, she said these represented the “most severe disruption in world trading in years,” but highlighted that 72% of world trade is still operating under WTO rules; and that the US represents 13% of world trade. She has said that to fully activate its supervisory role, the WTO needed to be more adaptable – “more nimble and agile” in a fast-changing world, and see the situation as an opportunity to reform.  

    At a recent UN General Assembly, China made a big announcement – that it would no longer be classed as an emerging economy, with 23 nations’ delegates present. “Being a developing country,” explains Iweala, “accords you certain privileges to renege on agreements. We have closed the doors to some of the arguments… it’s a consensus general assembly,” but she acknowledged that where you reach a stalemate, you have to be more “nimble” in activating for pro-cyclical business enablement. 

    Alec Russell noted that “We’re seeing other markets trading more  – trading more between each other” in South-East Asia with a number of recent bilateral agreements in Southeast Asia. And many members “who took the system for granted – middle powers – gathered to campaign for systemic reform, notably in Singapore, New Zealand, the UAE and Switzerland, which got together to consult on reform and new trading opportunities.” He observed that trade now is done via electronic transmissions i.e. ecommerce and AI, the subject of a recent WTO report. 

    However, in response to the suggestion a parallel system is being created, the retort was “absolutely not”, but that many members have acknowledged their over-dependence on US markets, and on China for essential supplies. He describes the adjustment as being a “temporary re-globalisation, bringing others in from the margin”. 

    Russell asked Iweala outright, “What keeps you confident about multilateralism where the US is absolutely, combatively, unilateralist?” and points to the fact the EU has accepted a blanket 15% tariff on exports to the US. The EU has negotiated preferential conditions for some agricultural exports, and in return agreed to spend $600bn on investment in the US, and also to pay $750bn on energy produced in the US. 

    She responded that “The US remains a member – despite their disruption, they have to work within the pre-existing system.” She said the IBRD doesn’t accept the realities of rising nations, but that you “need a global approach” to tackle climate change, and national conflicts. Russell said that the Bretton Woods organisations are mired in the economic reality of 1945, and Iweala acknowledged that used to be the case, except that Donald Trump has accelerated the pace of change – “the sledgehammer approach”. 

    The panel responded to questions from the audience – “What has the WTO done to facilitate these proposed reforms to the system?” She responded that decisions require the consensus of members, and that the General Counsel Chair, one of the arbitrators, had put forward a set of criticisms of “unfair trade practices at the WTO”. One of these is subsidising domestic industries, as it enables them to sell exports at less than market value, as in China which, incidentally, has criticisms of other nations’ agricultural subsidies. The ‘green subsidies’ are frequently criticised by the IRA. She acknoledged that current policy does not deal adequately with existing subsidies. 

    And she pointed out that “China’s emerging market status helps them locally, but certain advantages and privileges disadvantage other struggling nations.” Reforms on industrial policy can disadvantage emerging market economies, with Costa Rica and Brazil joining the US on opting out. In the context of income divergence, which was increasing pre-pandemic, “If you look at the graphs now, you will see this is not happening,” and developed countries have recovered at a faster pace. 

    One of the recent reforms she spearheaded was 2023 the WTO’s Fishing Subsidies Policy – “Africa loses about $7bn per year from unregulated fishing… there’s going to be a basket of different instruments to help” Africa monetise its fishing industry adequately. Fossil fuels as an export category attract $2.3bn in subsidies, she said, and that technically “revoking subsidies is one of the most politically difficult things to do.” 

  • Analysis of Developing country debt finance initiatives, with the outcome of the 2025 Sevilla Conference 13th June to 3rd July.

    Key points: 

    • 93% of the most Climate Vulnerable Countries (CVCs) face a debt crisis. 
    • Many spend up to 5x the amount of budget allocated to addressing climate change on serving debts. 

    One case study is Kenya, which after the pandemic in 2020 applied via the IMF for an austerity funding package, and was forced to cut public spending by 15%. 

    Nowadays, 35% of its debt is to private creditors such as Citigroup, Standard Bank and BlackRock. These lenders charge interest rates of up to 10.4%. 

    A recent Oxfam report found that for every $1 the IMF recommended low-income countries spend on public goals that promote development and wellbeing, they were instructed to cut four times more via austerity measures. 

    Another case study is Sierra Leone, where overseas capital after the civil war meant its public debt swelled from $1.2bn in 2002 to $1.9bn in 2022. Around 73% of the country’s foreign debt is owned by multilateral institutions such as the World Bank and the IMF, which refused to grant debt relief.  

    The value of its currency has depreciated 50% in 2023. Public spending was slashed in the aftermath. Almost 70% of children in Sierra Leone live in poverty, with parents unable to afford school fees. 

    In 2020 the UK passed the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Act, which impelled private creditors to engage in debt relief under the 1996 heavily indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative. 

    “A subsequent government review found the legislation to have been a success and to have had no adverse consequences for the UK economy. With the HIPC initiative now outdated, new legislation is urgently needed to apply to the current G20 Common Framework.” 

    p.12 ‘Jubilee 2025 – the New Global Debt Crisis’ 

    The Jubilee 2025 global debt crisis report calls for Special Drawing Rights – a financial tool composed of a diversified basket of widely traded currencies – to be more widely available. 

    (see ‘Public Climate Finance provided: an analysis by financial instrument’, 2020/ ‘Climate Finance Provided and Mobilised by Developed Countries in 2016-20′ 

    Finance by private lenders often comes with onerous interest rates due to the perceived risk of the investment, yet when the borrower defaults private venture capitalists refuse to engage in debt relief, leaving governments and multilateral lending facilities to finance the cost of bailout. 

    Climate change finance in 2020, according to OECD data, comprised just 26% in grants vs loans which have coupon payments priced in on the input capital in a forward-looking structure to make profit from the cost of capital.  

    OECD figures capture four distinct components of climate finance provided and mobilised by developed 

    countries: (i) Bilateral public climate finance provided by developed countries’ bilateral agencies and 

    development banks; (ii) Multilateral public climate finance provided by multilateral development banks and 

    multilateral climate funds, attributed to developed countries; (iii) Climate-related officially supported export 

    credits, provided by developed countries’ official export credit agencies, and (iv) Private finance mobilised 

    by bilateral and multilateral public climate finance, attributed to developed countries. 

    The report was jointly prepared by the OECD’s Environment and Development Co-operation Directorates. 

    It also benefited from dedicated 2020 data inputs by the OECD Trade and Agriculture Directorate (for the 

    majority of export credits) as well as donor countries (provision of 2019-2020 bilateral public climate finance 

    in advance of UNFCCC reporting, delayed to later in 2022). 

    Key findings: 

    Recap of 2020 figures and aggregate trends 

    USD 83.3 billion was provided and mobilised by developed countries for climate action in 

    developing countries in 2020. While increasing by 4% from 2019, this was USD 16.7 billion short 

    of the USD 100 billion per year by 2020 goal. 

     In 2020, public climate finance (both bilateral as well as multilateral attributable to developed 

    countries) grew and continued to account for the lion’s share of the total (USD 68.3 billion or 82%). 

    Private finance mobilised by public climate finance (USD 13.1 billion) decreased slightly compared 

    to earlier years, while climate-related export credits remained small (USD 1.9 billion). 

    Mitigation finance still represented the majority (58%) in 2020, despite a USD 2.8 billion drop 

    compared to 2019. Adaptation finance grew, in both absolute (USD 8.3 billion increase compared 

    to 2019) and relative terms (34% in 2020 compared to 25% in 2019). Such an increase is, to a 

    great extent, the result of a few large infrastructure projects. Cross-cutting activities remained a 

    minority category (7%) almost exclusively used by bilateral public providers. 

     Mitigation finance focused mainly (46%) on activities in the energy and transport sectors. In 

    contrast, adaptation finance was spread more evenly across a larger number of sectors and 

    focused on activities in the water supply and sanitation sector, and agriculture, forestry and fishing. 

    As in all previous years, loans accounted for over 70% of public climate finance provided (71% or 

    USD 48.6 billion in 2020, including both concessional and non-concessional loans). The share of 

    grants was stable compared to 2019 (26% or USD 17.9 billion). Public equity investments 

    continued to be very limited. 

     Over 2016-2020, climate finance provided and mobilised mainly targeted Asia (42%) and middleincome 

    countries (43% and 27% for lower- and upper-middle-income countries respectively). 

    Further, 50% of the total was concentrated in 20 countries in Asia, Africa and the Americas that 

    represented 74% of all developing countries’ population. 

    Mobilisation of bi-lateral finance initiatives depend on indigenous institutions’ ability to structure project finance deals with repayments assured, in meeting creditors’ requirements for return on principal by integrating multiple funding channels as each project enters its operational development phase. The loan may be collateralised with the cost of equipment subject to fixed or floating charges, and revenue streams must be channelled appropriately via so-called ‘waterfall’ or ‘mezzanine’ financing.  

    The report states that 

    Grants represented a much higher share of finance for adaptation and cross-cutting activities than for mitigation between 2016 and 2020. Grants typically support capacity building, feasibility studies, demonstration projects, technical assistance, and activities with low or no direct financial returns but high social returns. Public climate finance loans are often used to fund mature or close-to-mature technologies as well as large infrastructure projects with a future revenue stream, which are predominant for mitigation finance as well as in middle-income countries. 

    Grants represented a larger share of climate finance for SIDS, LDCs and fragile states, compared to developing countries overall. Countries within these three categories often present economic and socio-political conditions that do not favour loan-based finance due to limited absorptive and repayment capacity. Recipient institutions and projects in middle- and high-income countries tend to have a relatively higher capacity to seek, absorb, deploy and repay loans. 

    A common fallacy is that development finance is often mis-allocated or appropriated by illegitimate and/or corrupt regimes. In fact, after the Jubilee 2000 campaign for fair development finance, in nations where debts were cancelled the proportion of children finishing primary school went from 45% to 66%, the report claims. 

    The Jubilee 2025 report calls for the following actionables: 

    1. Private creditors legislation to be updated. 
    1. Systemic change of the IMF ensuring fairer (more proportional) allocation of voting rights. 
    1. A public global debt registry, to hold all borrowers and lenders accountable.  

    “Legislators in key financial centres like the UK and New York could introduce requirements that make loan enforceability contingent about timely disclosure in the registry. It should be independent from lenders and borrowers and could sit within a UN framework.” 

    Cites EURODAD, Bogota Declaration, 2023 (see extracts below) 

    1. Automatic debt cancellation following a natural disaster or economic crisis. 
    1. Comparable treatment for all creditors. A system to be introduced whereby those setting lower interest rates on repayment not to be required to service debt relief in the same proportion as those setting higher repayment rates. 
    1. A new global debt framework, as with the 2023 UN Tax Framework Convention, passed by the UN General Assembly, where the 4th International Financing for Development Conference timetabled for June 2025 could provide a springboard for further legislative change. 

    Global south CSOs demand justice and a change to the rules on debt and financial architecture – Eurodad 

    The poly-crisis facing Global South countries is reversing hard-won gains in poverty reduction as deep fiscal consolidation and austerity programmes dominate macroeconomic policy. Global debt policies launched by the IMF and the G20 failed, and many Global South countries are required to service multilateral, bilateral, and private sector debt crippling their ability to respond to domestic socio-economic pressures, and in effect de-invest in public services. 

    Global South’s constraints are both historical and contemporary. The colonial and neocolonial order continue through soft diplomacy and drip dependency in the form of official development assistance, foreign direct investment, and the promises of billions from the Global North private sector; coated with policy interventions that have seemingly targeted creating a hospitable environment for foreign capital to enter and exit Global South with minimal values being retained on Southern countries. This extractivism in policy advice has been long argued as contributing to the underdevelopment of the Global South. 

    We are alarmed that Southern countries remain locked in a vicious cycle of debt, climate, and extractivism, which deepens their dependence on commodities, increases environmental harm, and at the same time, sustains the uneven power structures between North and South, between lenders and borrowers…. 

    The 70 delegates assigned to the Bogota declaration, which was hosted by Columbia on 20-21 September 2023, represented experts and activists from civil society organisations, social campaigners, 

    and pan-national networks . 

    We, as CSOs and networks that historically work on debt across the globe, demand to 

    decision makers at national, regional, and global levels: 

    • Reform of the global debt architecture that addresses unsustainable and illegitimate 

    debts, by bringing transformative change to the current unfair and persistently 

    unbalanced rules. Towards this end, we further demand: 

    OUTPUT DOCUMENT 3 

    o Automatic debt service cancellation mechanism that protects countries of 

    the Global South from extreme events related to political, climatic, 

    environmental, economic, and security shocks. 

    o Improved debt contracts aligned with responsible borrowing and lending 

    principles, including state contingent clauses, such as climate or pandemic 

    clauses. 

    o Binding responsible lending rules for all creditors, including private lenders of 

    sovereign debts. 

    o The elimination of austerity and fiscal consolidation measures and IFIs’ 

    conditionalities. 

    o Advance towards the establishment of a fair, independent, transparent, timely 

    and binding multilateral framework for debt crisis resolution (under the 

    auspices of the UN and not in lender-dominated arenas). 

    Recent data publicly available on lending structures in Sierra Leone reported that the share of development cooperation that used budgeting execution procedures was 1 in a ratio of 1 to the use of auditing procedures. However, financial reporting procedures were used by 0 participants in PFM systems, and just 0.21 used procurement systems.  

    Forward spending plans were not dated more than 1 year in advance, with medium-term spending forecasts of two to three years virtually nonexistent, although the share of development cooperation on the national budget was at a ratio of 1:1:1 comprising reporting to the international management system, reporting at the expected frequency, and provision of the information requested. 

    The extent of parliamentary oversight on development cooperation stood at a ratio of 0.5:1 with respect to the regular provision of development information to parliament. The share of development cooperation reported on the international budget was 0, although the legal and regulatory environment for CSO was recorded at 0.75, resulting in CSO development effectiveness rated at 0.63. 

    The Sevilla Platform for Action on debt relief, resulting from the global consultation and consensus from the 13th June to the 3rd July, follows while the International Business Program alongside the development aid review assembled private sector stakeholders to ensure they are engaged with decision making related to debt structuring, project finance and initiatives to enhance global trading links. 

    The manifesto states its mandate (to): 

    1. To catalyze investments at scale and close the SDG financing gap, initiatives will help countries mobilize tax revenue; scale up blended finance, including guarantees, and local currency lending by MDBs; and increase financing for crisis response. 
    1. To address debt challenges, initiatives include a global hub for debt swaps for development; a ‘debt pause clause alliance’ to incorporate such clauses in lending; and a borrowers’ forum. 
    1. To support architecture reform at national and global levels, initiatives include a coalition of countries and institutions for country led and owned platforms; a coalition of countries that will include measures of vulnerability beyond GDP in all financing operations; and efforts to update the role of development cooperation at the global level.