Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair, for giving me the floor. Good to see you chairing this session!
Bangladesh aligns itself with the statements made by Chairs of G77 and China and the LDCs.
Mr. Chair,
The economy of Bangladesh grew by 8.15% just before the pandemic. But then a series of crises jolted our growth trajectory and put our economy under stress. We negotiated a loan package of 4.7 billion dollars with the IMF to curb inflation, manage the balance of payment, and maintain our development expenditures.
During this year’s Ffd forum and high-level Ffd dialogue, discussions on how developing countries could access finance focused on issues including reforms of the international financial architecture, delivery in full of climate and ODA commitments, operationalizing Secretary General’s 500 billion dollar SDG stimulus package, addressing debt distress, innovative and blended finance, scaling up SDG-aligned investment, enhanced international development cooperation, domestic resource mobilization, international tax cooperation, stopping illicit financial flows, mobilizing private funds for SDGs and multistakeholder partnerships.
To be sure, the world certainly has the requisite resources for achieving all the SDGs, everywhere in the world, with global investable assets reaching a record amount of over $250 trillion at the end of 2022.
But worryingly, these resources are barely aligned with the SDGs, nor are they being channeled at the scale and speed necessary to achieve the SDGs. International public finances are often costly and out-of-reach of developing countries that need them the most.
One of the main issues therefore is to find ways to divert the available resources for achieving the SDGs. The priority should be to deliver concessional resources to developing countries, in particular the LDCs, climate and debt-vulnerable countries.
Allow me to highlight a few points:
First, MDBs, IFIs, and private lending agencies must realign their priorities and mobilize additional funds for SDG implementation and climate action;
Second, funds need to be made available for developing countries at low-cost, concessional rates, for a longer term and preferably in a higher quantity of grants;
Third, all lending instruments should have disaster clauses to allow vulnerable countries to absorb shocks during crises;
Fourth, fair and effective debt relief measures need to be given priority based on coordination and transparency among creditors;
Fifth, instead of quota, SDR borrowing limits should be based on needs and vulnerability, supported by easy lending processes.
Sixth, the global credit rating system must be reviewed. The current rating system further restricts access to funds for many low- and middle-income countries. The limits on their voting rights, quotas, and representation in MDBs and IFIs also undermine their bargaining power.
Seventh, development partners must fulfill their ODA and Climate funds commitments. Currently, ODA accounts for only 0.09 % of developed countries’ GNI, far below the 0.20% for LDC-specific targets. The promised $100 billion climate funds must also be fully delivered, providing climate-vulnerable countries with much-needed funds for adaptation and mitigation.
In conclusion, international financial architecture must be inclusive and representative of the Global South. Development narratives from countries like Bangladesh demonstrate that we can do our part. It is time for the international financial system to respond to our expectations.
I thank you.