subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now
A man walks past the IMF logo at its headquarters in Washington on May 10 2018. Picture: REUTERS/YURI GRIPAS
A man walks past the IMF logo at its headquarters in Washington on May 10 2018. Picture: REUTERS/YURI GRIPAS

London — Debt-distressed countries such as Zambia and Sri Lanka that re turning to the IMF for financial help are facing unprecedented delays as China and Western economies clash over how to provide debt relief.

IMF funding is often the sole financial lifeline available to countries in a debt crunch, and key to unlocking other financing sources, which means delays put pressure on government finances, companies and populations.

For Zambia, it took 271 days between reaching a $1.3bn staff-level agreement with the IMF — a preliminary financing deal usually agreed during a country visit — and the fund’s executive board signing off, a prerequisite for actual disbursements.

The first African country to default in the Covid-19 pandemic era in 2020, Zambia’s ongoing debt relief negotiations involving China have been closely watched by other countries as a test case for the major emerging market lender.

Though staff agreements can be reached without financing assurances, the IMF board needs them to approve the programme. They are guarantees that sovereign lenders — and to some extent commercial creditors — will negotiate a restructuring in line with the IMF’s debt sustainability analysis, providing relief and financing when needed.

Sri Lanka has been waiting for 182 days to finalise a bailout after a $2.9bn September staff-level deal, while Ghana, which defaulted on its overseas debt in December after a preliminary IMF deal, has yet to get board approval 80 days later.

That compares with the median of 55 days it took low- and middle-income countries to go from preliminary deal to board sign-off over the past decade, according to public data from more than 80 cases.

There are various reasons for the delays, though debt experts say the main cause is that China is still reluctant to offer debt relief on terms comparable with other external creditors.

“They are part of the reason these negotiations are so painfully slow,” said Kevin Gallagher, director of the Boston University Global Development Policy Center. “It’s not just the Paris Club and a few New York banks anymore.”

China’s ministry of foreign affairs didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

Chinese Premier Li Keqiang said on Wednesday the country is willing to “constructively” participate in solving debt problems of relevant countries under a multilateral framework. Still, Beijing has always emphasised all creditors should follow the principle of “joint action, fair burden” in debt settlements.

An IMF spokesperson said it was a “very small number of countries” that suffered “significant delays”, acknowledging this was especially the case where debt owed to official bilateral lenders needed to be restructured.

The time from staff level agreement to lending approval had remained “broadly consistent for a vast majority of countries”.

Besides members of the Paris Club of creditor nations such as the US, France and Japan, cash-strapped nations now have to rework loans with lenders such as SA, India, Saudi Arabia, and  Kuwait — but first and foremost China.

Beijing is the largest bilateral creditor to developing nations, extending $138bn in new loans between 2010 and 2021, according to World Bank data.

For countries such as Sri Lanka, which face shortages of food, fuel and medicines as well as painful reforms after years of economic mismanagement, the delays can be devastating. The war in Ukraine has added pressure as global commodity prices soared.

“Sri Lanka going beyond March without an IMF programme will be challenging for us,” minister of finance Sehan Semasinghe said. “We need the programme to justify the reforms that need to be made for the economic stabilisation process.”

Layers of complexity

After the Covid pandemic raised pressure on highly-indebted economies, the Group of 20 economies launched in 2020 the Common Framework, a platform designed to help low-income nations restructure sovereign debt. For the first time, China joined a multilateral effort aimed at reworking sovereign debt.

Chad, Ethiopia and Zambia signed up in early 2021. Chad secured a deal in November with its creditors, including Swiss commodities trader Glencore, an outcome without debt reduction that some analysts said undermined the Common Framework efforts. Ethiopia’s progress was delayed by civil war, and Ghana joined the platform earlier this year.

In a recent letter sent to Sri Lanka, a non-Common Framework country due to its middle-income status, China’s Export-Import Bank offered a two-year debt moratorium, raising concerns about how much of a hit Beijing was prepared to take.

“The question remains whether China is willing to accept a real extension of maturities that locks in a concessional interest rate for a long period of time,” said Brad Setser, senior fellow for international economics at the Washington-based Council on Foreign Relations.

Gregory Smith, emerging markets fund manager at London-based M&G Investments, said China had a legacy of providing debt relief “but it typically involves maturity extensions or temporary freeze in interest payments”, while face-value reductions in the principal are rare.

Unlike the Paris Club, Chinese lenders tackle restructuring or cancellation loan by loan rather than for the entire portfolio, according to a working paper of the China Africa Research Initiative, which found 1,000 Chinese loans commitments in 49 African countries since 2000.

The Common Framework doesn’t lay out precise rules on how a debt restructuring with bilateral creditors should work, which adds another layer of complexity to the debt talks.

The IMF said it recognised that “greater clarity on the different steps and timelines” is vital, as well as clear mechanisms to enforce the comparability of treatment.

Still, Setser said time is slipping away for Zambia.

“If there isn’t an agreement at least on the basic outlines of the financial terms of restructuring in Zambia by this quarter, it’ll be time to declare the Common Framework a failure,” he said.


subscribe Support our award-winning journalism. The Premium package (digital only) is R30 for the first month and thereafter you pay R129 p/m now ad-free for all subscribers.
Subscribe now

Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.

Speech Bubbles

Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.