BoSS governor, Dr. James Alic Garang. (-)

The Bank of South Sudan governor said the World Bank and International Monetary Fund’s Debt Sustainability Analysis for some African countries is subjective, constraining their access to resources.

The Debt Sustainability Analysis is often given to countries by the World Bank and the International monetary Fund, or IMF.

The monetary institutions work with low-income countries to produce regular Debt Sustainability Analyses, which are structured examinations of developing country debt based on the Debt Sustainability Framework.

The two institutions use this framework to guide the borrowing decisions of low-income countries in a way that balances their financing needs with their ability to repay—both in the present and in the future.

The goals are to ensure that countries that have received debt relief, are on a sustainable development track, allow creditors to better anticipate future risks and tailor their financing terms accordingly.

The DSA also helps client countries to balance their needs for funds with the ability to repay their debts.

“One of the issues that we want to push and to raise on the floor during the plenary session is this issue of the Debt Sustainability Analysis, and the way it is designed,” said Central Bank Dr. James Alic Garang.

“We believe that it is more subjective, and it has more of a judgment in it. It is not just mechanical, where you do numbers, like you say one plus one is equal to two.”

According to Dr. Garang, the DSA rate African countries at either debt distress or high risk of debt stress – a situation he said, is designed in a way that affects other countries’ ability to access resources.

He added that there is need to come up with exceptional criteria to pay debts to financial institutions.

The official said he will raise the matter during the ongoing annual meeting of the African Development Bank in the Kenyan capital Nairobi.

“We find that, time and again, most countries are either under debt distress, or in the risk of high debt distress and because of that, the countries access to resources is constrained.”

“So we believe this is something we will keep pushing, and one day we shall have our own rating, or we shall have more voice at the global financial institutions table, because at the moment even in the global setting, there are some tables where Africa does not sit on the table.”

In 2020, South Sudan’s owed the World Bank amounted 79 million US dollars on International Development Association terms, 28 million to the African Development Bank, 150 to the China Exim Bank to upgrade the Juba International Airport and debt to the QNB amounted to US$627 million.

However, the authorities have almost entirely paid back the residual oil advances contracted in the past but around 138 million had remain in June 2020.

According to World Bank-IMF, South Sudan committed temporary breaches in two out of seven debt indicators under the debt service-to-revenues ratio of external public debt, and present value of debt-to-GDP ratio of overall public debt.

These breaches – according to World Bank and IMF – suggest a high risk of external and overall public debt distress.

However, the institutions said all external and overall public debt indicators are expected to be below the respective thresholds from 2024/25 onwards.

World Bank and IMF said the authorities in South Sudan agreed with the assessment of the DSA.

They recognized the importance of remaining current on their debts, discontinuing oil advances, avoiding highly non-concessional borrowings, and the prudent fiscal and monetary policies discussed in the staff report to improve South Sudan’s debt sustainability.