I congratulate and thank the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund for organizing, without fail, the regular Spring Consultation meetings and dedicating this year’s event to not only recovery from one of the most devastating global crises in modern history, but to help plan for a more sustainable future for humankind.

Like most of the challenges we will face in this century, COVID-19 has ecological and social roots and dimensions. The pandemic has also demonstrated that global problems can no longer be addressed in isolation. The loss of natural habitats, the lack of equitable access to safe and sanitary shelter, inequality in healthcare access, and other pressing issues will cause more global crises like this pandemic.

The overall theme of the Spring Consultations is therefore timely and appropriate: Economic Recovery: Toward a Green, Resilient and Inclusive Future. As the economy becomes more globalized and social and ecological problems take on an international character, we will be unable to avoid working with each other. The basis of this future will be global cooperation.

Financing will play a critical role in our work. Therefore, the World Bank and the IMF will be vital players in achieving the goals of a green, resilient, and inclusive future for mankind. We will have to use the tools of global finance to direct resources towards actions that reflect these goals.

The most important feature of global finance as a tool for ecological and social resiliency is its ability to reallocate resources from those who have it, to those who need it. I was Chair of the United Nations Green Climate Fund from 2013 to 2014. During my tenure, we were able to complete the GCF’s Initial Resource Mobilisation (IRM) of USD 10.3 billion in pledges. Of this, USD 7.2 billion have been available for commitment during the IRM period. This has been an important source of funding for opening sustainable economic opportunities for communities in need.

However, available funding is still a far cry from its goal of becoming a USD 100-billion fund. The difficulties in pooling resources from different national contributions compound during global crises, when countries are hesitant to make international transfers of scarce national resources. In a sense, the current contributions-based framework in the UN GCF, and in the IMF and World Bank as well, will prove inadequate. It is easier to make contributions in good times. This of course diminishes the utility of such schemes. Global sustainability financing must have some built-in countercyclicality: being available when
it is needed the most.

We must begin to view international cooperation less as aid, then, and more as international insurance and risk-pooling. This means that we must invest pooled global resources in a way that reduces general and specific risks, improves resource mobilization, and creates sustainable global wealth and opportunity.

At the same time, we must find ways to internalize the costs of unsustainable practices. Unsustainable practices benefit from an effective subsidy because they are not penalized for their impacts on ecology and society. As Chair of the Tax Committee of the Philippine House of Representatives, I am an advocate of using fiscal levers to achieve social outcomes. Global Pigouvian taxes on pollutants and polluters should no longer be taboo in international conversations.

The countries represented here are parties to the Rio Conventions on Climate Change and Biodiversity or are involved in the adoption of Agenda 21. Within these agreements are instruments where we can already discuss the matters of internalizing costs of unsustainable practices and making resources available when they are most needed. The two major instruments that would dictate what Parties would deliver on their climate obligations are their respective Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs) and their National Adaptation Plans.

Our NDCs and NAPs must integrate fiscal and financial sector policies. What we tax and what we fail to tax, what we invest in and what we ignore, reflects our national and global priorities. By adjusting our fiscal and financial policies according to our international commitments and pronouncements, we will be putting our money where our mouths are.

Our plans must also recognize that as many of our problems are manmade or exacerbated by human activity, our solutions must focus on changing harmful human behavior and unlocking human potential. If we take a multi- pronged approach to future development, starting with our recovery plan for this Pandemic, it must not only employ or center on socioeconomics or utilization of physical resources but developing the capability of the most important resources: a country’s citizens, in order to mediate development & manage
the threats to such development in a sustainable manner. All means of Implementation or MOI, i.e. Finance, including for the acquisition/development and diffusion of Technology and Capability building, should facilitate the development of long-term capacity of the country where such MOI is made to flow into.

Ultimately, our task is to find a path for global development that is fair and just to ecology and humanity. We must find alternatives to zero-sum development: a path that helps the economy without hurting ecology. It is crucial in this regard that we begin by accounting for the full costs of unsustainable human activity, commit to a global framework for using fiscal and financial tools to determine and mitigate these costs, and cooperate around ways to allocate financial resources in a just and effective manner.