Are climate loans a necessary debt?

As we made last-minute preparations for Hurricane Beryl, news reached that we could be facing a Category 3 hurricane, but this quickly changed to 4, which brought with it a different type of panic and an eerie thought, many of us have never experienced terrible weather, what would the aftermath look like? I was reminded of the constant conversations we have surrounding climate finance and debt. What would our island be like if it were flattened and what would we do if our government had to pay “out-of-pocket” to repair everything? Could we, and when would we be open again for business to start earning the foreign exchange needed to finance all of the social services we depend on?

Many critics view loans for climate change as a waste of money and a burden on taxpayers, any talk of receiving loans at a reduced interest rate for climate mitigation and adaptation is ignored or simply looked at as a “money grab” but none were as wise to see the reason for a debt-for-nature swap nor do they see that without access to fair financing entire livelihoods, families and industries can be destroyed instantly. Beryl left in its wake over 200 boats damaged with over 20 completely destroyed or sunken. Yet, calls for compensation and investigations can be heard from the opposition that does not believe that climate change is real. We can see the videos and hear the sense of loss in our fishermen’s voices, the opposition needs to come to terms with the fact that the climate crisis is real, but I assume the better plan would have been “putting the boats on an empty playing field,” staggering declaration. The fishing community and fishing industry are left distraught with millions of dollars in damages.

The sector provides viable economic opportunities for men and women, to earn an honest living supporting their families through daily sales to local families, supermarkets, hotels, and other businesses. But without access to the same loans for climate change – the IDB & TNC debt-for-nature swap – critical structural support in the form of upgraded fish markets with increased hauling capacity for more boat owners, use of solar panels to reduce wait times for the restoration of electricity, and access to adequate water supplies in a water-scarce island these realities can’t be achieved by any government.

Yes, our fishermen do need assistance but what they will require more is a resilient sector that can respond to bad weather conditions when they inevitably strike again. The debt-for-nature swap gives access to US$150 million over the next 15 years while the Green Climate Fund is helping the BWA, through the Water Sector Resilience Nexus for sustainability, to increase water supplies and build out the capacity to assist not only households but also sectors such as the agriculture & fishing industries; these industries depend on consistent and dependable water supplies, and our MET office is working along with them to track rainfall and drought patterns so that we can plan for disasters. This is why along the west coast the planned upgrades to the Paynes Bay and Weston fish market – the latter to be completed soon – are needed more than ever and the foresight of this government to start the process must be commended but more can be done. In the agricultural industry, total damages and losses have not been confirmed but, like fishermen, our farmers support our economy and feed our nation. With the support through recent agricultural loans from IDB and assistance from IICA, we will see the benefit of borrowing to invest in smart agriculture for resilience when disasters strike.

The time, finance, and effort these industries require benefit all Bajans. Any further loss to the fishing and agriculture industries in light of an active hurricane season will be a blow to many families who depend on the industries to not only earn but to feed our country. This is why the experts watched silently for months as the alternate views transmitted ignorance decrying the kinds of loans we are receiving. Void of any common sense or reason these loans were tabulated and called “waste money” by self-proclaimed economists who have zero understanding of the costs attached to climate mitigation and adaptation, nor how it impacts our economic performance. The Bridgetown Initiative in both iterations, BERT 1 and 2 (Roofs to Reefs programme) are available to read. Idle fearmongering is dangerous when you can’t wrap your mind around the concepts but offer advice like an expert. Earmarked loans for climate are separate and distinct from the loans being accessed under the IMF programme while IMF loans are being broken down and accessed in increments pending our economic performance. I wonder if this was known before countless videos were made of this. Through these loans, which are earmarked for our climate resilience this government plans to continue upgrades to the sectors, but it cannot be done without borrowing at low interest rates.

How this government utilises the loans we have accessed will be important but make no mistake, Beryl has highlighted that these loans are a necessary investment in our now and for the future. It must be noted that the climate crisis naysayers are quiet, given the recent scientific findings and reports. Hurricane Beryl has passed, and waiting in line to wreak further havoc on the Caribbean is an additional five months to this 2024 hurricane season. Should we sit and cross our fingers, hoping hurricanes change directions and that droughts never occur, or will critics continue to purport that the global calls for the need for equitable climate finance options are unfounded and unnecessary?

Katasha Nicholas is a Barbadian who is passionate about her homeland.