The developing world has finally acquired a forum of its own to discuss sovereign debt. The Borrowers’ Platform, formally launched in Washington on April 15, 2026, brings developing-country borrowers together under the aegis of UN Trade and Development (UNCTAD). The initiative was agreed in the Sevilla Commitment at the Fourth International Conference on Financing for Development in July 2025. Its purpose is to give borrowers a place to exchange experience, improve debt management and develop a stronger voice in the international financial system.
The initiative comes at a time when debt has become a growing constraint on public finances in much of the developing world. Developing countries’ external debt reached $11.7 trillion in 2024, according to UNCTAD. Fifty-four countries, accounting for 3.4 billion people, spent more on debt servicing than on health and education. The pressure has been aggravated by higher global interest rates and the growing reliance of many developing economies on private creditors.
READ | Tata Sons IPO to put group’s governance model to test
Borrowers’ platform with a debtor focus
The Platform is therefore a useful addition to the international debt architecture. But its members will not all occupy the same position in that system. Some developing countries are themselves important bilateral creditors to other developing countries. That creates an awkward question for a forum whose value will depend on borrowers being able to exchange information and experience freely: can a borrower-led platform remain candid when some of the countries in the room also have creditor interests?
The weakness of the existing system is also clear. The G20 Common Framework has produced debt treatments for a small number of countries, but its implementation has been slow and its eligibility is restricted to low-income countries. Sri Lanka, for example, was not eligible because of its middle-income status and had to negotiate separately with a diverse group of official and commercial creditors. The IMF’s assessment of the Sri Lankan restructuring underlines the coordination problems created by a creditor base that includes non-Paris Club official creditors as well as private lenders.
The Borrowers’ Platform therefore addresses a genuine institutional gap. But its usefulness will depend partly on how it handles another feature of the changing debt system: some developing countries are borrowers in international markets while also lending to other developing countries.
Developing countries do not have a simple creditor map
The composition of developing-country debt has changed substantially. Private creditors now hold nearly 60% of long-term public and publicly guaranteed debt of developing economies, while Paris Club creditors account for only about 7%, according to World Bank analysis. The growth of private and non-Paris Club official lending has made debt restructuring more difficult than it was when a smaller group of traditional creditors dominated the system.
READ | Liquidity surplus will test banks’ lending discipline
The bilateral creditor landscape has also widened. China has become a major official creditor for developing countries, while India has extended more than 300 concessional Lines of Credit worth about $32 billion to 68 countries under the Indian Development and Economic Assistance Scheme. Other emerging economies have also become lenders.
Sri Lanka illustrates the problem. Its recent restructuring involved a diverse group of creditors, including China and India alongside Paris Club creditors and commercial lenders. The IMF has described the process as unusually complex because of the diversity of creditors and the instruments involved.
This creates a potential tension for a forum designed specifically for borrowers. A country may have a substantial borrowing requirement while also being a creditor to another developing country. Its interests as a debtor and lender will not always coincide.
The distinction is important because the Platform’s formal eligibility rules already recognise the problem. A member must be a UN member state, a developing country and a net borrower, and must not be a permanent or full member of a creditor association or grouping. The rules are designed to keep the Platform borrower-focused. They do not, however, mean that every participant will have no lending relationships with other developing countries.
Creditors in the room can affect the forum
The presence of countries with creditor interests does not make the Platform unworkable. Nor does it follow that countries will withhold information simply because they have lending relationships abroad. But the possibility deserves attention because the value of a borrower forum depends on the candour of its discussions.
The UN Secretary-General’s Expert Group on Debt in 2025 had already identified the concern that creditors’ presence could affect information sharing among borrowers. The issue is less about formal negotiations, since the Platform is not intended to replace debt-restructuring mechanisms, and more about the quality of peer discussion.
A debt manager discussing the terms of borrowing from an emerging bilateral lender may be less forthcoming if another participant has a direct creditor interest in that type of financing. That does not make the latter country an adversary. It does mean that the Platform will need clear rules on confidentiality, disclosure and the use of information shared by members.
READ | CCI commitment regulations need deeper reform
This becomes more relevant as financing sources diversify. Different creditors operate under different mandates and lending terms. Multilateral institutions have one set of constraints; private bondholders have another; bilateral lenders may pursue development, commercial or strategic objectives. Borrowers therefore need to understand the risks attached to each source rather than treating all external debt as interchangeable.
An IMF working paper published in 2025 illustrates why this distinction matters. Its model finds that the emergence of large official bilateral lenders outside the Paris Club can encourage additional market borrowing and raise default risk under certain conditions. The paper is not a verdict on any particular lender or country, and its results are model-based. But it reinforces the case for examining the interaction between bilateral and market debt rather than analysing each borrowing decision in isolation.
Platform should complement debt restructuring mechanisms
The Borrowers’ Platform is not designed to negotiate debt relief on behalf of individual countries. That distinction should remain clear. Debt restructuring still requires engagement with creditors through mechanisms such as the G20 Common Framework, the IMF-supported process and creditor-specific negotiations.
The Platform can nevertheless improve the quality of those processes by helping countries prepare before a crisis. Better debt data, stronger debt-management capacity and the exchange of experience can reduce information gaps that often complicate restructuring. The first peer-learning workshop, held in the Maldives in June 2026, focused on practical issues including fiscal policy, borrowing plans, market development and debt-management strategy.
That is a more realistic role for the Platform than expecting it to become a negotiating bloc. Its strength will come from the information and expertise that countries bring into the room.
The scale of the underlying problem makes that role worthwhile. Global public debt reached $102 trillion in 2024, according to UNCTAD, but the burden is particularly acute in developing economies, where high debt-servicing costs compete with public spending on development. At the same time, the creditor structure has become too diverse for a single institution or negotiating format to resolve every restructuring problem.
The Platform can help borrowers understand that diversity. It can also encourage greater transparency about the terms and risks of bilateral lending, including lending within the Global South. That would make the forum useful even when a country never enters a formal restructuring.
Its first Governing Council meeting, scheduled for October 14 in Bangkok, will provide an early indication of how the Platform intends to manage membership and information-sharing questions. The formal exclusion of permanent or full members of creditor groupings provides one safeguard. It does not eliminate the broader issue of countries that are simultaneously borrowers and lenders.
The Borrowers’ Platform is therefore best understood as an addition to the international debt architecture rather than a replacement for existing mechanisms. Its value will depend on whether it can give borrowers a space for candid exchange while recognising that the Global South is no longer divided neatly into debtors and creditors. The challenge is to preserve the advantages of a borrower-led forum without pretending that the interests of all developing-country borrowers are identical.
The author is a Visiting Fellow at the Research and Information System for Developing Countries (RIS), New Delhi. Views are Personal.