Excellencies, distinguished delegates,

I am honored to deliver this statement on behalf of the G77 and China.

At the outset, the Group wishes to express its appreciation to the President of the Economic and Social Council for convening this Special Meeting on Credit Ratings, and thank the panelists for their insightful contributions to this interactive dialogue.

For the G77, sovereign credit ratings are not merely technical benchmarks; they are systemic determinants of development, and rather than helping to address great challenges such as debt, climate change, unilateral coercive measures, and trade barriers, they actually exacerbate their impact.

A single ratings downgrade can translate into hundreds of millions of dollars in additional debt service, directly crowding out investment in health, education, and climate action. This is not a marginal inefficiency; it is a structural barrier to the implementation of development priorities.
As a group composed of developing countries, we have consistently advocated for several priorities, which I would like to highlight next:

First, the issue of Methodological Bias. We remain concerned that prevailing Credit Rating Agencies (CRA) methodologies integrate structural biases that systematically disadvantage developing countries. Assessments that overweight short-term fiscal indicators and institutional indicators taken from advanced economies fail to capture the underlying productive capacity, demographic trajectories, and natural resources of our member states. This results in a mispricing of sovereign risk that is self-reinforcing: higher borrowing costs constrain fiscal space, which in turn validates the negative rating.

Second, it is important to emphasize that the Sevilla Commitment calls explicitly for greater transparency in sovereign credit rating methodologies; the integration of longer time horizons that better reflect structural development trajectories; and enhanced engagement between CRAs and developing country governments to ensure assessments are grounded in accurate, contextually informed data. The Group regards these not as aspirational language, but as actionable commitments that CRAs, Member States, and the UN system are collectively expected to implement.

Thirdly, many of our members lack dedicated sovereign debt management offices with the technical expertise to challenge assessments or present forward-looking reform narratives. This distorts the quality of information on which ratings are based. We support expanded technical assistance through the UN system, regional and development banks, and bilateral partners, to strengthen this capacity and encourage CRAs to deepen their country-level engagement, particularly in low-income and structurally vulnerable economies.

As an outcome of this meeting, we expect to move beyond diagnosis and toward substantive, time-bound, non-binding recommendations across its three priority areas: the impact of ratings on cost of capital; the case for lengthening rating time horizons; and the capacity of developing countries to engage more effectively with rating processes.

In conclusion, the G77 and China do not seek to completely displace existing institutions, as we recognize that investor confidence relies on established frameworks. However, we insist that reform be genuine and substantive, rather than cosmetic. Methodology reviews must involve meaningful stakeholder input-including from developing country governments-and the transition to longer time horizons must reflect a fundamental shift in how risk is conceptualized, rather than a mere rebranding of existing indicators. We look forward to both the Sevilla Commitment and this Special Meeting resulting in tangible progress.

I thank you.