Spain to shift $1.9 bln in reserve assets to help developing countries
Speaking on the sidelines of a UN conference on development financing in Seville, Cuerpo said Spain has committed to shifting up to 50% of its SDRs, or over 5.5 billion euros ($6.5 billion), showcasing the country's dedication to contributing to global economic stability and development.
SDRs are international reserve assets created by the IMF to supplement member countries' official reserves, providing liquidity to the global economy. They are allocated to member countries in proportion to their IMF quotas and can be exchanged among governments for freely usable currencies in times of need.
"Spain will always be part of the solution, for example, with the commitment to rechannel most of our SDRs ... that would benefit developing countries," Cuerpo said.
The additional funds will go into the IMF's Resilience and Sustainability Trust in support of the new IMF-World Bank Collaboration Framework.
Spain's move aligns with broader efforts among donors to support countries in need, if with the notable absence of the United States after Washington refused to back the summit's plan of action hammered out over the last year.
The pre-summit "outcomes" agreement included tripling multilateral lending capacity, debt relief, a push to boost tax-to-GDP ratios to at least 15%, and shifting the special IMF money to countries that need it most.
($1 = 0.8465 euros)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
41 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Jaguar in crisis after woke rebrand that stunned fans crashes sales
Jaguar's sales have plummeted after the legendary British car marque's ' woke ' rebrand left fans outraged. Sales of the luxury motoring manufacturer appear to be in freefall following its controversial move to scrap its iconic 'growler' big cat logo in November. The firm's rebrand saw it replace the well-known badge in favour of a geometric 'J' design - which lovers of the brand raged looked like the logo on a handbag clasp. Meanwhile, a glossy ad campaign accompanying the design overhaul, featuring androgynous-looking men and women in exuberant clothes, also came under fire. And as the firestorm surrounding the famed car maker's change continues to rage, sales at Jaguar Europe have plunged a staggering 97.5 per cent. According to figures from the European Automobile Manufacturers' Association (AECA), the company registered just 49 new vehicles in April 2025 compared to 1,961 units sold in the same month last year. Year-to-date sales from January to April also slumped, dropping 75.1 per cent with just 2,665 motors sold. Globally, Jaguar sold just 26,862 vehicles for the 2024/25 financial year - an 85 per cent drop compared to 2018. The sales dip followed Jaguar's repositioning away from its performance and heritage roots towards a lifestyle-focused, fashion-forward brand. Jag's big rebrand had been in development for three years as the company prepares to become an all-electric car manufacturer ahead of the UK's 2030 target to stop selling new purely fossil fuel-powered cars. Launched under the slogan 'copy nothing' - an adage from company founder Sir William Lyons - the new ad featured diverse models in technicolour outfits walking through an alien landscape. Around 800 people are believed to have worked on the rebrand, which peaked with the unveiling of a 'design vision concept' at Miami Art Week in December. However, the sales slump may not be as catastrophic as it first appears. As part of Jaguar's refresh, the car firm intentionally stopped producing cars at the end of 2024, a move which stretched into 2025. The manufacturer - now owned by an Indian firm - is currently seeking to bring in a new range of entirely electric vehicles, which were due for release this year. It's unclear whether the brand's gamble - thought to be in a bid to attract younger, more environmentally conscious motorists - will pay off. Jaguar's head of global brand strategy and insight, Richard Green, shared images of a pop-out panel on the concept car However, global branding experts appeared to be less than convinced, ridiculing the makeover and dubbing it a 'dog's dinner'. Californian designer Joseph Alessio said it would be 'taught in schools as how not to do a rebrand,' while another designer labelled it 'one of the most destructive marketing moves ever attempted.' While public relations experts said they were stumped by the firm's decisions - from the 'vandalism' of the company's iconic logo to the apparent casting off of decades of motoring heritage to attract new buyers. Brand and culture expert Nick Ede said he was 'baffled' by the marketing push - which featured precisely no cars - while Oli Garnett, co-founder of creative design agency Something Familiar, called the rebrand a 'dog's dinner'. The likes of Nigel Farage and Elon Musk led other critics, with Farage describing it as 'woke' and warned the automaker risked 'going bust' due to its new design choice. And billionaire Space X owner Musk turned the knife on X, simply asking Jaguar: 'Do you sell cars?' Jaguar, meanwhile, doubled down on the rebrand, sending sassy and saccharine replies to detractors on social media who question the wisdom of moving away from the kind of thinking that birthed iconic vehicles such as the E-Type. And the company's boss, Rawdon Glover - managing director of the Indian-owned firm - hit out at the 'vile hatred and intolerance' directed at the eccentric-looking models who appeared in the video released on November 18. Mr Glover denied the firm was throwing away its near-100-year heritage with its most dramatic rebrand in decades - instead claiming the car maker needed to step away from 'traditional automotive stereotypes' to find its place in the market. Mr Glover told the Financial Times he believed the overall reaction to the campaign had been 'very positive', but that he was disappointed by the 'level of vile hatred and intolerance' directed at the models in the advert. 'If we play in the same way that everybody else does, we'll just get drowned out. So we shouldn't turn up like an auto brand,' Glover said. 'We need to re-establish our brand and at a completely different price point so we need to act differently. We wanted to move away from traditional automotive stereotypes.' MailOnline has approached Jaguar for comment.
The Independent
44 minutes ago
- The Independent
Inquiry hears of older people ‘cull' as Matt Hancock defends care home policies
Care home deaths felt like a 'cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society', the UK Covid-19 inquiry has heard as Matt Hancock defended his handling of an 'impossible' situation. There were tense exchanges as the former health secretary returned to give evidence to the wide-ranging probe, this time focused on the adult social care sector. Mr Hancock, who resigned from government in 2021 after admitting to breaking social distancing guidance by having an affair with a colleague, responded to an accusation he had 'blatantly lied about the situation with care homes'. At a Downing Street press conference on May 15 2020, Mr Hancock said: 'Right from the start, we've tried to throw a protective ring around our care homes.' Bereaved families have previously called the phrase a 'sickening lie' and a 'joke'. The inquiry has heard there were more than 43,000 deaths involving the virus in care homes across the UK between March 2020 and July 2022, and a civil servant was quoted earlier this week describing the toll as a 'generational slaughter within care homes'. On Wednesday, remarks were read to the inquiry from an anonymous witness, who accused Mr Hancock of not being heartfelt or having a proper understanding of the situation care homes were in during the pandemic. Counsel to the inquiry Jacqueline Carey KC, who gave no further information on the person's identity or their role, said: 'One person in particular said 'He (Mr Hancock) blatantly lied about the situation with care homes, there was no blanket of protection. We were left to sail our own ships. He wasn't heartfelt. He had no understanding or appreciation of the challenges care homes face, pandemic or not, it felt like we were the sacrifice, a cull of older people who could no longer contribute to the society'.' Mr Hancock said he felt it was 'not helpful' for the inquiry to 'exchange brickbats' – a term used to describe a verbal attack. He added: 'I've been through everything that we did as a department, a big team effort, and we were all pulling as hard as we possibly could to save lives – that's what I meant by saying that we tried to throw a protective ring around. 'Of course, it wasn't perfect. It was impossible – it was an unprecedented pandemic, and the context was exceptionally difficult. 'What I care about is the substance of what we did, the protections that we put in place, and most importantly, what we can do in the future to ensure that the options available are better than they were last time.' He said the emphasis was on ''tried' – it was not possible to protect as much as I would have wanted'. He added that he and others were 'trying to do everything that we possibly could' in 'bleak circumstances' at a time when 'I also had (former government adviser) Dominic Cummings and a load of people causing all sorts of problems for me, and I had Covid'. Elsewhere in his evidence, Mr Hancock – who said one of his own relatives died in a care home but did not give further details – acknowledged the policy around discharging patients from hospital into care homes early in the pandemic was an 'incredibly contentious issue'. When the pandemic hit in early 2020, hospital patients were rapidly discharged into care homes in a bid to free up beds and prevent the NHS from becoming overwhelmed. However, there was no policy in place requiring patients to be tested before admission, or for asymptomatic patients to isolate, until mid-April. This was despite growing awareness of the risks of people without Covid-19 symptoms being able to spread the virus. The High Court ruled in 2022 that government policies on discharging hospital patients into care homes at the start of the pandemic were 'unlawful'. While the judges said it was necessary to discharge patients 'to preserve the capacity of the NHS', they found it was 'irrational' for the Government not to have advised that asymptomatic patients should isolate from existing residents for 14 days after admission. Asked about the policy, Mr Hancock said there were no good options, adding: 'It's the least-worst decision that could have been taken at the time.' Pressed further, he said he had both agreed with and defended the decision at the time. He added that 'nobody has yet provided me with an alternative that was available at the time that would have saved more lives.' He said while the policy had been a government decision, it had been 'driven' by then-NHS chief executive Sir Simon Stevens, now Lord Stevens. The inquiry heard Mr Hancock said in his witness statement that NHS England had 'insisted' on the policy, and while he did not take the decision himself, he took responsibility for it as then-health secretary. Asked about March 17 2020 when NHS bosses were instructed to begin the discharge process, Mr Hancock said officials were 'pushing very hard' to get more PPE (personal protective equipment) into care homes. He said not advising care homes to isolate returning residents without symptoms was a 'mistake', but it was in line with clinical guidance at the time. In 2023, appearing for a separate module of the inquiry, Mr Hancock admitted the so-called protective ring he said had been put around care homes early in the pandemic was not an unbroken one, and said he understood the strength of feeling people have on the issue. Mr Hancock's statement, referred to during Wednesday's hearing, said while there had been 'widespread concern' that patients being discharged from hospital were the main source of infection in care homes, 'we learned in the summer of 2020 that staff movement between care homes was the main source of transmission'. He told the inquiry he had wanted to bring in a ban on staff movement between care homes but that being unable to secure funding from the Treasury to compensate affected workers was a 'killer blocker' so it did not happen. Nicola Brook, a solicitor representing more than 7,000 families from Covid-19 Bereaved Families for Justice UK (CBFFJ), said Mr Hancock's claim that the discharge policy had been the least-worst decision available was 'an insult to the memory of each and every person who died'. The CBFFJ group has written to inquiry chairwoman Baroness Heather Hallett, to express their concern at some 'key decision-makers' not expected to be called in this module, including former prime minister Boris Johnson and Lord Stevens. When asked about when visits to care homes were banned, which led to some people unable to be with their loved ones when they died, Mr Hancock said: 'Some of the things people went through are truly ghastly.' He said while visiting restrictions 'are a reasonable measure', there should be more 'nuance' in future. Outlining the state of the adult social care sector at the outbreak of the pandemic, Mr Hancock said it 'was badly in need of, and remains badly in need of, reform', but rejected the suggestion of it being a 'Cinderella service to the NHS'. He said pandemic contingency plans, prepared by local authorities for adult social care, had been 'as good as useless' at the time, and described a 'hodge podge of accountability' between local councils and government departments. He claimed the situation has 'got worse not better' for care homes in the event of another pandemic hitting, and suggested a series of recommendations, including having isolation facilities in care homes and ensuring a stockpile of personal protective equipment (PPE). Hearings for module six of the inquiry, focused on the effect the pandemic had on both the publicly and privately funded adult social care sector across the UK, are expected to run until the end of July.
BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
'Lessons haven't been learned' or 'every signing is a gamble'?
We asked for your views on whether Leeds' approach to this transfer window is "a gamble" after target Habib Diarra moved to are some of your comments:Andrew: It is a gamble, which has failed before and is likely to fail again. Lessons haven't been learned. Premier League experience is what Leeds need to bring We have to stick to our budget - even if that means we need to buy slightly less than top quality. It is certainly a gamble. My biggest concern is that we seem to be looking at players with poor injury records. If they have one injury and are fixed, all well and good, but we can't afford to be paying players to sit for long periods in the treatment The question of whether shopping in the European market for players is a gamble should also be asked of whether shopping in the domestic market is also a gamble, because of inflated prices. Every new player is a gamble to the club, but if we can bring in five players from Europe at the same price as a single Premier player, then I say rock on. Out of the five, we may find two diamonds that raise the quality and keep us up for the next two The point being made is that players with zero Premier League experience are much more of a gamble than finding some players with a proven Premier League track Leeds have a history of overpaying for "under-performers", not just in the international market but also domestically. So I wouldn't worry too much about the source of players, but rather that they have the requisite talent and experience to make a positive impact for the team. Chris: We should only pay what is affordable and not go into an auction and spend more than the player's worth. Overpaying is not good business.
