The World Bank is discussing potential crisis support with 30 to 40 countries as the Middle East conflict drives up energy and fertilizer costs, adding a new layer of stress to governments already contending with expensive debt. Bank President Ajay Banga disclosed the talks in a Reuters interview published Sunday, a day before the International Monetary Fund and World Bank annual meetings begin in Bangkok.

The disclosure turns a broad warning about a global energy shock into a more concrete financing question: how quickly can multilateral lenders move money to vulnerable economies without deepening their debt burdens? The answer matters well beyond development policy. Fuel and fertilizer costs feed into transportation, farming and food prices, while higher sovereign borrowing costs can crowd out infrastructure and private investment.

A widening aid conversation

Banga said the Bank had initially made $25 billion available after the war began and could pair that pool with roughly $35 billion redirected from approved projects. He said the institution could ultimately make as much as $100 billion available if conditions deteriorate. Those figures describe capacity rather than committed disbursements; the talks do not mean every country will borrow or receive the same form of support.

The Bank's existing crisis toolkit helps explain the options. It allows eligible countries to repurpose portions of undisbursed project financing, add rapid-response features to new operations and use insurance or catastrophe-linked instruments. The menu is designed to move faster than negotiating an entirely new program after a shock, but each route carries different conditions and trade-offs.

Energy pressure meets limited fiscal room

The immediate concern is not just the price of crude oil. Diesel affects freight, electricity generation and agricultural machinery, while fertilizer prices influence future harvests and food costs. A separate Reuters report on the Bangkok meetings described energy, debt and weak growth as the central issues facing finance officials this week.

The pressure is landing on already constrained balance sheets. The IMF's April Fiscal Monitor estimated that global public debt rose to just under 94% of gross domestic product in 2025 and was on track to reach 100% by 2029. The measure aggregates very different national circumstances, but the direction is important: more governments are entering the latest shock with less room to subsidize fuel, cut taxes or borrow cheaply.

That vulnerability is most acute in import-dependent developing economies. According to Banga, developing countries owe external creditors about $400 billion in 2026, with interest accounting for roughly one-third. The Bank's own programs can ease short-term liquidity strains, yet additional lending can only be part of the response when debt service is already absorbing scarce public revenue.

Why the form of support matters

Repurposing an existing project can deliver funds quickly, but it also means delaying or shrinking the original investment. A government that redirects money from a road, school or water project may solve an immediate payment problem while surrendering some future growth. New loans preserve approved projects but add liabilities. Grants and guarantees reduce that burden, although those resources are limited and often require donor backing.

The Bank has therefore emphasized mobilizing private capital alongside its own financing. Banga said the institution attracted $112 billion in private investment in the fiscal year ended in June, in addition to $123 billion deployed from its own resources. Those totals cover a wide range of countries and projects; they do not show that private investors will automatically fund the economies under the greatest stress, where risk is often highest.

The Bank's expanded toolkit tries to narrow that gap through political-risk guarantees, local-currency financing and prearranged access to funds. These mechanisms can lower uncertainty for investors and protect public budgets, but they do not eliminate currency, policy or repayment risk. The crucial test is whether financing reaches essential services and productive investment rather than merely postponing a debt reckoning.

Compounding shocks raise the stakes

The energy shock is also colliding with climate risk. The Guardian reported Sunday that the United Nations Development Programme was warning of a combined threat from energy prices, a strong El Niño and rising borrowing costs. Weather-related crop losses would amplify the same food and fiscal pressures created by expensive fuel and fertilizer.

These overlapping shocks complicate policy choices. Broad fuel subsidies can cushion households and businesses, but they are expensive and often benefit higher-income consumers. Tight fiscal policy can reassure bond markets while worsening a slowdown. Emergency credit can protect imports and public services, but only if repayment terms remain manageable. That is why the IMF's recent work has favored targeted household support over blanket price controls when administrative capacity allows.

What to watch in Bangkok

The annual meetings run from October 12 through October 18, according to the official IMF schedule. The agenda includes sessions on debt liquidity, cost-of-living shocks, jobs and investment. For businesses and markets, the most consequential signals will be whether lenders expand crisis facilities, attach new conditions or announce debt-restructuring initiatives that change near-term financing needs.

The current talks are an early indicator, not a completed rescue program. Country participation, funding amounts and terms remain unsettled. Still, discussions with as many as 40 governments show that the latest energy shock is moving from commodity markets into national budgets. The Bangkok meetings will test whether the international financial system can provide speed without trading a short-term liquidity problem for a longer-term debt crisis.