The year 2026 may not bring a sudden fall of the US dollar. But it could mark the moment when its quiet decline gathers speed. As the US increasingly uses the dollar as a tool of pressure, other countries are working harder to trade and pay without it.
America’s role in global trade has been shrinking for years. In 2000, it accounted for about one-third of world trade. Today, that share is closer to one-quarter. At the same time, emerging economies are trading more among themselves. As these links grow, the dollar becomes less central.
This change is already visible. India and Russia now settle much of their trade in rupees, dirhams, and yuan. China routes more than half of its trade through its own payment system, CIPS, instead of SWIFT. Other country pairs—such as Brazil and Argentina, India and the UAE, Indonesia and Malaysia—are also testing trade in local currencies.
Central banks are responding too. In 1999, the dollar made up about 72 percent of global foreign exchange reserves. Today, it is down to around 58 percent, and the trend is downward. A reserve currency works on trust. And trust depends as much on perception as on facts. That perception is changing.
Domestic problems in the US are adding to the strain. Government deficits are large and still growing, expected to reach nearly $2 trillion in 2025. The current account gap is widening as well. To cover these gaps, the US relies heavily on creating new money. For years, the dollar’s special status absorbed the shock. Now, that cushion looks thinner.
Even US government bonds no longer feel as solid as they once did. There are now more than $27 trillion worth of US Treasuries circulating worldwide. This means more bonds to trade, settle, and hold. But the banks that are meant to provide liquidity have not expanded fast enough. When markets come under stress, there are simply not enough balance sheets to absorb heavy selling—unless the Federal Reserve steps in.
This weakness was exposed in March 2020, when the Treasury market froze during a crisis and needed direct central bank support. It was a rare moment when the world’s safest market failed to function on its own.
Looking ahead to 2026, the biggest risk to the dollar is unlikely to be another currency replacing it. Instead, the threat comes from new payment systems that bypass the dollar altogether. This is especially true in emerging markets, where access to dollar liquidity has often been costly, slow, or political.
Several alternatives are already taking shape. One is mBridge, a project involving central banks from China, Hong Kong, Thailand, and the UAE, supported by the Bank for International Settlements. It aims to allow countries to pay each other instantly using digital versions of their own currencies. Another is BRICS Pay, which would let BRICS and partner countries settle trade and investment directly in their local currencies.
Then there are stablecoins. These digital tokens allow money to move across borders quickly and cheaply, without traditional banks. Most stablecoins today are linked to the US dollar, which actually strengthens its reach. But that may change. If stablecoins tied to multiple currencies—or not tied to the dollar at all—become common, they could offer a neutral way to settle global trade.
China is unlikely to challenge the dollar openly. Instead, it is likely to build around it. Yuan-linked stablecoins may spread through Hong Kong, the Gulf, and Southeast Asia. Some could be backed by commodities like gold or oil. These tools could be used to pay for ports, energy shipments, or infrastructure projects without using dollars or US banks.
Traditionally, it has taken hundred years for one global currency to replace another. But technology is speeding things up. Digital finance, new trade routes, and shifting power balances are shortening the timeline. The dollar is still dominant. But the cracks are clearer than before. And in 2026, the risk of slipping is higher than it has been in a long time.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
- Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund.
- LEAF is supported by transnational corporations (TNCs) like Unilever plc, Amazon.com, Inc, Nestle, Airbnb, Inc as well as Emergent, a US-based non-profit.
- The world lost more than 10 million hectares of primary tropical forest cover last year, an area roughly the size of Switzerland.
- Ending tropical and subtropical forest loss by 2030 is a crucial part of meeting global climate, biodiversity and sustainable development goals. Protecting tropical forests offers one of the biggest opportunities for climate action in the coming decade.
- Tropical forests are massive carbon sinks and by investing in their protection, public and private players are likely to stock up on their carbon credits.
- The LEAF coalition initiative is a step towards concretising the aims and objectives of the Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) mechanism.
- REDD+ was created by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). It monetised the value of carbon locked up in the tropical forests of most developing countries, thereby propelling these countries to help mitigate climate change.
- It is a unique initiative as it seeks to help developing countries in battling the double-edged sword of development versus ecological commitment.
- The initiative comes at a crucial time. The tropics have lost close to 12.2 million hectares (mha) of tree cover last year according to global estimates released by Global Forest Watch.
- Of this, a loss of 4.2 mha occurred within humid tropical primary forests alone. It should come as no surprise that most of these lost forests were located in the developing countries of Latin America, Africa and South Asia.
- Brazil has fared dismally on the parameter of ‘annual primary forest loss’ among all countries. It has lost 1.7 mha of primary forests that are rich storehouse of carbon. India’s estimated loss in 2020 stands at 20.8 kilo hectares.
- Between 2002-2020, Brazil’s total area of humid primary forest reduced by 7.7 per cent while India’s reduced by 3.4 per cent.
- Although the loss in India is not as drastic as in Brazil, its position is nevertheless precarious. For India, this loss is equivalent to 951 metric tonnes worth carbon dioxide emissions released in the atmosphere.
- It is important to draw comparisons between Brazil and India as both countries have adopted a rather lackadaisical attitude towards deforestation-induced climate change. The Brazilian government hardly did anything to control the massive fires that gutted the Amazon rainforest in 2019.
- It is mostly around May that forest fires peak in India. However, this year India, witnessed massive forest fires in early March in states like Odisha, Uttarakhand, Madhya Pradesh and Mizoram among others.
- The European Union’s Copernicus Atmospheric Monitoring Service claimed that 0.2 metric tonnes of carbon was emitted in the Uttarakhand forest fires.
- Implementation of the LEAF Coalition plan will help pump in fresh rigour among developing countries like India, that are reluctant to recognise the contributions of their forest dwelling populations in mitigating climate change.
- With the deadline for proposal submission fast approaching, India needs to act swiftly on a revised strategy.
- Although India has pledged to carry out its REDD+ commitments, it is impossible to do so without seeking knowledge from its forest dwelling population.
Context:-
At the recently concluded Leaders’ Summit on Climate in April 2021, Lowering Emissions by Accelerating Forest Finance (LEAF) Coalition, a collective of the United States, United Kingdom and Norway governments, came up with a $1 billion fund plan that shall be offered to countries committed to arrest the decline of their tropical forests by 2030.
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]What is LEAF Coalition?
Why LEAF Coalition?
Brazil & India
According to the UN-REDD programme, after the energy sector, deforestation accounts for massive carbon emissions — close to 11 per cent — in the atmosphere. Rapid urbanisation and commercialisation of forest produce are the main causes behind rampant deforestation across tropical forests.
Tribes, Forests and Government
Disregarding climate change as a valid excuse for the fires, Indian government officials were quick to lay the blame for deforestation on activities of forest dwellers and even labelled them “mischievous elements” and “unwanted elements”.
Policy makers around the world have emphasised the role of indigenous tribes and local communities in checking deforestation. These communities depend on forests for their survival as well as livelihood. Hence, they understand the need to protect forests. However, by posing legitimate environmental concerns as obstacles to real development, governments of developing countries swiftly avoid protection of forests and rights of forest dwellers.
For instance, the Government of India has not been forthcoming in recognising the socio-economic, civil, political or even cultural rights of forest dwellers. According to data from the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs in December, 2020 over 55 per cent of this population has still not been granted either individual or community ownership of their lands.
To make matters worse, the government has undertaken systematic and sustained measures to render the landmark Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006 ineffective in its implementation. The Act had sought to legitimise claims of forest dwellers on occupied forest land.
Various government decisions have seriously undermined the position of indigenous people within India. These include proposing amendments to the obsolete Indian Forest Act, 1927 that give forest officials the power to take away forest dwellers’ rights and to even use firearms with impunity.
There is also the Supreme Court’s order of February, 2019 directing state governments to evict illegal encroachers of forest land or millions of forest dwellers inhabiting forests since generations as a measure to conserve wildlife. Finally, there is the lack of data on novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) deaths among the forest dwelling population;
Tardy administration, insufficient supervision, apathetic attitude and a lack of political intent defeat the cause of forest dwelling populations in India, thereby directly affecting efforts at arresting deforestation.
Way Forward
Tuntiak Katan, a global indigenous leader from Ecuador and general coordinator of the Global Alliance of Territorial Communities, aptly indicated the next steps at the Climate Summit:
“The first step is recognition of land rights. The second step is the recognition of the contributions of local communities and indigenous communities, meaning the contributions of indigenous peoples.We also need recognition of traditional knowledge practices in order to fight climate change”
Perhaps India can begin by taking the first step.