Making poverty history
ADRIAN DENNIS/AFP/GHETTY
You've probably seen people sporting the white
wrist bands, heard rock stars' pleas for trade justice, and spotted
the banners advocating the Make Poverty History campaign. So what's
it all about? Rhona MacDonald explains
You might have noticed lots
of hype surrounding the Make Poverty History campaign (box 1). We will soon
find out whether wearing a white band, watching one of the many Live 8
concerts, or marching the streets of Edinburgh, Scotland, on 2
July—the official Make Poverty History march—will help persuade
the world's eight most powerful men to meet the demands of the
campaign.
Box 1: The Make Poverty History campaign
In 1999, world leaders and governments signed up to
eight millennium development goals, international targets for reducing
global poverty by 2015 (see box 6 on studentbmj.com for more information).
But with 10 years to go, we are way off target and the Global Call to
Action Against Poverty, an international campaign, thought that if world
leaders did not act now, it would be too late and we would never meet the
targets. Make Poverty History is the UK part of this campaign, now
involving over 400 charities that will run until the end of the year.
Also, 2005 is a key year, as in addition to the G8
summit, there is the United Nations' summit in September (where it
will be reviewing the progress made towards the goals), and the World Trade
Organization talks in December.
The Make Poverty History campaign has estimated that
governments in rich countries need to give at least a further $50bn if
there is any hope of meeting the goals, and they have focused their demands
and campaigning efforts on dropping the debt, more and better aid, and
trade justice.
But whatever the outcome of the G8 summit (a meeting of
the leaders of the world's most industrialised countries), the Make
Poverty History campaign will continue for the rest of the year. But what
is it all about? The key issues focus on dropping the debt, more and better
aid, and trade justice.
Dropping the debt
Currently, the world's poorest countries have to
give back $3 (£1.64; 2.48) in debt repayments for every $1 of aid they receive. Such
countries spend more on debt repayments? $100 million a day? than they do on health and education.
Oxfam has calculated that for the cost of a cup of
coffee for every person in a developed country each year, absolutely all of
the poorest countries' debts could be cancelled. But if only that was
as simple as it sounds.
The eighteen countries on the "lucky list"
of the recent G7 (G8 minus Russia), £30bn deal to have all of their
debts wiped out, had to meet certain conditions (box 2). Nine more
countries should "qualify" within 18 months, taking the total
cost of the deal to £55bn. This debt cancellation is final and cannot
be reimposed.
Box 2: 10 years of debt relief
In 1996, the Heavily Indebted Poor Country initiative
was set up by financial institutions (such as the World Bank and the
International Monetary Fund. Under this initiative, the world's
poorest countries could potentially have all of the debt they owed
cancelled if they met certain economic conditions set by these institutions
and rich countries. Because the poor countries were not involved in setting
the conditions, conditions that are not in poor countries' best
interests were included, such as privatisation of water. This just relates
to multilateral debt, which is what countries owe to financial
institutions. Bilateral debt, what individual countries owe to richer
countries, has been mostly cancelled thanks to the Jubilee 2000 campaign.
There are some negative aspects and uncertainties about
the deal (box 3). So the Make Poverty History campaign's demand of
debt cancellation cannot be ticked off the list yet. The deal so far is
only worth a maximum of $2bn a year to poor countries, and Africa currently
owes $300bn. So it should be considered as part of the package to make
poverty history but is not very effective in its own right.
Box 3: Problems with the debt cancellation deal
It is not clear if Gordon Brown, and other G8
financial ministers will be using new money to fund their end of the deal. (The UK contribution is $130m
over the next three years and the US has agreed to pay up to $1.75bn to
uphold its part of the deal.) Also, the whole deal needs to be confirmed at
the G8 summit in Gleneagles, and the UK is not the flavour of Europe at the
moment over the rebate issue
It excludes countries such as Vietnam and Sri Lanka,
which should also be eligible for debt cancellation
There are no set rules to ensure that the released
cash will not be misspent on arms deals or to enrich corrupt officials
It is not clear whether countries that have had their
debts cancelled will receive less funding from financial institutions in
the future
Despite demands from many non-governmental
organisations (and supported by every G7 country except the United States),
for the International Monetary Fund to use some of its vast gold reserves
to make their part of the deal, it found a previously unknown reserve to
use instead. Yet USAid has calculated that if the fund sold just a 10th of
its gold (334.5 tons), it would provide enough funding to prevent half a
million mothers from dying during childbirth each year and enough resources
to provide health workers to attend births, buy vital medicines such as
antibiotics, and pay for transport so that pregnant women have access to
treatment.
More and better aid
Aid relief is often misunderstood. Despite what
sceptics may think, it can make a real difference. For example, financial
aid has meant that Ugandans no longer have to pay for health care, which
has doubled the rate of immunisations; new roads in Ethiopia have resulted
in people reaching hospital more quickly, which is often critical in
preventing maternal and infant deaths; and it has been essential in
rebuilding countries shattered by war.
But despite the promises and publicity, there has been
no action yet and Germany, Italy, and Portugal want to include a caveat
that will allow them to get out of their agreement in the future.
This promise of doubling aid will still not bring some
countries to the 35 year old UN agreement to allocate 0.7% of their gross
national income to aid. Despite the bold headlines last year declaring that
the UK government had agreed to the 0.7% target, in reality it won't
reach this until 2015. What is more, 12 countries have not yet agreed on a
time line to meet this target, and, given current rates of spending, the
United States will not meet this until 2040 and Germany until 2087.
But even if all debts were cancelled and aid relief
really was doubled, the impact would be limited without the third, most
important, but most politically difficult demand—trade justice.
Trade justice
The way that trade rules are set up means that it would
not be in rich countries' best interests to change them. Current
trade injustices wreck livelihoods, meaning people may be unable to afford
food, medicines, and access to health care. In the name of "free
trade," and through unfair subsidies and tariffs, rich countries
(through the World Trade Organization, the World Bank, and the
International Monetary Fund) are forcing poor countries to open up their
markets to accept their imports while not allowing these poor countries to
support their own agriculture and industries.
Yet rich countries could make poverty history for ever
by not dumping their own products on poor countries while also accepting
imports from them. This would mean that the economies of the poor countries
would improve in a sustainable way and eventually mean that they would not
need aid handouts from the very countries that are keeping them poor (box
4).
Box 4: Trade injustice
For every $1 that a US farmer spends producing rice,
the US hands out 72 cents to its rice industry. This results in US rice
being sold in poor countries like Ghana, at artificially low prices. A
tonne of rice costs almost $200 to grow in the US yet is sold for a little
over $100 so there is no way that local farmers can compete, thus wrecking
their livelihoods, while US farmers continue to benefit from the deal.
The European Union's Common Agriculture Policy
is responsible for vast overproduction of foods such as milk and grain, as
it gives more money to farmers who produce more. As Europe cannot cope with
this overproduction, food is dumped on poor countries, usually in Africa,
robbing farmers of their only means of survival.
Yet there are few signs of rich countries being willing
to do anything about this. A new Oxfam report shows that despite rich
countries' pledges to eliminate export subsidies, this is unlikely to
happen until 2016 at the earliest.
How we can help to make poverty history?
Stay informed about the issues; get passionate about
them; even get mad. Listed below are some resources to help you get
started.
Get involved—Use
this knowledge to campaign and lobby organisations, governments, and
individual political leaders. There are many organisations and charities
running their own campaigns and advocacy schemes. You could join one and do
their activities I have listed in the Links box.
Give—There are
many different charities and organisations working to reduce global poverty
and many are listed in www.charitydirect.com. Find one that you want to
regularly support by reading their mission statement, the about us section,
and their accounting record that should be on their websites. Make sure you
are happy with them before signing up.
Box 5: Other points about global poverty
Until we meet the millennium development goals, at
least 30000 people
continue to die every day from needless poverty related causes
Even if we do meet the goals, it will not end global
poverty. Reread what they say—"reduce by half,"
"reduce by two thirds," "halt and begin to
reverse," etc. This means that people will still be dying of poverty
in 2015
There are other factors contributing to global
poverty, such as lack of research and development on neglected diseases;
inaccessibility to medicines; and conflict, which is largely maintained by
the arms industry
The Make Poverty History campaign is only for this
year. After that, it is up to all of us to ensure that we keep up our
efforts to ensure that we do make poverty history
Another idea
Why not give your chosen charity (or charities) 0.7% of
your gross personal income to help alleviate global poverty. You could then
write a letter to the leaders of the countries that have not yet agreed to
give 0.7% of their gross national income in aid to say what you are doing
and that you want them to do the same.
And while you are at it, why not ask any medical
organisations that you may belong to, if they can give 0.7 % of your
membership fees to ending global poverty by supporting specific charities.
Let's start our own campaign.
Rhona MacDonald, Oxdocs lead (www.oxfam.org.uk/doctors) and Associate Director, and Make Poverty History representative, of the Asha Foundation
studentBMJ 2005;13:265-308 July ISSN 0966-6494
