ReportWire

Tag: Global

  • While Developing Nations Hang on to a Cliffs Edge, G20 & IMF Officials Repeat Empty Words at Their Annual Meetings

    While Developing Nations Hang on to a Cliffs Edge, G20 & IMF Officials Repeat Empty Words at Their Annual Meetings

    [ad_1]

    Credit: IMF
    • Opinion by Bhumika Muchhala (new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    NEW YORK, Oct 26 (IPS) – Held in-person for the first time in three years, the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank last week in Washington, D.C. failed to offer solutions to the dozens of developing countries in debt distress or on the forewarned global recession instigated by monetary tightening.

    Meanwhile, austerity measures are reinforced through a repeated emphasis on fiscal tightening, underpinned by a monetarism upheld by the IMF and rich country central banks.

    The scenario of a dual tightening in both monetary and fiscal policy is only exacerbated by the absence of political will among creditors to cooperate in debt restructuring, bolstered by narratives of losing market access to financial flows.

    New loan programs are created by the IMF to boost concessional financing for food price shocks, climate transitions and liquidity shortfalls. However, these very loans create new debt and reinscribe the very austerity measures that worsen the challenges of inflation and climate.

    Within these asymmetries of power and access in the world economy, and the foreclosing of developmental policy tools for developing countries, what then is the fate of the vast majority of people and nations in the world?

    The IMF’s World Economic Outlook warned of an imminent recession amidst a shift of financial regime from cheap and easy money to an aggressive synchronization of global monetary tightening.

    “In short, the worst is yet to come, and for many people 2023 will feel like a recession,” said IMF Chief Economist Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas. Convening the world’s finance ministers, central bank governors, and financial market leaders, the IMF announced a slowdown in global growth by 2.7%, down from the 3.2% growth projected for this year.

    On the heels of a global pandemic followed by the war in Ukraine, the US Federal Reserve’s interest rate hikes, aimed toward domestic price stability, is creating a global push toward more expensive money.

    A stronger dollar, higher international and domestic interest rates, coupled with depreciating currencies and sell-offs in many developing country assets, is generating protracted economic and social pain across the globe.

    The spillover impacts are seen in soaring food and fuel prices, increases in dollar-denominated debt and imports costs, volatile commodity markets and debt distress intensifying into a 50-year record across the developing world.

    The UN’s 2022 Trade and Development Report warns that the most vulnerable countries and communities are being hit the hardest. Warnings of another ‘lost decade’ abound, in that the current interest rate hikes resemble those of 1979-82, which triggered debt crises in over 40 developing countries where ‘structural adjustment programs’ through IMF loans contributed to a decade of lost growth and development across the Global South.

    Inflation targeting consumes financial rule makers

    The tightrope global central banks are walking is acknowledged by IMF Managing Director, Kristalina Georgieva, who says, “Not tightening enough would cause inflation to become de-anchored and entrenched — which would require future interest rates to be much higher and more sustained, causing massive harm on growth and massive harm on people.

    On the other hand, tightening monetary policy too much and too fast — and doing so in a synchronized manner across countries — could push many economies into prolonged recession.”

    Meanwhile, the topline recommendation of the IMF’s Global Financial and Stability Report is that “central banks must act resolutely to bring inflation back to target.” Doing otherwise would risk credibility and market volatility, or in other words, create difficulties in market access to financial and investment flows and/or worsen borrowing terms.

    One of the central tenets of neoclassical economic consensus among global central banks is that of maintaining price stability through a low inflation target of 2%. Financial rulemakers have for decades deemed inflation a threat to economic growth by way of the specter of hyperinflation. However, empirical evidence points to the contrary.

    Collating data from 31 countries from 1961-94, World Bank chief economist Michael Bruno and William Easterly concluded that the inflation does not lead to lower growth, even when the significant oil price increase of 1974-75 is included.

    The US Federal Reserve’s own historical archives demonstrate that the so-called ‘Great Inflation’ of 1965-82 did not harm growth either. In light of these studies by neoclassical economists and central bank institutions, economists Anis Chowdhury and Jomo Kwame Sundaram argue that “there is no empirical basis for setting a particular threshold, such as the now standard 2% inflation target – long acknowledged as ‘plucked from the air.’”

    From press conferences to panel speeches, the IMF leadership repeats that the danger of “entrenched” inflation requires a global commitment to tackle it head on through global to domestic monetary tightening.

    This stems in large part from a belief that once inflation begins, it has an inherent tendency to accelerate. Consequently, IMF loans and surveillance recommend central bank independence (from the executive) as a means to ensure unbiased financial policymaking, while critics contend that it has only enhanced the influence and power of big banks and financial actors, largely at the expense of the real economy.

    However, history again demonstrates that inflation does not accelerate easily, even when workers have more bargaining power, or wages are indexed to consumer prices – as in some countries.

    Lost decade redux?

    The IMF’s Fiscal Monitor, published on October 12, called upon all policymakers to “maintain a tight fiscal stance, so that fiscal policy does not work at cross-purposes with monetary policy.” In essence, fiscal policy must serve monetary policy in its “fight against inflation,” by retrenching public spending for the singular objective of sending “a powerful signal that policymakers are aligned in the fight against inflation.”

    The rationale is straightforward: “In a time of high inflation, policies to address high food and energy prices should not add to aggregate demand.” Increased demand is anathema, as it “forces central banks to raise interest rates even higher.”

    The fiscal tightening is not new. In 2021, 131 governments started scaling back public spending. The geographic and population scale of austerity cuts is expected to intensify up to 2025.

    Governments are implementing, or discussing, a range of fiscal adjustment policies, such as targeting social protection, regressive taxation, reducing public expenditure in social sectors, eliminating subsidies, privatizing public services or State-Owned Enterprises, pension reforms, labor flexibilization.

    All have long histories of negative social impacts on economic and social rights, such as the right to food, water, health, housing, education, and livelihoods. The human impact will reach over 6 billion people, or 85% of humanity, in 2023.

    In a time of poly-crisis, retrenching public spending and imposing regressive taxes that disproportionately hurt the poor, especially women, not only extinguishes the hope of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals by 2030, but more fundamentally, regresses decades of fighting poverty.

    Meanwhile, the IMF’s Board has approved the creation of two new loan facilities, the new Food Shock Window, available for a year to countries reeling from the global food price crisis, and the Resilience and Sustainability Trust (RST), through which many rich countries may re-channel their unused Special Drawing Rights if the funds are used to address “external shocks, including climate change and pandemics” by rules set out by the Fund.

    While both loans address urgent threats, they also create new debt. The RST is also conditional upon an IMF loan program hinged on fiscal consolidation.

    The severity of the food crisis warrants aid in the form of grants not loans. Based on prior research done by the World Bank and Center for Global Development on food price spikes, Oxfam estimates that another 65 million people could be pushed below the $1.90 extreme poverty line as a consequence of food price increases.

    Debt crises nearing point of no return

    Despite the imminent threat of a debt crises imploding across many developing countries, sovereign debt solutions, the Group of 20, IMF, World Bank as well as the Institute of International Finance, the consortium of private financial actors, have to date failed to create viable solutions.

    The G20’s Debt Service Suspension Initiative, which suspended debt payments for 73 low-income countries, was terminated at the end of 2021. And two years after the Common Framework was established in 2020, it’s multiple flaws have led even the World Bank to call it a ‘slow-motion debt tragedy.’

    One key dilemma is the lack of political will to enforce a comparability of treatment, where all creditors, including private, participate on equivalent terms or restructuring and in the principle of burden sharing. Another challenge is the glacial pace of restructuring is not only protracted but also riddled with uncertainty.

    Middle-income countries, where the vast majority of the world’s poor reside and where serious debt defaults are taking place, are not included. Low-income countries fear that access to commercial financing will be cut off if they apply to the Common Framework, as evidenced by Fitch and S&P slashed Ethiopia’s sovereign rating when the nation applied to the Common Framework in 2021.

    Out of the three countries that have so far asked for their debt to be treated – Chad, Ethiopia and Zambia – only Zambia has seen some forward movement.

    The narratives coming from within the IMF reiterate a subservience to market access and creditor interests. Across panels and webinars, senior level IMF staff remarked that a large debt restructuring is a serious event, which may result in a decrease of future multilateral and private financing, in amounts that outweigh the financing gained in relief or restructuring.

    Some warned that private creditors will not participate in debt restructuring where national fiscal instability reigns. To secure market access, countries have to tighten fiscal belts even more. The logic here is that financial stability imperative for accessing private credit requires fiscal consolidation that generates social devastation.

    The lack of official creditor participation and the dilemma of transparency, referring in large part to China, was repeatedly stressed as a key problem. At the same time, an old and wholly condescending trope of the need to increase debtor discipline in light of its financial mismanagement and irresponsibility repeatedly emerged.

    Meanwhile, there is no mention of the often-legalized corruption of private actors, such as tax evasion and avoidance, speculative and/or rigged trading. Amidst the talk, actual debt solutions are in omission. While political will is already in short supply, the lack of cooperation toward problem-solving is exacerbated by the finger-pointing between the creditor groups of bilateral, private, and multilateral.

    History has repeatedly illustrated the way forward on debt, and the waves of austerity that it generates. For decades, advocates and policymakers alike have called for a transparent and binding debt workout mechanism within a multilateral framework for debt crisis resolution, in a process convening all creditors.

    The UN General Assembly has adopted multiple resolutions calling for such a mechanism over the years. Debt justice movements from across the developing world have urged for the cancellation of all unsustainable and illegitimate debts in a manner that is ambitious, unconditional, and without repercussions for future market access.

    Past cases show how reducing debt stock and payments allow for countries to increase their public financing for urgent domestic needs.

    The principle of burden-sharing ensures genuine debt relief, as does the commitment to include all creditors in an automatic or orderly way. Recognizing that multilateral institutions account for around one-third of the outstanding debt of low- and lower-middle-income countries, the World Bank and IMF must participate in such efforts.

    They should both cancel debt payments owed, and the IMF should eliminate surcharges. Protection needs to be provided to debtor states against holdouts and lawsuits by non-participating creditors, while laws and procedures for responsible borrowing and lending need to be ensured to protect citizens and communities against corrupt, predatory and odious debts.

    Last but not least, an automatic mechanism for a debt standstill in the wake of an extreme exogenous shock should be created. As proposed by the G77 group of developing countries in the UN General Assembly in response to the global financial crisis of 2007-8, such a mechanism must “be established for a determined period in response to external catastrophe events, as climate and natural disasters, health pandemic, military conflict and inflation.” The prescience of the G77 group in 2009 offers a salient message.

    While the developing world has little recourse but to ‘dance to the tune of the Federal Reserve,’ the devastating toll of the human, social and economic crisis must be addressed through tools and choices that can be generated.

    The question is how to muster political will, be it from the moral pressure of global justice movement to analysis of the effects that soaring poverty and intensifying climate change will have on the very survival of our planet and species.

    Bhumika Muchhala is development economist and senior advocate on economic governance at Third World Network. She works on research, analysis, advocacy and public education on the international political economy of development, feminist economics and decolonial theory and approaches.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Broken Relationship with Nature Exposed as Global Wildlife Population Plummets

    Broken Relationship with Nature Exposed as Global Wildlife Population Plummets

    [ad_1]

    Biodiversity is in trouble as the WWF report, 2022 Living Planet Index, indicates that the global wildlife population had decreased by 69 percent since 1970. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
    • by Joyce Chimbi (nairobi)
    • Inter Press Service

    Nairobi, Oct 25 (IPS) – Home to a variety of iconic and rare animal and plant species, freshwater lakes, rivers, waterfalls, and the expansive Indian Ocean coastline, Kenya’s place as a biodiversity hotspot has never been in doubt.

    But the first National Wildlife Census report finalized in August 2021 pointed to signs of trouble. For instance, as many as five wildlife species are critically endangered and could disappear in the immediate future. The report noted that there were just 1,650 Tana River Mangabey, 897 black rhinos, 497 Hirolas, 51 Sable antelopes, and 15 Roan antelopes.

    Biodiversity expert John Mwangi Gicheha tells IPS the decline in species population abundance has now been validated by the newly-released Living Planet Report 2022.

    “The health of planet earth is well and truly on a sharp decline, and we are not only seeing a decrease in the global population of species but a decline in their genetic diversity and a loss of species climatically determined habitats,” Gicheha expounds.

    Conducted by the World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF), an independent conservation organization, this is the first ever most comprehensive report on the state of global vertebrate wildlife populations, and it makes a startling revelation: the world’s wildlife populations have declined by 69 percent since 1970.

    As a measure of the state of the world’s biological diversity among population trends of vertebrate species from terrestrial, freshwater, and marine habitats, the 2022 Living Planet Index analyzed approximately 32,000 populations of 5,230 species across the world.

    By tracking trends in the abundance of mammals, fish, reptiles, birds, and amphibians worldwide since 1970, a disturbing image emerged: one million plants and animals are threatened with extinction.

    Worse still, 1-2.5 percent of birds, mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and fish have gone extinct.

    Key findings include revelations that monitored freshwater populations are hardest hit as there is an alarming decline of 83 percent in the last 50 years, more than any other species groups.

    The decline in freshwater population is mainly caused by habitat loss and barriers to migration routes which account for an estimated half the threat to these populations. Further, only 37 percent of rivers over 1,000 kilometres remain free-flowing in their natural state.

    Against this backdrop, the report stresses that the global community is living the consequences of double crises and shows how “interlinked emergencies of human-induced climate change and the loss of biodiversity are threatening the well-being of current and future generations.”

    The greatest regional decline in wildlife population is in Latin America and the Caribbean region, whose average population abundance decline is 94 percent.

    Africa comes second with a 66 percent fall in its wildlife populations over the past 52 years, and across the board, the poor and marginalized remain highly vulnerable and most affected by the decline.

    There was an 18 percent decline in Europe and Central Asia and a 55 percent decline in wildlife populations in the Asia Pacific.

    More findings show despite mangroves being unique forests of the sea; they remain at great risk as they continue to be lost to aquaculture, agriculture and coastal development at current rates of 0.13 percent per year.

    Mangrove loss is not only a loss of habitat for biodiversity, the report emphasizes, but the loss of ecosystem services for coastal communities.

    Further, approximately 50 percent of warm water corals have already been lost. Even worse, a warming of 5 degrees Celsius will lead to a loss of 70 to 90 percent of warm water corals.

    Overall, the global abundance of 18 of 31 oceanic sharks and rays declined by 71 percent since 1970. By 2020, three-quarters of sharks and rays were threatened with an elevated risk of extinction. Kenya is currently home to 9 whale sharks, two blue whales and 17 tiger sharks, per the National Wildlife Census.

    The report stresses that dominating the natural world irresponsibly, taking nature for granted, exploiting of resources wastefully and unsustainably and, distributing these resources unevenly have life-altering consequences.

    Judy Ouya, a government official in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry tells IPS that said consequences could no longer be ignored as they are too severe and frequent. They include loss of lives and economic assets from extreme weather conditions, deepening poverty and, severe food and water insecurity from droughts.

    For instance, the reports references Amboseli, Kenya, Maasai community who rely on selling livestock and are now greatly affected by the severe prolonged dry spell.

    Earlier in June 2022, the World Bank projected that Kenya’s growth will slow down within the year and into 2023-24 due to the ongoing ravaging drought and other external influences, such as the war in Ukraine.

    “The ongoing climate and biodiversity crises are significantly induced and sustained by human activity and particularly our land use change and, our interactions with ocean and lake ecosystems. There is significant over-exploitation of nature, and the consequences are coming faster and more severe than expected,” Ouya observes.

    WWF finds that while ongoing conservation efforts are helping, urgent action is required if the global community is to reverse nature loss. The broken relationship with nature, experts such as Ouya emphasize, impacts all aspects of human life and will significantly derail economic development and attainment of UN SDGs.

    Overall, the index finds too much nature has been lost at a speed that calls for higher ambitions to effectively, efficiently and sustainably address the six key threats to biodiversity loss which include habitat degradation and loss, exploitation, the introduction of invasive species, pollution, climate change and disease.

    Higher ambitions include working together towards the complimentary goals of net-zero emissions by 2050 and net-positive biodiversity by 2030 as they represent “the compass to guide us towards a safe future for humanity, to shift to a sustainable development model, to support the delivery of the 2030 SDGs.”

    If the global community works together to achieve these goals and because nature can bounce back, the report foretells a promising future, of a decade that will end better than it started with more natural forests, more fish in the ocean and river systems, more pollinators in our farmlands, more biodiversity worldwide.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Macroeconomic Policy Coordination More One-Sided, Ineffective

    Macroeconomic Policy Coordination More One-Sided, Ineffective

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Anis Chowdhury (sydney and kuala lumpur)
    • Inter Press Service

    SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 25 (IPS) – Widespread adverse reactions to the UK government’s recent ‘mini-budget’ forced new Prime Minister Liz Truss to resign. The episode highlighted problems of macroeconomic policy coordination and the interests involved.

    Macro-policy coordination
    But macroeconomic, specifically fiscal-monetary policy coordination almost became “taboo” as central bank independence (CBI) became the new orthodoxy. It has been accused of enabling CBs to finance government deficits. Critics claim inflation, even hyperinflation, becomes inevitable.

    Anis ChowdhuryGovernment finance ministries and CBs are the two main macroeconomic policy protagonists. Poor ‘macro-policy’ coordination has generated problems, including contradictory policy responses. This has meant more macroeconomic and financial instability, worrying markets and investors.

    Fiscal policy – notably variations in government tax and spending – mainly aims to influence long-term growth and distribution. CB monetary policy – e.g., variations in short-term interest rates and credit growth – claims to prioritize price and exchange rate stability.

    By the early 1990s, the ‘Washington consensus’ implied the two macro-policy actors should work independently due to their different time horizons. After all, governments are subject to short-term political considerations inimical to monetary stability needed for long-term growth.

    Claiming to be “technocratic”, CBs have increasingly set their own goals or targets. CBI has involved both ‘goal’ and ‘instrument’ independence, instead of ‘goal dependence’ with ‘instrument independence’.

    CBI was ostensibly to avoid ‘fiscal dominance’ of monetary policy. Meanwhile, government fiscal policy became subordinated to CB inflation targets. For former Reserve Bank of Australia Deputy Governor Guy Debelle, monetary policy became “the only game in town for demand management”.

    Debelle noted that except for rare and brief coordinated fiscal stimuli in early 2009, after the onset of the global financial crisis, “demand management continued to be the sole purview of central banks. Fiscal policy was not much in the mix”.

    Jomo Kwame SundaramSub-optimal outcomes
    But more than three decades of “divorce” between independent CBs and fiscal authorities have failed to deliver its promised benefits. Instead, monetary policy dominance has worsened financial instability.

    Adam Posen found the costs of disinflation, or keeping inflation low, higher in OECD countries with CBI. Carl Walsh found likewise in the European Community.

    For Guy Debelle and Stanley Fischer, CBs have sought to enhance their credibility by being tougher on inflation, even at the expense of output and employment losses.

    Committed to arbitrary targets, independent CBs have sought credit for keeping inflation low. They deny other contributory factors, e.g., labour’s diminished bargaining power and globalization, particularly cheaper supplies.

    John Taylor, author of the ‘Taylor rule’ CB mantra, concluded CB “performance was not associated with de jure central bank independence”. De jure CB independence has not prevented them from “deviating from policies that lead to both price and output stability”.

    The de facto independent US Fed has also taken “actions that have led to high unemployment and/or high inflation”. As single-minded independent CBs pursued low inflation, they neglected their responsibility for financial stability.

    CBs’ indiscriminate monetary expansion during the 2000s’ Great Moderation enabled asset price bubbles and dangerous speculation, culminating in the global financial crisis (GFC).

    Since the GFC, “the financial sector has become dependent on easy liquidity… To compensate for quantitative easing (QE)-induced low return…, increased the risk profile of their other assets, taking on more leverage, and hedging interest rate risk with derivatives”.

    Independent CBs also never acknowledge the adverse distributional consequences of their policies. This has been true of both conventional policies, involving interest rate adjustments, and unconventional ones, with bond buying, or QE. All have enabled speculation, credit provision and other financial investments.

    They have also helped inefficient and uncompetitive ‘zombie’ enterprises survive. Instead of reversing declining long-term productivity growth, the slowdown since the GFC “has been steep and prolonged”.

    Workers’ real wages have remained stagnant or even declined, lowering labour’s income share and widening income inequality. As crises hit and monetary policies were tightened, workers lost jobs and incomes. Workers are doubly hit as governments pursue fiscal austerity to keep inflation low.

    Dire consequences
    The pandemic has seen unprecedented fiscal and monetary responses. But there has been little coordination between fiscal and monetary authorities. Unsurprisingly, greater pandemic-induced fiscal deficits and monetary expansion have raised inflationary pressures, especially with supply disruptions.

    This could have been avoided if policymakers had better coordinated fiscal and monetary measures to unlock key supply bottlenecks. War and economic sanctions have made the supply situation even more dire.

    Government debt has been rising since the GFC, reaching record levels due to pandemic measures. CBs hiking interest rates to contain inflation have thus worsened public debt burdens, inviting austerity measures.

    Thus, countries go through cycles of debt accumulation and output contraction. Supposed to contain inflation, they adversely impact livelihoods. Many more developing countries face debt crises, further setting back progress.

    Needed reforms
    Sixty years ago, Milton Friedman asserted, “money is too important to be left to the central bankers”. He elaborated, “One economic defect of an independent central bank … is that it almost invariably involves dispersal of responsibility… Another defect … is the extent to which policy is … made highly dependent on personalities… third … defect is that an independent central bank will almost invariably give undue emphasis to the point of view of bankers”.

    Thus, government-sceptic Friedman recommended, “either to make the Federal Reserve a bureau in the Treasury under the secretary of the Treasury, or to put the Federal Reserve under direct congressional control.

    “Either involves terminating the so-called independence of the system… either would establish a strong incentive for the Fed to produce a stabler monetary environment than we have had”.

    Undoubtedly, this is an extreme solution. Friedman also suggested replacing CB discretion with monetary policy rules to resolve the problem of lack of coordination. But, as Alan Blinder has observed, such rules are “unlikely to score highly”.

    Effective fiscal-monetary policy coordination requires appropriate supporting institutions and operating arrangements. As IMF research has shown, “neither legal independence of central bank nor a balanced budget clause or a rule-based monetary policy framework … are enough to ensure effective monetary and fiscal policy coordination”.

    Although rules-based policies may enhance transparency and strengthen discipline, they cannot create “credibility”, which depends on policy content, not policy frameworks.

    For Debelle, a combination of “goal dependence” and “instrument or operational independence” of CBs under strong democratic or parliamentary oversight may be appropriate for developed countries.

    There is also a need to broaden membership of CB governing boards to avoid dominance by financial interests and to represent broader national interests.

    But macro-policy coordination should involve more than merely an appropriate fiscal-monetary policy mix. A more coherent approach should also incorporate sectoral strategies, e.g., public investment in renewable energy, education & training, healthcare. Such policy coordination should enable sustainable development and reverse declining productivity growth.

    As Buiter urges, it is up to governments “to make appropriate use of … fiscal space” created by fiscal-monetary coordination. Democratic checks and balances are needed to prevent “pork-barrelling” and other fiscal abuses and to protect fiscal decision-making from corruption.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Flash PMI data show U.S. economic downturn ‘gathering significant momentum’ in October, says S&P Global

    Flash PMI data show U.S. economic downturn ‘gathering significant momentum’ in October, says S&P Global

    [ad_1]

    The numbers: The S&P Global U.S. manufacturing sector rose slightly to 50.7 in October from 50.6 in the prior month, based on a “flash” survey.

    The flash U.S. services sector index, meanwhile, fell to 46.6 from 49.3.

    Readings above 50 signify expansion; below that, contraction.

    Economists polled by the Wall Street Journal had expected manufacturing to rise to 51.8 in October and for the service sector to rise to 49.7.

    Key details: In the service sector, the downturn was fueled by the rising cost of living and tightening financial conditions.

    New orders in the manufacturing sector fell back into contraction territory in October. Output remained resilient due to firms eating into backlogs of previously placed orders, S&P Global said.

    While price pressures picked up a bit in the service sector, the pace of the gain in inflation in the manufacturing sector was the slowest in almost two years.

    Big picture: Talk of a recession sometime in 2023 has picked up in the last week. Many economists are sounding more bearish on the outlook, especially since the Federal Reserve is now seen raising its benchmark rate to 5%. However, on Monday, economists at Goldman Sachs said that talk over a recession was overblown.

    What S&P Global said: “The US economic downturn gathered significant
    momentum in October, while confidence in the outlook also deteriorated sharply,” said Chris Williamson, chief business economist at S&P Global Market Intelligence.

    “Although price pressures picked up slightly in the service sector due to high food, energy and staff costs, as well as rising borrowing costs, increased competitive forces meant average prices charged for services grew at only a fractionally faster rate. Combined with the easing of price pressures in the goods-producing sector, this adds to evidence that consumer price inflation should cool in coming months,” he added.

    Market reaction: Stocks
    DJIA,
    +0.88%

    SPX,
    +0.58%
    were higher in early trading on Monday, while the yield on the 10-year Treasury note
    TMUBMUSD10Y,
    4.236%
    inched up to 4.24%.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Austerity: A Raging Storm for the Developing World that can be Avoided

    Austerity: A Raging Storm for the Developing World that can be Avoided

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Isabel Ortiz, Matti Kohonen (london / new york)
    • Inter Press Service

    LONDON / NEW YORK, Oct 24 (IPS) – Finance ministers of the G20 and the world met in Washington, October 10-16, to discuss how to navigate multiple crises, including rising cost-of-living, broken global supply chains, climate shocks, and the lingering COVID-19 pandemic.

    All this weighted heavily on the IMF outlook, pointing to a bleak future ahead.

    This is particularly bad news for developing countries. Using IMF data, our research showed that recovery spending in the last two years of the pandemic in the Global South was only 2.4% of GDP on average, a quarter of the level recommended by the UN and a fraction of what rich countries spent.

    Meanwhile, only 38% of the total went to social protection, with corporate loans and tax breaks getting the lion’s share.

    Things will get worse unless there is a fundamental policy change. This year recovery funds have dried up and, as most countries are heavily indebted, the IMF projects large expenditure cuts.

    In 2023, at least 94 developing countries are expected to cut public spending in terms of GDP. Our report estimates that 85% of the world’s population living in 143 countries will live in the grip of austerity measures by 2023, and the trend is likely to continue for years.

    Unless these policies are reversed, people in developing countries will suffer as a result cuts to social protection and public services at a time they are most needed, with 3.3 billion people (or nearly half of mankind) expected to be living below the poverty line of US $5.50/day by the end of 2022.

    This crisis will affect especially women who received half less COVID-19 recovery funds than their male counterparts.

    But the impact goes far beyond women. Elderly pensioners and persons with disabilities will receive lower pension benefits. Workers around the world will see less job security, poorer pay and working conditions as regulations are dismantled.

    A recent study on inequality found that the vast majority of countries were making labor markets more flexible to help big corporations. As inflation keeps rising, worsened by higher consumption taxes, families will be much affected while any support they receive will be less due to austerity cuts.

    South Africa reflects the crisis of countries falling into the austerity trap. The government provided Social Relief of Distress (SRD) grants of R350 (US$24 in 2021) per month that were instituted at the start of the pandemic, supporting for the first-time low-income individuals who are of working age.

    These grants have been extended several times, providing a lifeline for those worst hit by the pandemic.

    However, despite the cost-of-living crisis, the government -advised by the IMF- is now considering reducing social expenditures and helping only the most vulnerable, leaving many low-income households without any support. Other austerity measures being discussed include cuts to the salaries of civil servants, and labor flexibilization reforms.

    Instead of these austerity cuts, the South African government and the IMF should focus on raising additional revenues to fund social protection and public services, making sure everyone pays taxes, reducing corporate tax loopholes and exemptions, taxing excess profits and wealthy individuals.

    Similarly, Ecuador has been shaken by social unrest because of austerity reforms. In 2019, after large riots, the government of Lenin Moreno flew from the capital and had to stop a loan with the IMF that had proposed cuts to subsidies and other austerity reforms.

    In 2021, the same austerity policies were proposed again by the IMF, such as cuts to subsidies and public services, reducing social protection and labor regulations.

    In 2022, farmers, indigenous men and women, marched again to the capital with pitchforks to join students and workers protesting austerity policies, forcing President Lasso to back down and agree to grant subsidies and other demands.

    These are only two examples reflecting the austerity storm gathering around the world. This is extremely unfair and will generate unnecessary social hardship, as populations are struggling with a severe cost-of-living crisis, especially at a time when many countries are losing significant amounts of revenue to tax abuses, illicit financial flows and tax exemptions to large corporates that are wholly unnecessary.

    Austerity cuts are not inevitable, there are alternatives even in the poorest countries. Instead of austerity cuts, governments can increase progressive tax revenues, restructure and eliminate debt, eradicate illicit financial flows, and re-allocate public expenditures, among other options.

    Policy makers must act on this. All the human suffering and social unrest that austerity inflicts is unnecessary.

    Civil society organizations have launched a global campaign to End Austerity, including, among others, ActionAid International, European Network on Debt and Development (Eurodad), Fight Inequality Alliance, Financial Transparency Coalition and Oxfam International.

    Austerity campaign calls on citizens and organizations from all around the world to fight back against the wave of austerity sweeping the globe, supercharging inequality and compounding the effects of the cost-of-living crisis.

    Our decision-makers need to wake up and change course. There is no time to lose.

    Matti Kohonen is Executive Director of Financial Transparency Coalition; Isabel Ortiz is Director of the Global Social Justice Program at Joseph Stiglitz’s Initiative for Policy Dialogue

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Activists Call Out 11 Muslim Member States to Repeal Death Penalty for Blasphemy

    Activists Call Out 11 Muslim Member States to Repeal Death Penalty for Blasphemy

    [ad_1]

    Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) headquartered in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia
    • Opinion by Soraya M. Deen, Christine M. Sequenzia (los angeles / washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service

    LOS ANGELES / WASHINGTON DC, Oct 21 (IPS) – Eleven out of 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) still sanction the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy, silencing their citizens and emboldening violence by non-state actors.

    For the past 70 years, Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights has condemned capital punishment for religious offenses, a global standard shared during our recent visit to the UN headquarters in New York.

    As a prelude to the UN General Assembly (UNGA) high-level meetings in mid-September, we led the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Roundtable Campaign to Eliminate Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws, urging UN members to stand in strong support during two paramount resolutions calling for an end to the death penalty and extrajudicial killings.

    We urge the insertion of language codifying the death penalty never being imposed as a sanction for non-violent conduct such as blasphemy and apostasy. The effort produced an encouraging response by Nigerian third committee officials who renewed their commitment to freedom of religion or belief by supporting embedded language in both the moratorium on the death penalty and a resolution on renouncing the death penalty for extrajudicial killings.

    In the days that followed our visit, the world has witnessed the outrage of human rights activists and concerned global citizens with the death of Masha Amini, an Iranian Muslim woman who was arrested and subsequently died in the custody of Iranian morality police for a violation of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s compulsory hijab mandate.

    Brutal cases like these will only cease when government officials in Iran, and other egregious human rights violators, listen to the cries of their people and uphold globally recognized human rights declarations. These include statutes supporting international religious freedom or belief, and the repeal of apostasy and blasphemy laws.

    When most countries around the world and the majority of Muslim nations are taking concrete steps to abolish capital punishment for perceived religious offenses such as blasphemy and apostasy, some refuse to modernize their legislation, thus branding themselves as the worst violators of internationally recognized basic human rights.

    This staunch obsession with upholding persecutory laws and implementing the harshest of punishments, violates religious freedoms – the right to life and the right to freedom of religion or belief. This misinterpretation of scripture is an abuse of Islam, tarnishing the image of Muslims around the world and a disregard to Gods mercy, a belief that transcends faith orientation.

    The multidisciplinary and multifaith delegation from the International Religious Freedom (IRF) Campaign urged UN members, including: Luxemburg, Canada, and Sri Lanka, to raise their voices loudly in favor of embedded international religious freedom language in two resolutions which will come up for a vote during the UNGA in November.

    Penholders Australia and Costa Rica are calling for a moratorium on the death penalty which is only supported by the IRF Campaign with the addition of specific language ensuring the death penalty never be imposed for non-violent conduct such as apostasy or blasphemy.

    Likewise, Finland, as penholder for the UNGA resolution on extrajudicial executions, is being asked by global advocates to add language on freedom of religion or belief, emphasizing the necessity for States to take effective measures to repeal laws currently allowing the death penalty for religious offences, such as criminalization of conversion and expression of religion or belief as a preventative measure.

    Article 18 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights is clear – everyone has the right to freedom of religion or belief. Yet, 11 States today maintain the death penalty for apostasy and blasphemy. We raise the voices of the voiceless, such as Pakistani woman Aneeqa Ateeq who was sentenced to death for blasphemy in January 2022 after being manipulated into a religious debate online by a man who she romantically refused.

    Also, an 83-year-old Somali man, Hassan Tohow Fidow, who was sentenced to death for blasphemy by an al-Shabaab militant court and subsequently horrifically executed by firing squad; and a 22-year-old Nigerian Islamic gospel singer Yahaya Sharif-Aminu who was sentenced to death for blasphemy because one of his songs allegedly praised an Imam higher than the Prophet.

    As an outcome of our UN advocacy, we pray that the 11 Muslim member states—Afghanistan, Brunei, Iran, Maldives, Mauritania, Nigeria, Pakistan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, and Yemen– join in the common-sense repeal of the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy as a great step toward becoming civilized nations.

    The majority of OIC member nations who do not sanction the death penalty for religious offenses should be regarded as examples of modernity and humanity and their path to restore and uphold basic human rights should be replicated.

    The Qur’an says, “There shall be no compulsion in religion; the right way has become distinct from the wrong way.” (Qur’an 2:256). Likewise, we read passages like 18:26:, “And say, ‘The truth is from your Lord. Whoever wills – let him believe. And whoever wills – let him disbelieve,” and “whoever among you renounces their own faith and dies a disbeliever, their deeds will become void in this life and in the Hereafter (Qur’an 2:217).”

    The holy book, which serves as a moral compass for the laws in OIC member nations, upholds the right to freedom of religion or belief which has been recognized by the OIC majority.

    As has been recently witnessed in Iran, when civil society activates around globally recognized human rights, the world takes note. The OIC asserts its purpose “to preserve and promote the foundational Islamic values of peace, compassion, tolerance, equality, justice and human dignity” and “to promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, good governance, rule of law, democracy, and accountability”.

    To that end, with the passage of both critical UN resolutions, OIC members will face the controversial and politically sensitive task of calling out other OIC colleagues who continue to violate human rights by imposing the death sentence upon individuals for exercising their right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

    We assert that it is a societal problem as much as it is a reflection of the deficiency of democratic values and principles.

    Embedding international religious freedom language in both resolutions calling for the repeal of the death penalty will be strengthened with the strong support of the 46 OIC nations and other human rights champion nations in the days ahead.

    We are encouraged by Saudi Arabian scholar, Dr. Mohammad Al-Issa of the Muslim World Alliance, who travels the world sharing the unanimously approved Charter of Makkah – a document affirming differences among people and beliefs as part of God’s will and wisdom.

    Our collective voice must be unwavering in its call and commitment to repeal the death penalty for blasphemy and apostasy as a primary step towards upholding theologies of love and compassion, building toward human flourishing.

    Dr. Christine M. Sequenzia, MDiv is co-chair IRF Campaign to Eliminate Blasphemy and Apostasy Laws; Soraya M. Deen, Esq. is lawyer, community organizer, founder, Muslim Women Speakers, and co-chair International Religious Freedom (IRF) Women’s Working Group

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Public Development Banks Cant Drag Their Feet When It Comes to Building a Sustainable Future

    Public Development Banks Cant Drag Their Feet When It Comes to Building a Sustainable Future

    [ad_1]

    Civil society organisations at the Finance in Common Summit. Credit: Noel Emmanuel Zako
    • Opinion by Bibbi Abruzzini (abidjan, ivory coast)
    • Inter Press Service

    ABIDJAN, Ivory Coast, Oct 21 (IPS) – A coalition of civil society organisations is demanding public development banks (PDBs) to take radical and innovative steps to tackle human rights violations and environmental destruction. No project funded by PDBs should come at the expenses of vulnerable groups, the environment and collective liberties, but should instead embody the voices of communities, democratic values and environmental justice.

    The demands, part of a collective statement signed by more than 50 civil society organisations, come as over 450 PDBs gather in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, from October 19th, for a third international summit, dubbed Finance in Common.

    The COVID-19 pandemic and climate emergency, coupled with human rights violations and increasing risks for activists worldwide, is bringing the need to change current practices into even sharper focus. While public development banks may drag their feet on addressing intersecting and structural inequalities, civil society organisations are taking actions aimed at creating dignified livelihoods by embedding development with concrete affirmative measures towards climate, social, gender, and racial justice.

    PDBs cannot be reluctant to act. They need to hit the target when it comes to supporting the transformation of economies and financial systems towards sustainability and addressing the most pressing needs of citizens worldwide – from food systems to increasing support for a just transition towards truly sustainable energy sources. PDBs must recognise that public services are the foundation of fair and just societies, rather than encouraging their privatisation and keep austerity narratives alive.

    9 out of 10 people live in countries where civic freedoms are severely restricted, and with an environmental activist killed every two days on average over the past decade, development banks have an obligation to recognize and incorporate human rights in their plans and actions, following a “do not harm” duty.

    Civil society organisations at the Finance in Common Summit. Credit: Noel Emmanuel Zako

    Communities cannot be left out of the door. They need to be given the space to play the rightful role of driving forces in the answers to today’s global challenges, without them PDBs will move backwards rather than forward – and this means more environmental degradation, less democratic participation, and to put it bluntly an even greater crisis than the one we are facing today. And nobody needs that.

    The recommendations in the collective civil society statement emerge from a three-year process of engagement and exchange, involving civil society networks in an effort to shape PDBs policies and projects. You can find some of their words and messages below.

    As the call for accountability grows, the Finance in Common summits are an opportunity for PDBs to show moral leadership and help remedy the lack of long-term collaborations with civil society, communities and indigenous groups, threatening to curtail development narratives and practices.

    Here are the messages from civil society organisations from around the globe directed at public development banks.

    Oluseyi Oyebisi, Executive Director of Nigeria Network of NGOs (NNNGO) the Nigerian national network of 3,700 NGOs said: “The Sahara and Sahel countries especially have been facing the most serious security crisis in their history linked with climate change, social justice and inequalities in the region. Marked by strong economic (lack of opportunities especially for young people), social (limitation of equitable access to basic social services) and climatic vulnerabilities, the region has some of the lowest human development indicators in the world – even before the covid pandemic. Access to affected populations is limited in some localities due to three main factors: the security situation, the poor state of infrastructures and difficult geographic conditions. PDBs must prioritise civil society organisations and Communities initiatives supporting state programs of decentralization, security sector reforms and reconciliation. This will help reduce the vulnerability of populations and prevent violent extremism.”

    Mavalow Christelle Kalhoule, Forus Chair and President of Spong, the NGO network of Burkina Faso said: “Development projects shape our world; from the ways we navigate our cities to how rural landscapes are being transformed. Ultimately, they impact the ways we interact with one another, with plants and animals, with other countries and with the food on our plates. The decisions taken by public development banks are therefore existential. Such responsibility comes with an even greater one to include communities directly concerned by development projects, those whose air, water and everyday lives are affected for generations to come. For this to happen, public development banks must reinforce their long-term efforts to create dialogue with civil society organisations, social movements and indigenous communities in order to fortify the democratic principles of their work. We encourage them to listen, to ask and to cooperate in innovative ways so that development stays true to its original definition of progress and positive change; a collective, participative and fair process and a word which has a meaning not for a few, but for all.”

    Tity Agbahey, Africa Regional Coordinator, Coalition for human rights in development said: “Many in civil society have expressed concerns about Finance in Common as a space run by elites, that fails to be truly inclusive. It is a space where the mainstream top-down approach to development, instead of being challenged, is further reinforced. Once again, the leaders of the public development banks gathered at this Summit will be taking decisions on key issues without listening to those most affected by their projects and the real development experts: local communities, human rights defenders, Indigenous Peoples, feminist groups, civil society. They will speak about “sustainability”, while ignoring the protests against austerity policies and rising debt. They will speak about “human rights”, while ignoring those denouncing human rights violations in the context of their projects. They will speak about “green and just transition”, while continuing to support projects that contribute to climate change.”

    Comlan Julien AGBESSI, Regional Coordinator of the Network of National NGO Platforms of West Africa (REPAOC), a regional coalition of 15 national civil society platforms said: “Regardless of how they are perceived by the public authorities in the various countries, non-governmental organisations (NGOs) contribute to covering the aspects and spaces not reached or insufficiently reached by national development programmes. Despite the undeniable impact of their actions on the living conditions of populations, NGOs remain the poor cousins of donor funding, apart from the support of certain philanthropic or charitable organisations. In such a context of scarce funding opportunities, aggravated by the health crisis due to COVID-19 and the subsequent economic crisis, Pooled Finance, which is in fact a paradigm shift, appears to be a lifeline for CSOs. This is why REPAOC welcomes the commitments made by both the Public Development Banks and the Multilateral Development Banks to directly support CSO projects and programmes in the same way as they usually do with governments and the private sector. Through the partnership agreements that we hope and pray for between CSOs and banks, the latter can be assured that the actions that will be envisaged for the benefit of rural and urban communities will certainly reach them with the guarantees of accountability that their new CSO partners offer”.

    Frank Vanaerschot, Director of Counter Balance, said: “As one of this year’s organisers of the Finance in Common Summit, the EIB will brag about the billions it invests in development. The truth is the bank will be pushing the EU’s own commercial interests and promoting the use of public money for development in the Global South to guarantee profits for private investors. Reducing inequalities will be second-place at best. The EIB is also co-hosting the summit despite systemic human rights violations in projects it finances from Nepal to Kenya. Instead, the EIB and other public banks should work to empower local communities by investing in the public services needed for human rights to be respected, such as publicly owned and governed healthcare and education – not on putting corporate profits above all else.”

    Stephanie Amoako, Senior Policy Associate at Accountability Counsel said: “PDBs must be accountable to the communities impacted by their projects. All PDBs need to have an effective accountability mechanism to address concerns with projects and should commit to preventing and fully remediating any harm to communities”.

    Jyotsna Mohan Singh, Regional Coordinator, Asia Development Alliance said: “PDBs should have a normative core; they should start with the rights framework. This means grounding all safeguards into all the various rights frameworks that already exist. There are rights instruments for indigenous people, the elderly, women, youth, and people living with disability. They are part and parcel of a whole host of both global conventions and regional conventions. Their approach should be grounded in those rights, then it will be on a very firm footing.

    Asian governments need to support, implement, and apply strict environmental laws and regulations for all PDBs projects. The first step is to disseminate public information and conduct open and effective environmental impact assessments for all these projects, as well as strategic environmental assessments for infrastructure and cross-border projects.”

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Saving Lives Cant Ever Be Divisive

    Saving Lives Cant Ever Be Divisive

    [ad_1]

    • by Elena Pasquini (rome)
    • Inter Press Service

    ROME, Oct 20 (IPS) – That’s why a new ship with a big white “E” will navigate the Mediterranean Sea. The vessel has a red hull, is more than fifty meters long and has low decks. Soon, it will leave the port of Genoa and go out into the open sea. If those living on the north shore of that ‘water cemetery’ bearing the name of Mediterranean had chosen life, the “Life Support” would not have been greeted by the applause of a people packed square, on a late summer night, in the Italian city of Reggio Emilia. It would not be ready to sail now; . if they had chosen life, that ship would have another job.

    “Mom, I’m thirsty.” That’s how Loujin died, asking for water. She was four years old and had been at sea for ten days on a boat that launched an SOS to which no one responded until was too late on a still-very-hot September. She and her family were fleeing the war in Syria with the impossible hope of a refugee camp in Lebanon. She died along with six other refugees: “They died of thirst, hunger and severe burns,” said Chiara Cardoletti, Representative of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in Italy, on Twitter. “According to the reports of the survivors who are being verified by the police the corpses were thrown into the sea when they began to be stockpiled,” according to the newspaper Avvenire. The sea took at least eighty, dead off the coasts of Lebanon and Syria, just a few days later. Eleven other decaying bodies were recovered in the first half of October off the coast of Tunisia. Before that, water had snatched away so many lives that we are not even able to count them and cry for them.

    If there had been a ship, such as the one with a large white “E” on its red sides, perhaps Loujin would be alive. The “E” is that of Emergency, an Italian NGO founded in 1994 to bring aid to civilian victims of war and poverty.

    Emergency has made its choice: It will sail the Mediterranean, fishing for human beings regardless of the “barriers” erected in that water. Barriers created by laws, rules, and sometimes arbitrarily, do not prevent women and men in search of a future; instead, all too often, they turn into dead bodies – those that wars and starvation weren’t able to make.

    Ten thousand people were in Reggio Emilia at the annual meeting of Emergency, an organization that has turned the defense of human rights and its radical “No war” policy into concrete actions in the most difficult places on the planet. Those numbers, doubled compared to the previous year, portray a country, Italy, which longs for peace and hospitality.

    “Seeing and knowing that there are thousands of people dying off our shores is absolutely not acceptable. With we believe to represent many people in Italy who do not want to see this happen,” Pietro Parrino, Emergency’s director of the Field Operations Department, explained to us.

    From 2014 to the day of this writing, i.e., mid-October this year, 25,034 people have died or gone missing in the Mediterranean Sea. “They were more than 1,100 just in the absence of a coordinated search and rescue operation at European level,” a statement from the NGO said. “We must be at sea to save people’s lives,” Parrino stressed. Whatever the reason why those women and men have decided to take the most dangerous of journeys: “They simply need help and we are, and we try to be, in the places where help is needed,” he added.

    Being there, however, is a hard choice. There are very few NGO search and rescue ships, constrained by laws and bureaucracy that prevent them from getting to where they are needed, leaving migrants in the hands of the Libyan coast guards or forcing the vessels to wait days before docking at safe ports. Their work is not easy and they have even been accused of being “sea taxis” or “accomplices” of traffickers in a country where the call for a “naval blockade” has been a slogan for those who won the last political election.

    It takes courage to choose life, anyway.

    The last stretch

    Barriers, “walls” within the sea, ancient Romans called Mare Nostrum, built by other choices, political choices, such as the bilateral Memorandum of Understanding that Italy signed with Libya in 2017 or the Malta Declaration issued shortly after. Agreements “that form the basis of a close cooperation that entrusts the patrolling of the central Mediterranean to Libyan coastguards,” followed by the establishment of the Libyan SAR, a large maritime area where the responsibility for coordinating search and rescue activities was assigned to Libya, Amnesty International explained. The human rights organization is among those calling for the suspension of the Memorandum: “In the last five years, over 85 thousand people have been intercepted at sea and sent back to Libya: men, women and children who have faced arbitrary detention, torture, cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, rape and sexual violence, forced labor and illegal killings.”

    Any attempt to pull out those barriers, even if made up of boats, is doomed to fail; instead, it will produce pain. Migrations do not stop, new routes open up, and the old ones close and then reopen as the laws or European policies change. Crossing the sea is just the last stretch of a long journey in which human trafficking is a business built on desperation and managed by the same organizations that smuggle drugs and oil. Trips are a commodity sold on a market where the currency can be money or one’s body.

    The Mediterranean route will continue to be worth a lot of money. Dirty money, cash, mobilized in a very sophisticated way, ends up in the pockets of those we do not know, or rather, of those about whom we know what they do, financing other illicit businesses. It is not just a question of the “passage” , but it is a much more complicated mechanism.

    NGOs’ search and rescue operations were said to have increased the number of people who decided to travel to Europe. However, data from the Italian Ministry of the Interior show that this is false, as reported by the Huffington Post last year. In 2021, there were many more arrivals than the previous year even though there was not a greater number of vessels in the Mediterranean, as some of them were blocked by “bureaucracy.” There were few ships but a greater number of arrivals because those who flee wars and hunger always find new ways to organize the journey.

    “People who to leave countries like Afghanistan or the Horn of Africa and have thousands and thousands of kilometers in front of them to be covered on foot with little or no money, are people who have courage and determination unimaginable for us,” Parrino said. Desperation moves them, a desperation that puts them in the hands of those who promise a place in a rust bucket. “The story these people tell is that few get a simple ride. Many are enslaved for years, in the fields or as prostitutes, because the traffickers earn tens of thousands of euros by selling them and reselling them before setting them free again. The trafficking is not to let people cross the Mediterranean; the trafficking is the management of these thousands of desperate people who are exploited as labor slaves and sex slaves for months, for years, before receiving the green light to take the boat,” he added. “People do it because they have even less than the hope that lies ahead. They are people who accept a risk they already know”, Parrino stressed.

    Gabriele Baratto, a criminologist at the University of Trento, studied that market for a research project. He investigated the “digitization” of human trafficking.

    Smugglers use social media, especially Facebook, to find migrants who want to leave. Then Baratto and his team contacted them. They thought it would be difficult, that they would have to turn to the dark web, that they would have to use secret jargon. But no, everything happens in the light of day. It was enough to type simple keywords, questions such as: “how to get to Europe.”

    “ hundreds of posts, pages, and groups dedicated to promoting travel for migrants and these posts contained and contain basic information on the , point of departure, point of arrival and some indication on the price, date, month of departure. And the thing that left us most bewildered was that there was the phone number of the traffickers,” Baratto explained at Emergency’s meeting in Reggio Emilia.

    They are “tour operators” of pain, who ask to be reached by phone, WhatsApp, or Skype, which are more difficult to intercept. “We came up with scripts, stories saying: ‘I am in Italy but I have my sister, I have my brother, I have my parents .’ They answer, and if they don’t answer, they write to you. Within a maximum of half an hour you can talk to them on the phone and they give you all the information.” The more you pay, the safer, more “comfortable,” and more direct the journey is, and traffickers know how laws and policies of states in Europe change.

    “‘If you did this, why don’t the police do the same?’ ,” Baratto added. It is just too difficult to arrest traffickers one by one. The solution is only “a new approach to immigration,” he believes.

    Behind that market in the sunlight, there is hell – the hell that Emergency knows.

    “Is it possible to open a humanitarian corridor and decide with what means (to intervene)? … We know very well from where they come…” The only answer to those questions has been Europe’s agreement with Libya, ” ‘paying’ traffickers, providing patrol boats, money, convincing them not to let people leave. The flows from the countries of departure have not changed, the flows in the countries of arrival have greatly decreased. Where do all these people go? How do traffickers use them?” Parrino told us.

    To halt the chain of deaths, it would be necessary to eradicate the factors that force people to leave or to decide that it can’t be fate to open the doors of Europe: “Access cannot be by chance for who are saved at sea or manage to land on our shores by boat. We think that it should be much better structured, without launching ‘invasion’ alarms,” he said.

    Legal and safe access for those who must leave their countries: That’s the call of the NGO Emergency. Until then, it will be at sea because the sea swallows everything. “After a few minutes the sea is flat and you don’t realize that there has been a tragedy, there are no pieces left, nothing remains …” Parrino said from the Reggio Emilia stage.

    No one answered the SOS of the boat that took away the souls of those eighty people who died in mid-September, as happened to Loujin. No one listened to their cries, betraying the ancient law of the sea that imposes that obligation. Instead, Emergency wants to be there with its “Life Support” to respond to those ships that cry out. It will be one of the few of that small fleet of NGOs that resists the obstacles dictated by a guilty and inhuman bureaucracy that pulls invisible barbed wires straight into the water.

    A “bureaucracy,” the Italian one, to which the European Court of Justice replied in August, giving reason to the NGO’s Sea Watch vessels blocked for months in the ports of Palermo and Porto Empedocle in 2020. Ships subjected to inspections, prevented from operating for reasons such as “missing certifications” or “too many people on board.” Laws, political choices, and administrative stops that over time have forced NGOs to rethink even “how” help is brought.

    Emergency has already been operating since 2016 with other partners offering health and social assistance, a type of aid that was not so common in the past because search and rescue operations were quick and disembarkation never too long. But now, docking in Italy can be timeless.

    “The longest mission I can remember was fifty days. Fifty days at sea, of which at least thirty with the refugees on board because stuck in the harbor, with people jumping off the ship psychologists who had to get on,” Parrino remembered.

    There are no well-defined rules, he explained, but a lot of arbitrariness, differences according to the ports or the “political climate. There were moments that three or four days passed from identification at sea to disembarkation and moments when thirty or forty days passed,” he added.

    That’s why Life Support’s mission will be about fifteen days, as it could be necessary to stay on board longer. “If I had to leave and return from Sicily, it takes about a day to go patrolling in front of the Libyan coast, and you go there when there are good weather windows because in bad weather there are clearly no departures. Within two or three days you should be able to identify the target, so within four or five days the mission should be over.”

    That’s just theory. More often, boat persons must share the little space of the ship for days, and over time that forced coexistence can become hard. “Those vessels are clearly not cruise ships. We are renovating the one we bought to the fullest with the experience we have gained over the years, but there are certainly no one hundred and seventy cabins … so things get heavy.”

    Two or three days after the rescue, adrenaline turns into other fears, and “everything returns to memory: hunger, despair, what you have left … what you have suffered, the for what has been and for what will happen.” This is why keeping people on board for a long time has profound repercussions for everyone. We need to work “on empathy” and we need to increase the staff, doctors, nurses, “we need to have psychologists ready to board in case the ship has to stop, you have a crew under pressure,” Parrino explained.

    Search and rescue at sea by NGOs is often a divisive topic but saving lives cannot be divisive, ever. This is Energency’s starting point, also this time. That’s why the “Life Support” will go out into the open sea. On its red hull, it will take, off the shores of Genoa, the words of Gino Strada, its founder, who in 2017 won the SunHak Peace Prize and who passed away last year: “If the rights are not for every single person, you’d better call them privileges.”

    Life can’t be a privilege.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Accelerating Post-Pandemic SDG 6 Achievements on Water & Sanitation

    Accelerating Post-Pandemic SDG 6 Achievements on Water & Sanitation

    [ad_1]

    Credit: United Nations
    • Opinion by Manzoor Qadir, Guillaume Baggio (hamilton, canada)
    • Inter Press Service

    HAMILTON, Canada, Oct 20 (IPS) – Global progress has been staggeringly inadequate against Sustainable Development Goal 6, “clean water and sanitation for all.”

    According to the latest SDGs progress assessment, 2 billion people still lack safely managed drinking water, 3.6 billion lack sanitation services, and 3 billion lack basic hygiene services.

    Waterborne diseases continue to take a heavy toll on the global community, with hotspots in developing countries most acutely affected.

    To address this crisis, the United Nations launched the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework in 2020 to fast-track progress. The framework is a roadmap for aligning national policies and financial resources and scaling up action at all levels, but it has two fundamental flaws that need to be addressed.

    Impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic

    First, the Framework largely overlooks the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on the means by which safe drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene services will be provided where needed.

    The pandemic badly affected and continues to affect the financial, political, and institutional structures and the social fabric of countries. Debt and inflation in many countries are rising while foreign investment declined by 35 per cent from 2019 to 2021.

    The ability to make critical capital improvements has also been drastically affected during the pandemic, causing a delay in completing planned water and sanitation infrastructure and further enfeebling already underfunded services in developing countries.

    Global and national financial, political, and institutional structures need to be reshaped, and the social fabric repaired as part of a truly transformative sustainability agenda.

    Undervaluing SDGs interlinkages

    Second, the SDG 6 Global Acceleration Framework undervalues the potential of strengthening interlinkages across SDGs. While it recognizes the importance of SDG 6 interlinkages, it does not call for systematic change in traditional forms of decision-making in the water and sanitation sector.

    The risks of addressing SDGs individually without considering their interlinkages was the subject of warnings early in this global process. Moreover, SDG interlinkages are context-specific and depend on several factors, such as geography, governance, or socio-economic conditions.

    The current economic slowdown could push another 263 million people into extreme poverty in 2022 — a number roughly equal to the combined populations of Germany, France, the UK and Spain — further compounding challenges across critical dimensions of sustainable development, such as health, education, gender, and water and sanitation.

    Policy coherence is indispensable to sustainable development. A post-pandemic framework for sustainability requires policies that are mutually supportive across multiple sectors. Countries must move on from merely identifying interlinkages between SDGs to strengthening and acting on them.

    Two actions to bridge the gaps

    The impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic clearly necessitate better coordinated multi-sectoral policies. Next year, UN Member States meet at the UN 2023 Water Conference for the midterm review of the Water Action Decade 2018-2028, an effort to galvanize social, economic, and environmental action.

    National decision-makers and development actors need to act on the following recommendations:

    1. Prioritizing critical SDG 6 targets in the post-pandemic context. This means reshaping and strengthening today’s inadequate means of implementation and coming to the UN 2023 Water Conference with bold pledges, concentrating resources on bringing drinking water, sanitation, and hygiene services to the most vulnerable people — women and girls, migrants, the urban poor, schools, and hospitals, by 2030.

    2. Harnessing the potential of SDGs interlinkages in policies and implementation plans at all levels. Accelerating the achievement of SDG 6 supports many other SDGs, particularly those related to health, education, food, gender equality, energy, and climate change. In the context of scarce financial resources and insufficient capacity, countries can prioritize strongly interlinked SDGs to yield achievements across multiple sectors.

    We have seen and heard continuous global commitments to support the necessary conditions for sustainable development. In the post-pandemic context, progress in the water and sanitation sector has a new multifaceted purpose offering a wealth of benefits. It is time to realize them.

    Guillaume Baggio is a Research Assistant at the Department of Physical and Environmental Sciences, University of Toronto, and Manzoor Qadir is Assistant Director at the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health.

    UNU-INWEH is supported by the Government of Canada and hosted by McMaster University.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Time is Running Out for Decisions on Debt Relief as Countries Face Escalating Development Crisis

    Time is Running Out for Decisions on Debt Relief as Countries Face Escalating Development Crisis

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Lars Jensen, George Gray Molina (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Oct 19 (IPS) – Developing low- and middle-income economies are taking hard hits from global economic developments outside their control. Monetary tightening in advanced economies coupled with increasing fears of a global recession have weakened currencies, sent interest rates soaring, and investors fleeing.

    All of which is contributing to a rapid deterioration of an already damaging debt crisis which is, as ever, hitting the most vulnerable the hardest.

    In new research released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), 54 developing (low- and middle-income) economies are identified as suffering from severe debt problems, equal to 40 percent of all developing economies. 1

    Providing this group of countries with the debt relief they need should be a manageable task for the international economy as the group only accounts for little more than 3% of the world economy. Failing to do so, however, could result in catastrophic development setbacks as the group of 54 accounts for more than 50 percent of the world’s extreme poor and 28 of the world’s top-50 most climate vulnerable countries.

    Countries are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They cannot spend what is required to protect their citizens and safeguard their development prospects while continuing to also service their fast-rising debt burdens.

    Time is running out. Without an urgent step-up of debt relief efforts from the international community, many more defaults will follow, and the debt crisis will turn into an entrenched development crisis as history has taught us.

    Contrary to the advice given in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, in the face of high interest rates, inflation, and debt levels, the International Monetary Fund is now urging countries to reign in fiscal spending while providing targeted and time-bound support to vulnerable populations.

    But many developing economies cannot easily shift to effective and targeted social transfers or quickly increase tax revenues, – as the administrative capacity to do so takes years to build up.

    Without a viable alternative in the form of access to orderly and comprehensive debt restructuring, and additional liquidity support from the international community, countries will have to choose between a string of messy and costly defaults and/or abrupt spending cuts with disastrous consequences for low-income and vulnerable populations and development prospects at large.

    Furthermore, both options greatly increase the risk of political and social unrest threatening further setbacks and a deepening crisis.

    We must also remember that these things are happening against the backdrop of an intensifying climate crisis which we can only combat together as a global community. Without a rethink on debt relief the global climate transition will be delayed, the economic costs of the transition will rise, and developing economies, who have contributed the least to the problem, will continue to bear a disproportionate size of the costs.

    Developing economies must be allowed sufficient fiscal space to undertake ambitious sustainable development plans – including the undertaking of much-needed climate adaptation and mitigation investments.

    Debt relief is one of several crucial components of providing it. The G20’s Common Framework for Debt Treatments, under which countries with debt distress can seek a restructuring, will have to be reformed, including a shift in focus towards comprehensive debt restructurings in return for sustainable development objectives.

    This will require a change in attitude and sense of urgency, especially among major official creditors, as well as full debt transparency from both debtors and creditors. In our latest paper we discuss possible ways forward for the Common Framework focusing on country eligibility, debt sustainability analyses, official creditor coordination, private creditor participation, policy conditionalities and the use of debt clauses that target future economic and fiscal resilience.

    Decisions on debt relief can no longer wait.

    Nineteen developing economies – more than one-third of developing economies issuing dollar debt in international markets – have now lost markets access on account of skyrocketing interest rates, more than doubling from 9 countries at the beginning of 2022.

    Similarly, credit ratings have been sliding with 27 countries – close to one-third of credit-rated developing economies – rated either ‘substantial risk, extremely speculative, or default’, up from 10 countries at the beginning of 2020.

    Hard-won development gains achieved in the global south over decades are now being eroded by the intertwined cost-of-living and debt crises. Not only will a deepening development crisis result in great human suffering, but the cost of regaining whatever development gains are lost will increase substantially the longer we wait.

    It is inconceivable, both morally and economically, that we would allow a development crisis to escalate when the international community has the resources needed to stop it now.

    Lars Jensen is Economist at UNDP Strategic Policy Engagement Unit.; George Gray Molina is Head of Strategic Engagement and Chief Economist at UNDP

    1https://www.undp.org/publications/avoiding-too-little-too-late-international-debt-relief

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?

    Are Climate Summits a Waste of Time?

    [ad_1]

    How will the incoming Egyptian presidency step up to the challenge? And how too will the new UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, approach this major meeting? Credit: United Nations
    • Opinion by Felix Dodds, Chris Spence (new york)
    • Inter Press Service
    • The 27th annual UN climate summit is taking place in November. Will it be worth all the time and effort? Professor Felix Dodds and Chris Spence—who have attended many of them—share what they’ve learned.

    NEW YORK, Oct 18 (IPS) – Next month, the latest annual United Nations climate extravaganza, COP27, will take place in Sharm el-Sheikh, Egypt. Last year it was in Glasgow. Next year it will be held in (drum roll please) … Dubai!

    These big climate events have been around a long time. Since 1995, there has been a climate COP (short for “Conference of the Parties”) every year except 2020, when it was postponed due to the Covid pandemic. Over the years, the COP roadshow has traveled far and wide. From Berlin to Buenos Aires, Kyoto to Cancun, and Bali to Marrakesh, the COPs have criss-crossed the globe with the aim of finessing new agreements to see off the specter of climate change.

    These annual summits generate a lot of interest. The most recent in Glasgow attracted tens of thousands of participants. World leaders and celebrities often jet in and join the throng, while the global media reports every move in the corridors of power and concerned citizens protest outside. And yet the COPs are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg when it comes to UN-sponsored climate meetings.

    If you add the several preparatory meetings in the lead-up to the COPs, plus a host of workshops and other events by various expert technical groups, you’re easily looking at several dozen gatherings every year.

    Each event is supposed to help us move the needle on climate change, keeping our warming world within the 1.5o Celsius threshold beyond which we face potentially catastrophic consequences. But what, exactly, do all of these many meetings accomplish? Are they really worth all this time and effort?

    The climate bandwagon: Roll up for the never-ending world tour!

    There are plenty of arguments against letting the climate circus continue its endless circuit. For a start, science tells us that in spite of all the many meetings held, we’re still on a dangerous path. Groups like Carbon Action Tracker estimate that we’re currently on track for somewhere between 1.8-2.7 oC, with the lower number representing their most optimistic—and least likely—scenario. This is clearly well above where we need to be.

    Another common complaint is that UN climate COPs are mostly just talking shops; in Greta Thunberg’s words, too much “blah, blah, blah” and not enough action. For all the millions, even billions, of words uttered at these events, they can often end in acrimony with little of substance agreed. Surely, the money used to hold these summits could be better spent on something else?

    Even when agreement is reached, say the critics, there is no guarantee governments and other stakeholders will keep their pledges. History is littered with broken promises and diplomatic treaties that aren’t worth the paper they’re written on.

    These arguments are all credible and we don’t disagree with any of them. But here’s the thing. For all their weaknesses and flaws, these summits actually matter a lot.

    Like a rolling stone …

    First, the United Nations climate process has definitely moved the needle when it comes to our response to climate change. When the UN climate treaty was first signed in 1992, it triggered a wave of national laws, policies, and regulations that have rippled out across every country on earth. This process has started to shift almost every aspect of our modern economic system away from 200 years of reliance on fossil fuels.

    Take our global energy systems, for instance. From being a niche market in the 1990s that could not compete on cost with coal, oil and gas-generated electricity, in 2020 solar power became the cheapest source of electricity in history. The technology behind both solar and wind have moved on in leaps and bounds since the 1990s, thanks in large part to the flow-on effects of international lawmaking.

    The much-maligned Kyoto Protocol of 1997, now largely superseded by the 2015 Paris Agreement, brought the private sector firmly into the equation, launching carbon markets and spurring private sector investment that has begun to reshape our global economy away from its reliance on fossil fuels.

    From electric vehicles to power generation to building design, the number of changes catalyzed by our international work on climate change are too many too list. Probably the best metric for judging the UN climate summits, however, is their impact on long-term global warming.

    In recent years, projections for the expected long-term warming have fallen from as much as 4-6C before the Paris Agreement was inked, to around 1.8-2.7C now, assuming we implement pledges made at UN summits. And while anything above 1.5C is still very, very bad and the need for more action remains urgent, it’s not as unimaginably catastrophic as those higher numbers would be.

    The worst approach … except for all the others

    That’s not to say the UN climate process can’t be improved. Some people would like to see them shrunk back to their size in the early days, when just a couple of thousand people—key negotiators and a smaller number of other stakeholders—met in person. This, they say, would render it more manageable, reduce the carbon footprint, and make it less of a “circus.”

    There are arguments on both sides here. While on the one hand it is true that arguably only a few hundred diplomats could handle the haggling over the official UN documents under negotiation, it is worth noting the impact those other participants can have.

    For a start, many new pledges and promises are emerging on the sidelines of the official negotiations; “coalitions of the willing” wishing to make progress in specific sectors like, say, green investment, electric vehicles, reducing methane emissions or halting deforestation.

    These alliances of governments, private companies and other stakeholders are able to make advances in specific sectors where the official UN negotiations—which require consensus among more than 190 governments—cannot. The groups involved in such coalitions choose to network, negotiate, and announce their plans during the COPs because of the public interest in these events.

    Attend just one of these COPs and you will soon notice how many connections are made, partnerships are formed, and ideas generated, by participants not involved in the formal UN business of treatymaking. The benefits of these meetings and collaborations are hard to measure, but certainly considerable.

    UN negotiations can often feel glacial. With the scientific community—and the daily news of extreme weather events around the world—reminding us of the need for urgency, it can feel like the discussions are going far too slowly. Obviously, there is much more to be done in a short space of time given that we are still hurtling towards some pretty frightening outcomes without more progress. Still, the UN process has made a difference and started to move the needle, even if is not yet happening fast enough.

    And what are the alternatives? No single country or private entity stands a chance of dealing with this threat alone. Neither Amazon nor Google can conjure up an online answer to this type of problem. The US or China can’t “go it alone” and no coalition of governments has been able to deliver what’s needed. It is clear, therefore, that a multilateral, global process involving all governments and stakeholders presents our only chance of containing such a global threat.

    Winston Churchill once described democracy as the worst form of government except for all the others. The same applies to multilateralism and climate change. It is flawed, frustrating and at times agonizingly slow. But it is still without doubt our last best hope of success.

    Stepping up

    So what needs to happen at COP27 in Egypt? Many are describing it as the “implementation COP” where we begin to turn pledges and well-laid plans into action. There will be pressure for countries to come with bolder measures to reduce their national emissions and for wealthier nations to bring more money to the table when it comes to supporting the developing world. In particular, more support for adaptation, as well as financial help dealing with the loss and damage already wrought by climate change, will need to be addressed promptly.

    We will also need to see inspired leadership. In our new book, Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy, we argue that dedicated and committed individuals can make a significant difference at these events. Examples from the recent past, such as the dedication of a handful of scientists and diplomats who helped create the Montreal Protocol and save the ozone layer, show that we can all play our part in turning the tide.

    More recently Christiana Figueres, the former head of the UN climate office and one of the architects of the Paris Agreement, is an example of the type of leadership that will be required at the next COP. Figueres is an advocate of “stubborn optimism” and the need to blend urgency with action. We agree. Persistence, combined with a belief that there is still time to make a difference, should be our guiding light during this critical time.

    Currently, the UK as hosts of COP26 still hold the climate presidency, which they will hand over officially to Egypt at the start of COP27 in November. Glasgow exceeded many insiders’ expectations, with Alok Sharma delivering a poised performance in spite of the UK’s recent domestic political turmoil. How will the incoming Egyptian presidency step up to the challenge? And how too will the new UN climate chief, Simon Stiell, approach this major meeting?

    As we look to COP27 and beyond, we wonder who the heroes of tomorrow might be? With time running out, we need environmental champions now more than ever.

    Prof. Felix Dodds and Chris Spence have participated in UN environmental negotiations since the 1990s. They co-edited Heroes of Environmental Diplomacy: Profiles in Courage (Routledge, 2022).

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Rural Women Work the Hardest, Produce the Most, Eat the Least

    Rural Women Work the Hardest, Produce the Most, Eat the Least

    [ad_1]

    Rural women are less able to access land, credit, agricultural inputs, markets, and high-value agrifood chains and obtain lower prices for their crops. Credit: Mallika Aryal/IPS
    • by Baher Kamal (madrid)
    • Inter Press Service

    MADRID, Oct 17 (IPS) – Make no mistake. Violence against women has been perpetuated, especially when it comes to those who have already been deprived of their basic human rights, as is the case of rural women in over two-thirds of the world.

    While gender-based abuses continue to be extended also in the industrialised societies, women in impoverished countries are still the hardest hit.

    Did you know that smallholder agriculture produces nearly 80% of food in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa and supports the livelihoods of some 2.5 billion people?

    And that in many parts of Africa and Asia women produce more than 50% of all food?

    Yet they face significant discrimination when it comes to land and livestock ownership, equal pay, participation in decision-making entities, and access to resources, credit and market.

    Heavy workloads, no rights

    Moreover, rural women in these regions have also to bear with the current alarming increases in gender-based violence, transactional sex for food and survival, child marriage (with girls forced to leave school), and unpaid care and domestic workloads.

    Furthermore, rural women in poor regions are often left alone as males are recruited and killed in armed conflicts or obliged to migrate.

    In such cases, women are forced to bear the entire responsibility of keeping alive their numerous families, from care to food, while often eating the last and the least.

    International Day of Rural Women

    The above mentioned facts, among others, have been highlighted on the occasion of this year’s International Day of Rural Women on 15 October. See more:

    • Rural women are less able to access land, credit, agricultural inputs, markets, and high-value agrifood chains and obtain lower prices for their crops,
    • Structural barriers and discriminatory social norms continue to constrain women’s decision-making power and participation in rural households and communities.
    • Women and girls in rural areas lack equal access to productive resources and assets, public services, such as education and health care, and infrastructure, including water and sanitation,
    • Much of their labour remains invisible and unpaid, even as their workloads become increasingly heavy due to the out-migration of men.
    • Globally, with few exceptions, every gender and development indicator for which data are available reveals that rural women fare worse than rural men and urban women,
    • Rural women disproportionately experience poverty, exclusion, and the effects of climate change.

    In short, women account for a substantial proportion of the agricultural labour force, including informal work, and perform the bulk of unpaid care and domestic work within families and households in rural areas.

    Two related world days

    The focus on the harsh living conditions of rural women has been flashed out just one day before this year’s World Food Day (16 October), and two days earlier to the 2022 International Day for the Eradication of Poverty (17 October).

    In either case, the Days remind that millions of people around the world cannot afford a healthy diet, putting them at high risk of food insecurity and malnutrition.

    “But ending hunger isn’t only about supply. Enough food is produced today to feed everyone on the planet.”

    Despite this fact, about 1.3 billion tons of food is wasted and lost… every single year, the equivalent of one ton per each of the one billion hungry people, many of them are those who produced the food.

    In its recent reports: A World of One Billion Empty Plates, and Millions of Girls Abused in the Name of Toxic Masculinity, IPS has exposed how rising, cruel inequalities further push billions of humans into deeper impoverishment hitting girls and women the most.

    Nevertheless, far from addressing such a grim reality, the world’s biggest war lords continue to spend on weapons in just one year, the equivalent to the budget of the largest humanitarian body–the United Nations for over a long half a century.

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • World Food Day 2022 Call to Action as 828M People Go Hungry

    World Food Day 2022 Call to Action as 828M People Go Hungry

    [ad_1]

    Climate change, among other crises, has impacted on food security. Changing rainfall patterns have affected a rural community from Kondh Adivasis, Odisha. Credit: Credit: Aniket Gawade / Climate Visuals Countdown
    • by Naureen Hossain (new york)
    • Inter Press Service
    • World Food Day is celebrated on October 16, 2022, with the theme Leave NO ONE behind. During this week, IPS will publish features that showcase better production, better nutrition, a better environment, and a better life.

    New York, Oct 14 (IPS) – In this year alone, the global impact of compounding crises demonstrates, more than ever, why food scarcity must be addressed internationally and how there must be a shift in the food and agricultural systems.

    October 16 is World Food Day, and this year it seems crucial to take stock of the causes and consequences of global food insecurity. Food insecurity has already been of greater concern in recent years due to the global COVID-19 pandemic disrupting our interconnected governance, trade, welfare, and humanitarian aid systems. This year has seen a continuation of those disruptions exacerbated by the ongoing pandemic and increasing challenges brought on by climate and environment-induced disasters, conflict, and rising prices.

    The impact could not be more obvious. Findings from the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) show that over 40% of the world population – or 3.1 billion people – cannot afford a healthy diet and that 828 million people are hungry. Rising food prices across crops in meats, cereals, and oils have disrupted the Food Price Index, which has been declining for six months.

    The increase in food insecurity and its impact on global hunger has been observed worldwide. But between certain regions, there are clear disparities. Africa has been bearing the greater burden of food insecurity. A new report from the FAO reveals that in 2021, 20.2 percent, or one-fifth of the total population, went hungry. The next highest rate is Asia, with 9.1 percent. A disparity that wide should be more than enough to raise the alarm.

    This food insecurity has also resulted in micronutrient deficiencies, such as zinc, iron, vitamin A, vitamin B, folate, and vitamin D. While at first unnoticeable; these deficiencies can lead to long-term losses in health and cognitive development. This would be fatal, especially to young children still developing and still needing proper nutrition.

    Researchers from the Global Alliance for Improved Nutrition (GAIN) conducted an analysis of the global prevalence of micronutrient deficiencies in preschool-aged children and non-pregnant women of reproductive age. Its findings suggested that over half of the preschoolers and two-thirds of the women in the study reported a deficiency in either iron, zinc, or folate. Regionally, the majority of the children and women lived in east Asia and the Pacific, south Asia, or sub-Saharan Africa. While the report acknowledged its limitations, and in how rarely the rate of deficiency is quantified and the absence of a global standard rate at the time of the study, as GAIN Executive Director Dr Lawrence Haddad has noted, one might observe the troubling implications for a wider demographic.

    “Once we factor in males and other age groups, such as schoolchildren and the elderly, these numbers imply that our current global suggestion that two billion people suffer from hidden hunger is a gross underestimation,” he said.

    In the context of Africa and the Sahel region, local governments’ capacity to respond to the food crisis have been limited or difficult to implement in the face of conflict within the region and in neighboring countries. Even international intervention from groups like FAO and World Food Programme (WFP) have had to work with limited resources and funding. In February, it was reported that within the last three years in the Sahel, the number of people dealing with starvation increased dramatically and dangerously, from 3.6 to 10.5 million.

    Forced displacement caused by conflict in the region also impacts food security, as more than 5 million people live in forced displacement from Burkina Faso to the Lake Chad Basin area.

    But what is perhaps more pressing, and more devastating, is the impact of climate change or environment-induced disasters on food security. The Sahel region in particular is susceptible to extreme weather conditions such as heavy rains and floods, and the Horn of Africa is suffering from a historic drought this year. Looking at other regions, the recent floods that devastated Pakistan destroyed over $70 billion USD worth in rice crops. This has also led to a rise in rice prices in the international market from other major rice exporters such as India, Thailand, and Viet Nam. Meanwhile, sub-Saharan Africa is heavily dependent on rice imports. It is an example of how connected the world is, and how we are dependent on each other to help meet that most basic and essential need: food.

    With all these crises piling onto one another, it is easy to feel overwhelmed. But it also makes the theme of World Food Day even more pertinent. It is why this year’s theme feels more like a call to action: leave no one behind. These challenges will persist and only further overwhelm the global community unless we are united in our efforts to mitigate food insecurity. We are undeniably and inextricably dependent on each other to meet our needs for food, health, and security. “Leave no one behind” is a simplified reminder and approach, to a problem with complex parts and overlapping problems.

    This call to action will only ring true when greater systematic changes are implemented in the food systems, and when this is revisited frequently rather than left for the next big natural disaster.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • IPBES, IPCC Joint Winners of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022 Dedicated to Climate Change

    IPBES, IPCC Joint Winners of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022 Dedicated to Climate Change

    [ad_1]

    Anne Larigauderie, the Executive Secretary of IPBES, with Hoesung Lee, President of the IPCC. IPBES and the IPCC were joint winners of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022, which was dedicated to climate change. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
    • by Joyce Chimbi (nairobi)
    • Inter Press Service

    Nairobi, Oct 13 (IPS) – IPBES’ assessment report on the Sustainable Use of Wild Species, released in July 2022, painted a troubling picture of the ongoing global biodiversity crisis that could paralyse economies and endanger food security and livelihoods.

    Earlier in February 2022, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) painted a similarly troubling picture: a warning that every tenth of a degree of additional warming could escalate threats to people, species, and ecosystems.

    IPBES and IPCC both produce scientific knowledge, alert society to climate change and biodiversity loss, and inform decision-makers to make better choices for combatting climate change and the loss of biodiversity. In doing so, they provide tools to foster a low-carbon future, mitigate climate change’s negative effects, and promote a resilient society.

    For their contribution to climate change adaptation and resilience building, IPBES and IPCC today (October 13, 2022) emerged winners of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022, which was dedicated to climate change.

    “The decision to award the 2022 Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity to both IPBES and the IPCC is a powerful statement confirming that the global loss of species, destruction of ecosystems, and degradation of nature’s contributions to people together represent a crisis not only of similar magnitude to that of climate change, but one which must be addressed with at least similar urgency,” said Anne Larigauderie, the Executive Secretary of IPBES who accepted the prize alongside Hoesung Lee, President of the IPCC.

    “The unified message from both of our expert communities is that either we tackle and solve the biodiversity crisis and the climate crisis together – or we will fail on both fronts.”

    Additionally, Lee emphasised that science was “our most powerful instrument to tackle climate change, a clear and imminent threat to our wellbeing and livelihoods, the wellbeing of our planet and all of its species. For IPCC scientists, this prize is an important recognition and encouragement. For the decision-makers, it is another push for more decisive climate action.”

    IPBES is an independent, intergovernmental body set up in 2012 with the objective of improving the interface between scientific knowledge and political decision-makers on questions around biodiversity, the protection of ecosystems, human wellbeing, and sustainability.

    IPCC, the Nobel Peace Prize winner in 2007, in conjunction with Al Gore, is a United Nations-affiliated organisation that fosters the production of scientific knowledge within the scope of evaluating the climate impacts of human actions and supporting governments with regard to their decision-making and the implementation of measures able to combat climate change.

    Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, chaired the jury Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS
    Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, chaired the jury Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity 2022. Credit: Joyce Chimbi/IPS

    The two entities – IPBES and IPCC – were selected out of 116 nominations from 41 nationalities spanning five continents. Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, chaired the jury with vice-chair Miguel Bastos Araújo (Geographer, Pessoa Award 2018).

    Merkel attended the prizegiving, as did António Feijó, President of the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation that introduced the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity in 2020.

    The focus on climate change, Feijó explained, was a very simple decision: “Climate change and all which this philanthropic organisation does, they represent an existential condition for humanity.”

    Merkel reiterated the importance of focusing on climate change acknowledging the controversies that often surround decisions made and the many policies on the table for the potential way ahead.

    “Science is the most important link. Scientific evidence cannot be removed from the equation. We may have our own political views, but I believe we must make the right decision in order to ensure the survival of humanity,” Merkel observed.

    Merkel further stressed that humanity now faces two crises, biodiversity loss and climate change, emphasising their interlinkages.

    On biodiversity, Larigauderie spoke of the 2019 Global Assessment Report on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, which alerted the world that a million species, out of an overall eight million, of plants and animals, now face extinction – many within decades.

    This degradation of nature, she said, is affecting the capacity of ecosystems to deliver on a number of key functions central to human survival, including the capacity to mitigate against climate change and to achieve food security.

    The jury, comprised of leading figures in global climate and environment research and action, highlighted how this prize recognises the role of science on the front line of tackling climate change and the loss of biodiversity.

    Finding that “evidence-based science has been fundamental not only to advancing many of the political and public actions but also the need to attribute the ‘nature of urgency’ to the ways in which the political agenda approaches the question of combatting the climate crisis”.

    In this regard, Larigauderie and Lee expressed their gratitude to thousands of scientists and indigenous and local knowledge holders for volunteering their time and expertise to deliver robust research on climate change and biodiversity.

    “Our reports are the most authoritative, may I say, the scientific voice of the United Nations about climate change. They provide the world’s leaders and decision-makers at all levels with a sound and most scrutinised scientific knowledge about our climate system, climate change and how to tackle it,” Lee observed.

    “The Prize comes at a critical time for climate change science. IPCC reports are clear and unequivocal. Climate change is man-made, widespread, rapid and intensifying. Today, we are not on track to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.”

    Against this backdrop, the Jury stressed that IPBES and IPCC stood out in highlighting the relationship between “science, climate, biodiversity and society, representing the best that is done in this field all around the world.”

    The Jury, therefore, recognised how the two organisations serve to emphasise “the need to look at the climate crisis and biodiversity in conjunction, with concerted approaches making recourse to nature-based solutions.”

    With an annual cash award of €1 million, the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity recognise people, groups of people or organisations from across the globe that make outstanding, innovative, and impactful contributions to mitigate and adapt to climate change.

    This is the third edition of the Gulbenkian Prize for Humanity. It was awarded for the first time in 2020 to the young Swedish activist Greta Thunberg. In 2021 the Prize was awarded to the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy, the largest global alliance for climate leadership in cities, comprising more than 10,600 cities and local governments from 140 countries, including Portugal.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • How Digital Can Drive a Green Recovery

    How Digital Can Drive a Green Recovery

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Riad Meddeb (united nations)
    • Inter Press Service

    UNITED NATIONS, Oct 13 (IPS) – As much of the world was starting to glimpse recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, it now finds itself amid a cost-of-living crisis brought on by disruptions in global energy and food markets that are the result of conflict and climate change.

    This again highlights how societal and planetary imbalances reinforce each other, as well as the need for a truly inclusive and green recovery. One that is foundational for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

    The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrated that digital is no longer optional. Countries with existing digital foundations were much better equipped to respond to citizens’ needs, including through the effective delivery of public services such as healthcare, social security benefits, and remote education. Digital will play a similarly important role in shaping a global green recovery.

    Beyond building national socioeconomic resilience, digital transformation is also proving a key enabler in advancing global climate commitments. Countries supported by UNDP are leveraging digital in innovative ways to redouble their efforts to adopt renewable energy, transition to a circular economy, and to protect biodiversity.

    Ecuador is building a digital traceability system for monitoring land use change and to track commodities through the supply chain. Papua New Guinea has piloted a mobile phone application to assist law enforcers to quickly record and report environmental harms such as illegal logging and bush fires.

    Riad Meddeb

    Whether it’s emerging technologies like Artificial Intelligence (AI) or more established digital tools like the mobile phone digital can be a fundamental driver of change. It is reshaping the dynamics between the economy, governments, businesses, and civil society and is an important tool in rebalancing our planetary, societal, and economic priorities.

    However, digital is fast becoming the global metric of both inclusion and exclusion. With 37 percent of the world’s population still offline, the digital divide, notably, the lack of accessible broadband, gaps in digital skills, and marginalized groups excluded from technology, has become a key barrier for countries wanting to capitalize on the potential opportunities of the increasingly digital economy.

    And digital technologies themselves could constrain a Green Recovery. The industry’s carbon footprint could account for about 14 percent of global emissions by 2040. If digital were a country, it would nearly surpass the US as the second largest contributor to climate change. And this impact may worsen, with emerging technologies also contributing to increased emissions.

    Digital and a green recovery

    Integrating sustainable development in digital is central to ensuring a green recovery – one that drives inclusive digital access and capacity, promotes openness and open data, and fosters innovations that increase the efficiency of digital technologies and mitigates their environmental footprint.

    In this context, the UNDP Global Centre for Technology, Innovation and Sustainable Development organized its flagship event ‘Digital for a Green Recovery’ on the sidelines of the World Cities Summit in Singapore. The event highlighted three priorities for an inclusive and green digital transformation.

    First, we must put people at the centre of innovation. This includes ensuring the availability of foundational digital infrastructure so that everyone can benefit. We must also ensure that the technical standards and explorations of emerging technologies are ‘human-centred’, founded on the local needs and aspirations of populations, but also ‘environment-centred’.

    Second, we need to strengthen collaboration between innovation ecosystems. Innovation doesn’t happen in a vacuum. It requires an enabling ecosystem comprising policies and regulations, investors, incubators and accelerators; and educational institutions. Digital can be a potent enabler for connecting dispersed national and global innovation ecosystems in pursuit of sustainability.

    Third, data is the lifeblood of digital transformation and could be an important equalizer for countries in accelerating their efforts towards the Sustainable Development Goals.

    However, a number of countries lack even foundational data infrastructure, such as data centres, communication networks, and energy grids. We need to accelerate efforts to build data capacity to ensure that existing digital divides are not widened.

    Digital is an indispensable enabler for driving a green and inclusive recovery. But it is truly a ‘whole-of-society’ endeavour.

    As a platform to showcase innovation, best practice, and to foster partnerships, the UNDP Global Centre for Technology, Innovation, and Sustainable Development will continue to convene global discussions, support and align innovation ecosystems around the world, and guide governments in leveraging the potential afforded by digital. Through driving the experimentation, adoption, and scaling of digital, we can shape a Green Recovery that works for both people and planet.

    Riad Meddeb is Acting Director, UNDP Global Centre for Technology, Innovation and Sustainable Development & Senior Principal Advisor for SIDS

    These insights were drawn from ‘Digital for a Green Recovery’ – the Flagship Event of the UNDP Global Centre for Technology, Innovation and Sustainable Development, held on the sidelines of the World Cities Summit 2022 in Singapore.

    Source: UNDP Blog

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Reform Needed As Big Business, Not Vulnerable Communities Benefit from Post-Pandemic Support

    Reform Needed As Big Business, Not Vulnerable Communities Benefit from Post-Pandemic Support

    [ad_1]

    Informal sector only received 4 percent of post pandemic funds even though the sector accounts for more than 2 billion workers, many of whom are women. Credit: IITA
    • by Ed Holt (bratislava)
    • Inter Press Service

    BRATISLAVA, Oct 12 (IPS) – Governments and international financial institutions must adopt new ways of providing post-pandemic support, say campaigners after a report found that in many poorer countries, big business benefitted most from Covid-19 recovery funds. At the same time, vulnerable communities have been “left behind.”

    They say the level and distribution of support of these funds has been poor, with the most vulnerable in society, such as informal workers and women, among others, having been especially failed by relief programmes.

    And they warn that the measures have actually only deepened inequalities at a time when the UN has warned that up to 95 million additional people could soon fall into extreme poverty in comparison with pre-Covid-19 levels.

    Matti Kohonen, Director of the Financial Transparency Coalition (FTC), which was behind the report, told IPS: “The elite have been sheltered from the worst effects of the pandemic. Nearly 40 percent of Covid-19 recovery funds went to large corporations, through measures like loans and tax cuts. This means that social protection for, in particular, women and informal workers, has been inadequate.”

    The FTC’s research found that in 21 countries in the Global South, large corporations received 38 percent of recovery funds while small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) got 20 percent. Social protection measures accounted for 38 percent.

    Meanwhile, informal workers received only 4 percent of the funds in the countries surveyed, and the research showed that in many of those states, they actually received nothing at all.

    Studies have shown that informal workers, and especially women, were globally hit hardest by the Covid-19 pandemic, and that economic policy measures taken in response have largely been gender-blind, exacerbating existing gender inequality and economic precarity in the sector.

    According to the International Labour Organisation (ILO), of the 2 billion informal workers worldwide, over 740 million are women. However, there is a higher share of women than men in informal employment in many of the world’s poorest regions: in more than 90 percent of countries in sub-Saharan Africa, 89 percent of southern Asian countries, and almost 75 percent of Latin American countries.

    These women also often have jobs most likely to be associated with poor conditions, limited or non-existent labour rights and social protection, and low pay.

    The FTC report points out that while the COVID-19 pandemic has had a huge impact on women’s employment, working hours, and increases in unpaid domestic and care work duties, it found that women received half the funds than men received as most money provided to corporates and also smaller companies predominantly went to men (representing over 59 percent of funds).

    Klelia Guerrero, Economist at The Latin American Network for Economic and Social Justice (LATINDADD), who helped with research into the FTC report, said that just doing work collecting data on the distribution of recovery funds underlined how little thought had been given to women in Covid-19 response policies.

    It was only in a handful of the countries surveyed (Guatemala, Honduras, Bangladesh, Brazil, and Costa Rica) that partial gender-disaggregated data on Covid-19 grants were made available to analyze Covid-19 support.

    “Most countries did not have disaggregated gender data; it was only partial. This in itself should be a red flag – it shows that the people who were implementing these support schemes did not think of women as a priority,” Guerrero told IPS.

    And while the report shows that women did receive the majority of social protection funds in the countries surveyed, even some of those programmes “had discriminative aspects”.

    “For example, here in Ecuador, we had a scheme where people had to register online and then go at certain times to receive their aid products. This was difficult for a lot of women who had to be in the home at those times, or there was no public transport to get to the places to receive aid. So, women were disadvantaged,” she said.

    “Some groups of the population did benefit from Covid relief measures, but the most vulnerable not as much. It was difficult for them to access the aid. The criteria under which aid is given out should include a gender perspective.” she added.

    Other equality campaigners agree.

    “Numerous research has shown how, especially in Africa, women make up the majority of the informal sector. One of the big takeaways of the report is the poor targeting of women in the support response. Programmes going forward need to take into account the gender dimension of any policy,” Ishmael Zulu, Tax and Policy Officer at the Tax Justice Network Africa (TJNA), told IPS.

    Groups like the FTC and its members, including the TJNA, say the report’s findings are important not just in terms of the post-pandemic recovery but in highlighting the need to change how support is given to the most vulnerable communities in developing countries in the long-term future.

    Ishmael pointed out that in one scheme in Zambia, the government introduced stimulus to help SMEs and informal workers, but the money was channelled through commercial banks that set specific requirements to access that money, including the need to provide bank statements.

    “Of course, that is very difficult for many informal workers. They just couldn’t provide those documents. So, in the end, even money meant for vulnerable groups ended up in the hands of big corporations, which are the ones that can provide those documents,” he explained. “It speaks of the weakness of the system.”

    The FTC report has also warned that policies pursued by international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), of pushing countries to introduce austerity measures and cut funding for basic public services in return for debt restructuring is making things worse.

    It cites the example of the cuts in public spending and rises in Value-Added Taxes (VAT) being imposed as part of an IMF loan program in Zambia, saying this will have the greatest impact on the poor.

    Ishmael said: “Our current financial structures have perpetuated inequality in the way, for instance, financial institutions give loans: several countries have had to reform their tax systems … and these financial institutions say subsidies and spending should be channelled into some areas and not others, and it ends up that money is targeted towards large corporates, and vulnerable communities are left behind.”

    He added: “We saw growing inequality , and so when Covid-19 hit, we saw how these vulnerable communities were left behind without safety nets. Governments must put in place sustainable social protection systems providing safety nets to help lift people out of poverty and which won’t just respond to a pandemic or an emergency, but respond to fighting poverty and inequality.”

    The FTC is planning to present its findings at the IMF/World Bank Annual Meetings later this month.

    The FTC’s report calls for all countries and international institutions, including the IMF and World Bank, to implement what it describes as “alternative policies to bring a people-centered recovery instead of austerity”.

    These include, among others, taxing excess windfall corporate profits, introducing progressive levels of income and wealth taxes, and increasing social security contributions and coverage.

    Kohonen said informal workers and women should be at the heart of any such policies.

    “Informal sector and women workers really pulled us through the pandemic, and it is wrong to now impose austerity on them. Support needs to be in place for informal and women workers, people on the front lines, before a pandemic so that support can be then scaled up if needed, in the form of loans, grants or other aid,” he said.

    IPS UN Bureau Report


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Development Banks Should Reform Their Lending Practices

    Development Banks Should Reform Their Lending Practices

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Alexander Kozul-Wright, Ruurd Brouwer (geneva)
    • Inter Press Service
    • The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank share a common goal of raising living standards in their member countries. This week, the two international institutions will convene in Washington DC (through October 16) for their annual meeting. The strength of the US dollar will be a key talking point. By adjusting their lending practices, these institutions have a unique opportunity to relieve suffering in the world’s poorest countries.

    GENEVA, Oct 11 (IPS) – In the last week of September, emerging market (EM) bond fund outflows hit $4.2 billion, according to JP Morgan, bringing this year’s total to a record $70 billion. The exodus, set off by a rising U.S. dollar, is heaping pressure on low-income countries.

    The greenback’s rise has been fuelled by interest-rate hikes by the Federal Reserve. Since March, the Fed has raised rates by three percentage points, prompting global investors to move their funds into U.S. financial assets and away from (riskier) EM investments.

    While economists continue to wrangle over their U.S. growth forecasts, this ‘flight to quality’ has sent financial shockwaves across the developing world, already straining under elevated costs for food and fuel – typically priced in U.S. dollars. Moreover, attempts by EM policy makers to stem the dollar’s rise have largely failed.

    Over the course of this year, central banks around the world have drained their U.S. dollar reserves at the fastest rate since 2008. To stem currency depreciations, they have also raised interest rates aggressively. In Argentina, for instance, policy makers raised rates to 75% last month. To little avail.

    The MSCI Emerging Market Currency Index, which measures the total return of 25 emerging market currencies against the U.S. Dollar, is down nearly 9 percent from January 1st. The Egyptian pound has depreciated by 20% over the same period, according to Bloomberg data. In Ghana, the Cedi has fallen by 41%.

    On top of higher imports costs, a plunging currency makes the servicing of dollar- denominated debt more expensive. This concern may seem abstract to people in advanced economies. In developing nations, however, the effects are painfully real.

    As the dollar appreciates relative to other currencies, more domestic currency (in the form of tax revenues) has to be generated to service existing dollar debts. For low-income governments, budget cuts have to be implemented in the hope of avoiding sovereign default.

    Currency depreciations have the power to strongarm authorities into reducing health and education spending, just to stay current on their debts. This leaves officials with a grim choice: either risk unleashing a full-blown debt crisis, or confiscate essential public services.

    Given the painful costs of insolvency, governments tend to prioritize austerity over bankruptcy. Together with the oft-publicized effects of lost access to foreign investment, subdued growth and high unemployment, sovereign default also imposes severe social tolls.

    In August, the World Bank published a paper measuring the decline in country living standards – looking at access to food, energy and healthcare – after state bankruptcies. The paper showed that ten years after default, countries experience 13% more infant deaths per year, on average, compared to the synthetic control (counterfactual) group.

    Admittedly, more developed emerging markets like Brazil and India can issue bonds in their own currency to limit budget cutbacks. In most of the world’s poor countries, however, financial markets are too shallow to support domestic lending.

    With no recourse to borrow from private creditors, public bodies like multi-lateral development banks (MDBs) usually step in to fill the gap. Indeed, almost 90% of low-income countries’ (LICs) funding takes the form of concessional, or non-commercial, loans from official lenders.

    Even accounting for these favourable terms, financial pressures are beginning to build outside of well-known hot spots like Lebanon, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. As it stands, LICs have outstanding debts to MDBs and other official creditors to the tune of $153 billion (mostly denominated in USD).

    Given the exogenous trigger for capital outflows from developing countries this year, multi-lateral lenders need to be more innovative. Where possible, they should use their robust credit ratings to assume greater risk by lending to poor countries in domestic currencies.

    Failing that, they could lend in synthetic local currencies. These instruments index dollar debts to local exchange rates, allowing borrowers to service liabilities in their own currency while ensuring that creditors receive payments (both interest and principal) in dollars.

    Synthetic currencies can improve debtor credit profiles by limiting foreign capital outflows and, by extension, improve debt management capacity. In particular, they boost economic resiliency by making government finances less a function of international currency volatility.

    Multilateral financial institutions have been tasked with designing a stable international monetary system to try and ease global poverty. But the loans provided by these groups undermine their own mission, as dollar debts force currency risk onto the countries least able to handle it.

    This week, the World Bank and the IMF will convene in Washington (October 10-16) for their annual meeting. The strength of the USD will be a key talking point. By adjusting their lending practices, these institutions have a unique opportunity to relieve suffering in the world’s poorest countries.

    Alexander Kozul-Wright is a researcher at Third World Network and Ruurd Brouwer is Chief Executive Officer at TCX, a currency hedging firm (https://www.tcxfund.com).

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • Central Bank Myths Drag down World Economy

    Central Bank Myths Drag down World Economy

    [ad_1]

    • Opinion by Jomo Kwame Sundaram, Anis Chowdhury (sydney and kuala lumpur)
    • Inter Press Service

    SYDNEY and KUALA LUMPUR, Oct 10 (IPS) – The dogmatic obsession with and focus on fighting inflation in rich countries are pushing the world economy into recession, with many dire consequences, especially for poorer countries. This phobia is due to myths shared by most central bankers.

    Anis Chowdhury

    Myth 1: Inflation chokes growth

    The common narrative is that inflation hurts growth. Major central banks (CBs), the Bretton Woods institutions (BWIs) and the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) all insist inflation harms growth despite all evidence to the contrary. The myth is based on a few, very exceptional cases.

    “Once-in-a-generation inflation in the US and Europe could choke off global growth, with a global recession possible in 2023”, claimed the World Economic Forum Chief Economist’s Outlook under the headline, “Inflation Will Lead Inexorably To Recession”.

    The Atlantic recently warned, “Inflation Is Bad… raising the prospect of a period of economic stagnation or even a recession”. The Economist claims, “It hurts investment and makes most people poorer”.

    Jomo Kwame Sundaram

    Without evidence, the narrative claims causation runs from inflation to growth, with inevitable “adverse” consequences. But serious economists have found no conclusive supporting evidence.

    World Bank chief economist Michael Bruno and William Easterly asked, “Is inflation harmful to growth?” With data from 31 countries for 1961-94, they concluded, “The ratio of fervent beliefs to tangible evidence seems unusually high on this topic, despite extensive previous research”.

    OECD evidence for 1961-2021 – Figures 1a & 1b – updates Bruno & Easterly, again contradicting the ‘standard narrative’ of major CBs, BWIs, BIS and others. The inflation-growth relationship is strongly positive when 1974-75 – severe oil spike recession years – are excluded.

    The relationship does not become negative even when 1974-75 are included. Also, the “Great Inflation” of 1965-82 did not harm growth. Hence, there is no empirical basis for setting a particular threshold, such as the now standard 2% inflation target – long acknowledged as “plucked from the air”!

    Developing countries also have a positive inflation-growth relationship if extreme cases – e.g., inflation rates in excess of 20%, or ‘excessively’ impacted by commodity price volatilities, civil strife, war – are omitted (Figures 2a & 2b).

    Figure 2a summarizes evidence for 82 developing countries during 1991-2021. Although slightly weakened, the positive relationship remained, even if the 1981-90 debt crises years are included (Figure 2b).

    Myth 2: Inflation always accelerates

    Another popular myth is that once inflation begins, it has an inherent tendency to accelerate. As inflation supposedly tends to speed up, not acting decisively to nip it in the bud is deemed dangerous. So, the IMF chief economist advises, “Don’t let inflation ‘genie’ out of the bottle”. Hence, inflation has to be ‘nipped in the bud’.

    But, in fact, OECD inflation has never exceeded 16% in the past six decades, including the 1970s’ oil shock years. Inflation does not accelerate easily, even when labour has more bargaining power, or wages are indexed to consumer prices – as in some countries.

    Bruno & Easterly only found a high likelihood of inflation accelerating when inflation exceeded 40%. Two MIT economists – Rüdiger Dornbusch and Stanley Fischer, later International Monetary Fund Deputy Managing Director – came to a similar conclusion, describing 15–30% inflation as “moderate”.

    Dornbusch & Fischer also stressed, “Most episodes of moderate inflation were triggered by commodity price shocks and were brief; very few ended in higher inflation”. Importantly, they warned, “such inflations can be reduced only at a substantial … cost to growth”.

    Myth 3: Hyperinflation threatens

    Although extremely rare, avoiding hyperinflation has become the pretext for central bankers prioritizing inflation prevention. Hyperinflation – at rates over 50% for at least a month – is undoubtedly harmful for growth. But as IMF research shows, “Since 1947, hyperinflations in market economies have been rare”.

    Many of the worst hyperinflation episodes in history were after World War Two and the Soviet demise. Bruno & Easterly also mention breakdowns of economic and political systems – as in Iran or Nicaragua, following revolutions overthrowing corrupt despotic regimes.

    A White House staff blog noted, “The inflationary period after World War II is likely a better comparison for the current economic situation than the 1970s and suggests that inflation could quickly decline once supply chains are fully online and pent-up demand levels off”.

    Myth 4: Evidence-based policymaking

    Central bankers love to claim their policymaking is evidence-based. They cite one another and famous economists to enhance the aura of CB “credibility”.

    Unsurprisingly, the Reserve Bank of New Zealand promoted its arbitrary 2% inflation target mainly by endless repetition – not strong evidence or superior logic. They simply “devoted a huge amount of effort” to preaching the new mantra “to everybody who would listen – and some who were reluctant to listen”.

    The narrative also suited those concerned about wage pressures. Fighting inflation has provided an excuse to further weaken workers’ working conditions and pay. Thus, labour’s share of income has been declining since the 1970s.

    Greater central bank independence (from the executive) has enhanced the influence and power of financial interests – largely at the expense of the real economy. Output and employment growth weakened as a result, worsening the lot of the many, especially in the global South.

    Fact: Central banks induce recessions

    Inappropriate CB policies have often slowed economic growth without mitigating inflation. Hawkish CB responses to inflation can become self-fulfilling prophecies with high inflation seemingly associated with recessions or growth collapses.

    Before becoming Fed chair, Ben Bernanke’s research team concluded, “an important part of the effect of oil price shocks on the economy results not from the change in oil prices, per se, but from the resulting tightening of monetary policy”.

    Thus, central bank interventions have caused contractions without reducing inflation. The longest US recession after the Great Depression – in the early 1980s – was due to Fed chair Paul Volcker’s 1979-81 interest rate hikes.

    A New York Times opinion-editorial recently warned, “The Powell pivot to tighter money in 2021 is the equivalent of Mr. Volcker’s 1981 move”, and “the 2020s economy could resemble the 1980s”.

    Fearing an “extremely severe” world recession, Columbia University history professor Adam Tooze has summed up the current CBs’ interest rate hike frenzy as “the single most dramatic simultaneous tightening of monetary policy ever”!

    Phobias, especially if based on unfounded beliefs, never offer good bases for sound policymaking.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • How to Get on Track to Eradicate Extreme Poverty

    How to Get on Track to Eradicate Extreme Poverty

    [ad_1]

    The Graduation approach’s impact goes well beyond that of the individual participant. Not only does the household greatly benefit from its various interventions, but now studies show subsequent generations are able to stay out of the poverty trap. (Rangpur, Bangladesh). Credit: BRAC/2021
    • Opinion by Gregory Chen (washington dc)
    • Inter Press Service
    • Gregory Chen is Managing Director of BRAC’s Ultra-Poor Graduation Initiative

    WASHINGTON DC, Oct 10 (IPS) – As we approach 2030, the Sustainable Development Goals look harder than ever to achieve. Shocks to the global economy caused by climate change, COVID-19, and conflict threaten humanity’s survival. For the most vulnerable, trends are moving in the wrong direction with an additional 75 to 95 million people now living in extreme poverty compared to pre-pandemic World Bank projections. By the end of this year more than 657 million people will still be living in extreme poverty substantially more than in 2018.

    Though we cannot blame the recent crises alone. Even before the crises of the past few years the globe was beginning to realize addressing extreme poverty required new approaches. Economic growth alone remains insufficient and conventional anti-poverty policies and programs were not addressing the root problems affecting the most marginalized.

    What can countries do to end the most severe forms of poverty?

    While private organizations like BRAC (where I work) have a role to play, it is governments that are best positioned to take the lead tackling extreme poverty at scale. Governments have the mandate, the infrastructure, and the financing to transform the lives of the most vulnerable people.

    Governments increasingly recognize a growing body of research which tells us people in extreme poverty face multiple reinforcing barriers – a lack of nutrition, education, and social exclusion which contribute to a deficit of hope and self-confidence. Together, these multiple factors create a poverty trap that is challenging to escape. Addressing only a few of these barriers at a time is insufficient for people out of poverty traps. Many governments have begun to recognize this in the past decade as growth lifted many out of poverty but large pockets of people remained excluded.

    Women gather to discuss social issues and add to their group savings as part of the Bab Amal (Door of Hope) Graduation project in Upper Egypt (Sohag, Egypt). Credit: BRAC/Robert Irven 2022

    Escaping a poverty trap requires a “big push” – a significant transfer of resources and support that can address multiple barriers in one go. One “big push” proven to break the poverty trap is referred to as the Graduation approach (though it may be called different things in diverse settings). Graduation is a sequenced set of interventions that address the unique circumstances of poverty within the local context. This approach meets participants’ day-to-day needs, provides training and assets for income generation, financial literacy and savings support, and social empowerment through community engagement and life skills training – all facilitated through coaching that calls for regular interactions with participants.

    A period of intense coaching enables participants to build resilience and self-confidence by empowering them to save, diversify their sources of income, access safety nets, and develop coping mechanisms to major shocks and build up self confidence. These combined interventions are delivered in a 2-3 year time bound period, empowering participants to begin an upward trajectory out of extreme poverty and with greater ability to link to wider government support.

    Graduation programs are designed to positively impact all household members, but the approach focuses on direct engagement with working age women. These women are disproportionately affected by extreme poverty and most likely to use their greater capacities to reinvest in their households’ development.

    At its core, Graduation is about recognizing that when empowered with the right tools and resources, people can be agents of change for themselves, their households, and their communities.

    A high return on investment

    The Graduation approach is an investment with returns that grow over time. Rigorous evaluations report that four years after participants start, Graduation delivered benefits that began to exceed program costs. Compared to standalone narrower interventions like lump sum cash transfers, after 3 to 4 years after the initial intervention, Graduation programs deliver greater household benefits – including greater consumption, income, and savings. Research from India shows that ten years after starting the program, participants see approximately 400% ROI, and projections suggest this return could reach 1100% over the participant’s lifetime. Since the investment is time limited and may not be repeated its ROI over the longer term can save costs and build resilience.

    Many Government are Adopting Graduation

    Due to Graduation’s proven impact, many governments are investing in the approach, integrating it into existing programs. It is estimated that more than 15 government programs have developed Graduation approaches across Latin American, Africa, and Asia. Among them include governments in Kenya, the Philippines, and India. These are most often not new standalone programs but integrated within existing Graduation programs, where the Graduation package is particularly emphasized for certain target populations.

    Yolanda, a participant of the DSWD’s Padayon SLP Graduation project, is visited by her coach Julius, who helps ensure she is making steady progress and has the tools and knowledge she needs to overcome any challenges or shocks. (Iloilo City, Philippines). Credit: BRAC/Robert Irven 2022

    In the Philippines, despite the many challenges created by COVID-19 in 2020, participants in the Philippines’ Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) Graduation program had more resilient livelihoods and better savings and financial management, according to Asian Development Bank (ADB). The Government of the Philippines is now on its second iteration of Graduation integration offered through the Department of Social Welfare and Development with support from ADB and the Australian government.

    The Government of Kenya is also investing in Graduation with the Kenya: Social and Economic Inclusion Project (KSEIP) in partnership with Global Development Incubator, BOMA Project, Village Enterprise, the World Bank, and the UK government (FCDO). Following a successful pilot in 2019, KSEIP will transition from a narrower unconditional cash transfer to a fuller package of Graduation.

    A Few Leading Governments are Implementing at Scale

    Some governments have moved beyond testing to delivering at scale. In the Province of Bihar in India, a large rural development program (called JEEViKA) established a special window for a Graduation program known as Satat Jevvikoparjan Yojana (SJY), which has reached 140,000 households in extreme poverty since 2018. Other Provinces in India may follow suit expanding their own Graduation programs as well. Additionally, countries such as Ethiopia and South Africa are looking to further adapt their already large scale programs with more Graduation elements added that can deliver long term results.

    As governments implement scaled programs we have reasons to be confident that these investments will bring durable results. While we must address today’s crises, our work to dramatically reduce and eliminate extreme poverty will not happen with slipshod short-term band-aids. Governments can begin to fully address extreme poverty with smart investments that will over time lead to permanent changes that eliminate extreme poverty.

    While governments will lead, they cannot do it alone. The international community, particularly multilateral institutions, can provide the financing required to operate at scale. NGOs and community-based institutions can be partners in last mile delivery assisting the government where needed. Researchers can focus their methods more on how scaled programs operate (rather than on repeat small scale impact evaluations) so that we can make wider decisions on adapting for scale.

    It is high time for us to lean on the evidence, evolve programmatically, put government in the lead, and benefit from all the testing and research that has led us to solutions that can work.

    IPS UN Bureau


    Follow IPS News UN Bureau on Instagram

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link

  • More Than 1,700 Environmental Defenders Were Killed in the Last Decade

    More Than 1,700 Environmental Defenders Were Killed in the Last Decade

    [ad_1]

    Source: Global Witness
    • by Fermin Koop (buenos aires)
    • Inter Press Service

    BUENOS AIRES, Oct 07 (IPS) – Since November 2020, the threats, intimidation and pressure I have experienced due to my work in defence of human rights and nature are similar to those suffered by dozens of leaders living in the region. I have lived through the assassinations of three friends and environmental leaders.”

    Óscar Sampayo has actively opposed oil and mining developments in the Magdalena Medio region of Colombia, documenting their impact on the local community and environment. He has been threatened on several occasions by paramilitary groups involved in drug trafficking, such as the Águilas Negras, or Black Eagles.

    After Brazil, Colombia is the country with the second highest number of murders of environmental leaders in the last decade, according to the latest report by British human rights NGO Global Witness. Since 2012, a total of 1,733 activists have been killed worldwide, with 68% of cases occurring in Latin America.

    The figures underestimate the true scale of the violence, the authors of the “Decade of Defiance” report add. Many cases go unreported as they occur in conflict zones or in places where there are restrictions on press freedom and civil society, and inadequate independent monitoring of attacks.

    In addition, few perpetrators of killings are brought to justice because governments fail to adequately investigate the crimes. Authorities, the report says, either ignore or actively obstruct investigations into killings, often “due to the collusion between corporate and state interests”.

    “All over the world, Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders risk their lives for the fight against climate change and biodiversity loss. Activists and communities play a crucial role as a first line of defence against ecological collapse,” said Mike Davis, Global Witness’ CEO.

    A decade of killings

    Since Global Witness began reporting on environmental defenders ten years ago, Brazil has had the highest number of killings. Around a third of the 342 activists killed in the country since 2012 were indigenous or Afro-descendant, and more than 85% of the killings took place in the Brazilian Amazon.

    Source: Global Witness

    The Amazon has become the main arena for violence and impunity against defenders, the report’s authors say. Since President Jair Bolsonaro came to power in 2018, deforestation and illegal mining have been encouraged, while the budgets of forest protection agencies have been cut.

    Earlier this year, the murders of British journalist Dom Phillips and a local indigenous expert, Bruno Pereira, drew global attention to conditions in parts of the Amazon. Phillips and Pereira had travelled to the Javari Valley, an area known to be a hotbed of illegal activities.

    “For protesting against these environmental crimes and harms to our health, we have been subjected to death threats, legal harassment and smear campaigns,” says Eliete Paraguassu, a Quilombola woman from the state of Bahia. “We will continue to fight the systematic environmental racism enacted toward Quilombos and the indigenous communities of Brazil.”

    In Colombia, the signing of the peace agreement with armed groups is now more than five years old, but its implementation has not been adequate, Global Witness states. This has maintained land disputes and violence towards the most vulnerable groups, such as small- and medium-scale farmers and indigenous peoples.

    Such was the case of Sandra Liliana Peña, a leader of an indigenous community in the department of Cauca, one of the bloodiest areas of the country. She had spoken out against the growth of illegal crops and subsequently suffered threats. In 2021, she was shot dead by four armed men.

    Mexico has also become one of the most dangerous countries for environmental defenders, with 154 murders recorded in the last decade, most of which took place between 2017 and 2021. Forced disappearances are now commonplace, carried out by organised criminal groups and corrupt government officials, the report reads.

    Indigenous territories in Mexico are said to be particularly vulnerable to large-scale extractive projects led by national and foreign companies, and supported by the government. Concerns have been expressed by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights over the lack of consultation with communities, and over attacks on those who oppose such projects.

    Global Witness highlights a case from September 2021, when authorities discovered six sets of human remains near community land belonging to Yaqui peoples, in the south of the state of Sonora. The remains were thought to belong to some of a group of ten men who had disappeared the previous July. After multiple disappearances, the community targeted companies interested in Yaqui land. While officials blamed drug cartels, some community members reportedly suspect government and corporate involvement.

    The way forward

    Global Witness declares that the situation for environmental defenders around the world has worsened rather than improved in recent years. The growing climate and biodiversity crises, as well as the expansion of authoritarian governments, have given rise to an increase in killings since 2018.

    In 2021, the year analysed by the recent report, 200 environmental defenders were killed – or four per week. Mexico was the country with the highest number of murders (54), followed by Colombia (33) and Brazil (26). Nearly 80% of the killings in Brazil, Peru and Venezuela were in the Amazon.

    Despite the grim statistics and the increase in the number of deaths in recent years, researchers highlight some progress. In Honduras, a former energy executive was sentenced in June this year to 22 years in prison for ordering and planning the murder of activist Berta Cáceres in 2016.

    Also highlighted as cause for encouragement is the Escazú Agreement, which entered into force in 2021. It is the first treaty on environment and human rights for Latin America and has among its objectives to prevent and investigate attacks on environmental defenders. Twelve Latin American countries have now ratified the agreement, including Mexico, though others such as Colombia and Brazil have yet to do so.

    Global Witness calls on governments to ensure the safety of environmental defenders by creating new laws where they do not exist and enforcing existing ones. At the same time, companies must identify and mitigate any harm from their operations on defenders and ensure corporate accountability at all levels of action.

    “Each and every death of a defender is a sign that our economic system is broken,” Global Witness affirms. “Fuelled by the pursuit of profit and power, there is a war over nature and the frontlines are the Earth’s remaining biodiverse regions.”

    This article was originally published by China Dialogue

    © Inter Press Service (2022) — All Rights ReservedOriginal source: Inter Press Service

    [ad_2]

    Global Issues

    Source link