But What About The, Ummmmmm, Poor?

Published April 02, 2009 @ 04:07AM PT

A few things seen and heard so far at the G20 summit in London:

- According to Douglas Alexander, the British Secretary of State for International Development, the economic crisis threatens to push an additional 90 million people into extreme poverty over the next two years.

- In response, Oxfam is calling for a number of measures, including a rescue package for poor countries of around $580 billion a year, which includes a one-time fiscal stimulus, debt relief, and a commitment by major donors to allocate 0.7% of their annual gross national income to foreign aid.

- To put these figures in perspective - according to Oxfam, rich nations have so far spent around $8 trillion bailing out their banks, and an additional $2 trillion in stimulus packages for their own economies. Given these figures, the amount necessary to mitigate the impacts of the global economic crisis on the most vulnerable is small indeed.

- As fellow G20 Voice blogger Daniel Kaufman of the Kaufman Governance Post pointed out, a one-time stimulus or relief package for vulnerable countries shouldn't come at the cost of major donors backing away from the goal of spending 0.7% of GNI on foreign aid.

- In addition, Oxfam is also advocating for action against tax havens, a reform of global governance to give developing countries more of a say in global decision-making bodies like the World Bank and the IMF, and continued action on climate change.

And, equally exciting - was just interviewed by Bangladeshi TV. Just one further step in my master plan to capture the Dhaka humanitarian blogging market.

[British Secretary of State for International Development Douglas Alexander - Photo from the BBC]

Share this Post

Comments (2)

I've got a question re donor country foreign aid numbers and goals. Every so often on TrackerNews.net, I'll put up some links about funding. Here's a typical report from UNOCHA: http://tinyurl.com/c7xwew Donor countries are not hitting the *promised* targets - by a wide margin. Special appeals for emergencies have had a similarly dismal - actually worse - track record.

So a naive question: If we're not hitting present targets, what are the realistic odds of getting more from donor countries?

Also, although there are clear economic differences between donor and developing countries, most of the rich countries these days are deeply in debt. And now they're grappling with significantly increased needs within their own borders.

Which takes me back to my naive question above...

Even if donor countries were hitting their targets, inflation and higher food prices have eroded buying power.

Any way you look at it, it seems pretty discouraging...

Posted by J A Ginsburg on 04/02/2009 @ 09:52AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by J A
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply
No arguments -- and, for more information about what activities donor countries actually fund, see here:

http://humanitarianrelief.change.org/blog/view/trends_in_humanitarian_funding

That said, I don't think the question is, realistically, whether countries will give more (at least not beyond the G20 pledges), but whether they'll actually hold to the same level as last year, or cut back, as Ireland and Italy already have.

Posted by Michael Bear on 04/04/2009 @ 10:48AM PT
- Report close
  You must be signed in to report content.
- Reply
- Like
For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment. In the process we will also create a Change.org account for you so you can track this and future conversations. Don't worry - we won't spam you. We just want to promote constructive dialogue and find that people are more respectful when they are not anonymous.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

reply to thread started by by Michael
Check Spelling
- Email me when there are new posts to this thread
- Comment Policy
Cancel Reply

Add a Comment

For your comment to be published, you will need to confirm your email address after submitting your comment.

If you already have an account, click here to log in.

First Name:

Last Name:

Email:

Create Password:

Comment

Check Spelling

Email me when there are new posts to this thread
Comment Policy

Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.

Author

Michael has worked for NGOs in Afghanistan, across east and central Africa, and Iraq. Prior to going overseas, he worked on a project providing assistance to the United Nations on the application of International Humanitarian Law to the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict.