View previous stories
	Corporate influence across the UN system by Elena Marmo Global Policy Watch, Social Watch, agencies   Corporate influence across the UN system manifests in many ways and these methods/means are increasing. From the introduction of Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) to newer language regarding “multistakeholderism” and “networked multilateralism”, corporations are being offered varying levels of status and access to many policymaking spaces. At the same time, pushes to democratize these spaces and to be inclusive of all partners appear to be leaving behind civil society, specifically the most marginalized civil society organizations including feminist and grassroots women-led organizations, and movements from the Global South.   At large, this corporatization of the UN legitimizes the importance of the business and corporate sector in international decision-making, bringing business closer to the values of the UN. Some specific cases include the UN MOU with the World Economic Forum (WEF) from the SG’s office, the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) and its observer status in the General Assembly and the Global Compact and its “10 Principles” for corporate sustainability.   These articles question current developments in multistakeholderism at the United Nations and in other intergovernmental fora. Highlighting the need to identify ways in which civil society and all actors can resist corporate influence with a view to build a more accountable and equitable system that operates in the interests of people and planet, rather than profit.   http://www.globalpolicywatch.org/blog/2022/02/01/private-sector-financing-of-un-funds-and-programmes/ http://www.globalpolicywatch.org/blog/2022/01/28/global-health-private-sector-partnerships-at-the-un-the-covid-19-private-sector-global-facility/ http://www.globalpolicywatch.org/blog/2021/10/22/networked-multilateralism-partnerships-and-the-private-sector-at-the-unga-76/ http://www.socialwatch.org/ http://www.2030spotlight.org/en http://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/un-being-turned-public-private-partnership-interview-harris-gleckman/ Visit the related web page
	What happened when the UK privatized covid food aid? Children got Scraps by Olivier De Schutter, Imogen Richmond-Bishop Inequality.org, agencies United Kingdom   Sep. 2021   ‘Unconscionable’ universal credit cut breaks human rights law, says UN Poverty Expert.   Cutting universal credit (social support) by £20 a week is an “unconscionable” move that breaches international human rights law and is likely to trigger an explosion of poverty, the United Nations’ poverty envoy has said.   In an excoriating intervention alongside a letter to the UK government, Olivier De Schutter, the UN-appointed rapporteur on extreme poverty, told the Guardian that the withdrawal of the £1,000-a-year uplift from next month was “deliberately retrogressive” and incompatible with Britain’s obligation to protect its citizens’ rights to an adequate standard of living.   “It’s unconscionable at this point in time to remove this benefit,” he said, adding the decision to cut universal credit – which was boosted last year to help people get through the pandemic – was based on a “very ill-informed understanding” of its impact on claimants.   “For these people, £20 a week makes a huge difference, and could be the difference between falling into extreme poverty or remaining just above that poverty line … If the question is one of fiscal consolidation to maintain the public deficit within acceptable levels then you should raise revenues, not cut down on welfare at the expense of people in poverty.”   De Schutter urged the government to drop its plans to withdraw the £20 uplift from 6 October, saying it was too soon. There was plentiful evidence showing millions of people would struggle to afford food and pay essential bills as a result.   He said: “We are not out of the crisis yet. I suspect that when the expiry date of 6 October was set perhaps there was an expectation the economy would have significantly improved, or the pandemic be behind us, but none of these conditions are fulfilled. So it is really not the time now to move backwards.”   The intervention came as Labour raised pressure over the cut, which will be followed with a rise in national insurance contributions from April. A non-binding Labour Commons motion calling for the universal credit cut to be withdrawn was passed with the support of four Tory MPs: Peter Aldous, Neil Hudson, John Stevenson and William Wragg. The Tory former welfare secretary Stephen Crabb spoke in the debate to argue the benefit should be retained.   Crabb said: “This is about recognising what is good, responsible social policy, and I am clear in my mind that this sudden, abrupt withdrawal of the £20 uplift that millions of families will experience in the coming weeks is not the right way of doing welfare policy.”   De Schutter, a professor of law and a human rights expert, took up his role in May 2020, succeeding Philip Alston, who in 2018 produced a scathing report on the impact of austerity in the UK, calling rising child poverty levels “not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster”.   As well as warnings from charities and opposition parties that 500,000 people, including 200,000 children, will fall into poverty, the withdrawal will hit families struggling with the cost of living.   The cost of living crisis will have been further fuelled by record inflation spurred by a rise in food and drink prices. Inflation rose to 3.2% in August, putting further pressure on household budgets. The £20 cut will come as energy prices increase.   In a letter sent to the UK government, De Schutter said he commended the government’s decision to provide the uplift, saying it had played an important role in keeping low-income households out of poverty during the pandemic. However, its withdrawal would leave millions unable to cover daily expenses.   He said the UK was a signatory to the international covenant of economic, social and cultural rights, and under this the government must adequately justify “retrogressive measures” by carrying out a formal impact assessment showing the decision to be compelling, reasonable and proportionate.   “Taking into account these criteria, perhaps your excellency’s government may wish to reconsider the proposed cut, since it is prima facie doubtful whether the removal of the £20 uplift is a measure that conforms to international human rights law and standards,” the letter said.   http://www.jrf.org.uk/press/prime-minister-abandoning-millions-hunger-and-hardship-his-eyes-wide-open http://www.srpoverty.org/2021/09/16/the-guardian-unconscionable-universal-credit-cut-breaks-human-rights-law-says-un-envoy/   Jan. 2021   What happened when the UK privatized covid food aid? Children got Scraps, writes Imogen Richmond-Bishop   A storm of indignation has greeted the UK government’s “meager” emergency food provision to low-income families, with Marcus Rashford, the Manchester United football (soccer) star and anti-child-poverty campaigner, branding it “woefully inadequate.”   As Covid-19 infection rates and deaths hit unprecedented highs in the UK, schools are closed to the majority of pupils. For children in low-income families who would normally receive means-tested free school meals, support is being provided to their parents or caregivers via cash payments, supermarket vouchers, or food parcels.   In England, the Department for Education has “strongly encouraged” schools to adopt a “food parcel first approach,” with provision outsourced to private providers in most cases.   This week, social media has been flooded with photos of food parcels provided by private catering firms, with distressed recipients and right-to-food campaigners branding them inadequate and insulting.   What was particularly shocking was not just the frequently tiny amount of food provided to families in financial crisis, but the way “scraps” of food were unhygienically packaged in makeshift containers, including, in some cases, plastic coin bags used by banks. These parcels sharply contrasted with examples of more generous food parcels provided by in-house school catering staff for the same amount of money, if not less.   The supposed logic behind providing food parcels instead of cash transfers is the pernicious myth — recently restated by Conservative minister Vicky Ford and Member of Parliament Ben Bradley — that emergency financial support provided to low-income families in lieu of free school meals will be “misspent,” despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary.   The UK government appears to be less concerned, however, with the hundreds of millions of pounds that it is spending on contracts to private companies such as Chartwells that have drawn criticism for sub-par service. This week, one mother estimated that the food box she received in lieu of a £30 voucher was worth £5.22. So where, she asked, did the other £24.78 go?   This is not the first time that there has been an uproar over the atrocious quality of food provided through UK government contracts awarded to private companies. Last year’s food box scheme for people “shielding” at home because of underlying health conditions was found to be decidedly sub-par. Bidfood and Brakes, the two contractors that were awarded the £208 million contract without a tender process, delivered boxes that did not meet minimum nutritional standards, and did so at a 69 percent mark-up on what could have been procured through similar food boxes provided by supermarkets.   Food insecurity is not a new issue for the UK. Although it is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, millions of its people go hungry every year, and the Covid-19 pandemic is making it significantly worse. Every single metric from both official statistics and civil society show that food insecurity is skyrocketing. The Independent Food Aid Network found that food banks across the UK provided 110 percent more food aid parcels in 2020 than in 2019.   It was an issue long before the coronavirus pandemic. The UK has seen a steady increase in food insecurity over the past decade, due to a combination of an increasingly harsh and punitive welfare system, the cost of living outstripping wages, and immigration policies that have created a “hostile environment” for migrants.   Surely there has to be a point where enough is enough, and where things have gone too far. If it is not the point where children are being given tiny amounts of tuna in a plastic bag alongside half a bell pepper and a small chunk of carrot, with parents being told it is meant to last a week or two in a time of national crisis, then it is hard to see what is.   What is clear is that public outrage is, belatedly, having some impact.   Following a phone call with anti-child poverty campaigner and Premier League football player Marcus Rashford, himself a childhood recipient of free school meals, Prime Minister Boris Johnson has now promised a full review into the food parcels.   As of next week, schools in England will be able to use a national voucher scheme instead of food hampers. It is clear, however, that more than reviews and tinkering around the edges are needed, not least because there were well-documented and still unresolved issues with the voucher scheme last time it was used. So, going forward, what really needs to happen?   First, what is urgently required is a cash-first policy in place of vouchers or food hampers to provide families with the means to feed their children: not only because this is the most dignified approach and one preferred by the majority of families, but also because it is the most efficient option, especially in light of multiple problems with the private contractors providing food parcels.   Next, a full overhaul of the country’s work, welfare, and immigration system is essential. The UK government, working in concert with the devolved administrations of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, also needs to make the right to food a reality for all people in the UK by incorporating this right into domestic legislation.   Ian Byrne, a Member of Parliament from Liverpool and an anti-poverty campaigner, has put a motion before the Westminster Parliament that calls for exactly that, and a public Right to Food petition has now gathered nearly twice as many signatures needed to force the government to respond.   Children in the UK should not have to rely on a star athlete and viral tweets to ensure that they don’t go to bed hungry. They should be able to rely on their basic human right to food — a right that successive UK governments have pledged to uphold on an international stage, but as yet have made no serious domestic commitments to. We must never forget that there is no lack of food in the UK; there is also no lack of money. What there is, unfortunately, is a lack of political will and accountability.   * Imogen Richmond-Bishop is the coordinator of the Right to Food programme at Sustain: the Alliance for Better Food and Farming. She is an Atlantic Fellow for Social and Economic Equity at the London School of Economics. Visit the related web page
	View more stories