View previous stories
	Call for Jamaican debt cancellation as IMF bailout loan agreed by One World, Jubilee Debt Campaign   1st May 2013   A $1 billion IMF bailout loan for Jamaica, plus $1 billion worth of loans are condemned by debt campaigners who say the country needs debt cancellation not another decade of bailouts and enforced austerity.   The IMF is today (Wednesday 1 May) set to agree to a $1 billion four-year bailout loan for Jamaica. In addition, the World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank are due to lend $500 million each.   Jamaica is one of the most indebted countries in the world. The government spends $1.2 billion a year – 33 per cent of government revenue – paying foreign debts. This is more than twice the amount the government spends on education and health combined.[1]   The IMF, World Bank and Inter-American Development Bank loans will be used to meet debt payments coming due, effectively bailing out previous reckless lenders to the Caribbean island.   Tim Jones, policy officer at Jubilee Debt Campaign, said: “The people of Jamaica need debt cancellation, not yet another decade of bailouts, high debt payments and IMF enforced austerity.   Jamaica has been in debt crisis since the 1970s. Reckless lenders should not be repaid at the cost of children’s education, people’s health and loss of control over the economy’s future.”   For over 40 years, Jamaica has had consistently high foreign debt payments, repeated bailout loans, austerity and low and no growth.[2]   The country is off-track in meeting most of the indicators which make-up the millennium development goals. In 1990, 97% of children completed primary school, but this has gone dramatically backwards, falling to 73% in 2010. Maternal mortality has almost doubled, rising from 59 per 100,000 live births in 1990, to 110 by 2010.   Jamaica has been excluded from debt relief schemes because, with a national annual income per person of £3,500, it is ‘too rich’.[3]   The austerity conditions which make-up the IMF programme have not yet been released. However, the Jamaican government has had to reach a deal with unions to freeze public sector pay until 2015, a 20 per cent cut in real terms. The Jamaican government also had to restructure its debt owed to domestic creditors by lowering interest rates, reducing returns for pension funds and weakening the Jamaican financial system, whilst leaving untouched debt owed to foreigners.   [1] World Bank. Global Development Finance and World Development Indicators database   [2] Government foreign debt payments have been the equivalent of 20 per cent of exports or more since at least 1980. Jamaica has borrowed from the IMF, and implemented its austerity programmes, in 25 of the last 40 years. Between 1980 and 2010, Jamaica’s economy has grown by an average annual growth rate equivalent to just 0.65 per cent. Furthermore, since 1990 the economy has effectively not grown at all (World Bank. Global Development Finance database).   [3] World Bank. World Development Indicators database.   http://oneworld.org/news-world http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/
	Development "fatally undermined" without a vibrant civil society by CIVICUS & agencies   Development "fatally undermined" without a vibrant civil society, by Dhananjayan Sriskandarajah.   As the development community grapples with the question of what should be in or out of the post-2015 framework, one overarching issue is emerging as key to the entire project. It is becoming increasingly clear that if more is not done to promote an enabling environment for civil society, efforts to reduce poverty, tackle inequality and resolve conflict will be fatally undermined.   Sadly, despite numerous international commitments to protect civic space, evidence from around the world suggests that conditions are actually getting worse, not better, for civil society. “The State of Civil Society 2013,” published by CIVICUS, catalogs a litany of threats to civil society, from outright violence against civic leaders to legal restrictions on civil society organizations and dramatic funding cuts.   In some countries, such as Bahrain, Cambodia and Ethiopia, activists have been imprisoned for daring to criticize the government. In Azerbaijan, Canada, Malaysia and Russia, regressive laws place new barriers on the right to peaceful assembly.   In Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda, new laws give the state power to declare a civil society organization unlawful. Bangladesh and Russia are the latest countries wanting to restrict foreign funding of local civil society groups, and in several donor countries such as Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand, funding for civil society organizations that support international development has been cut.   Much of the euphoria and optimism surrounding the Arab Spring has been lost amid the chaos, corruption and clampdowns on civil society that ensued in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia. And the potential of arguably the most liberating tools for social activism — the Internet and social media — is under threat from new restrictions that clamp down on the ability of citizens to mobilize or hold governments accountable.   It is this context that serves as a backdrop for current discussions about the post-2015 development framework. While there has been some recognition of the importance of an enabling environment for civil society — most notably in the principles underpinning the Busan Partnership for Effective Development Cooperation — there is little sign that protecting civic space will be a key element in development strategies.   Yet a vibrant civil society supports development in a range of ways, from community-based organizations that can deliver grounded and cost-effective services to independent voices that can hold governments accountable.   The development sector knows better than any that without transparency and accountability, the fight against global poverty will be fatally undermined by corruption and waste.   Any new global development strategy has to put the enabling environment for civil society at the heart of other ambitions, so that citizens feel empowered to shape the societies around them rather than live in fear of reprisals. The freedom from want is nothing without the freedom from fear. http://socs.civicus.org/   Citizen voices post-2015, by Ann Hudock.   The post-2015 development agenda gets its first real airing this month, when U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon receives a report on new directions for post-2015 development. Authored by 27 members of a high-level panel, the report is expected to reflect open, inclusive consultations that have involved civil society, the private sector, academia, and research institutions from all regions, in addition to the U.N. system.   But the post-2015 agenda is unlikely to succeed unless it follows through on commitments to put people’s needs at the center. How the agenda gets implemented is as important as the agenda itself. For all stakeholders in post-2015 development, the focus now should be on sustaining citizen engagement beyond the consultation phase, so that as the agenda is defined and refined, citizen concerns remain a priority.   If we can sustain that inclusive principle in the implementation of the post-2015 development policy, we have a much better chance of delivering meaningful development outcomes. If we revert to “top-down” implementation, we will fail.   Governance, voice and accountability   Sustainable development depends on accountable government. In other words, development works best in countries where government responds to people’s voices and delivers services to meet people’s needs. Accountable government, in turn, begins with an activated citizenry that can oversee government actions, from policy choices to public expenditures.   There is real demand for a development agenda that prioritizes accountable government. The United Nations’ own My World Survey, as reported on Devex, shows that honest and responsive government is among the top priorities of citizens around the world. Based on responses from almost 400,000 people in 194 countries, the survey ranks good governance third out of 16 proposed goals, for both male and female voters.   It is crucial for the development community to emphasize the local and national dimensions of good governance. For example, a communique issued in March by the high-level panel from Indonesia highlighted “reshaped and revitalized global governance and partnerships” as one of the five key areas where progress must be made, but the language in this document is insufficiently attuned to local concerns. Touting global good governance principles in the absence of tangible support for accountable government at the local and national level risks imposing outside agendas and overlooking local concerns.   In practical terms, what should this support consist of? The high-level panel made a good start by seeking out and listening to people’s concerns. Now we must create the space for citizens to sustain their engagement, for instance through community scorecards for people to review services, or citizen charters whereby they can hold governments to account. Provincial competitiveness indexes — which rank the performance of local governments and provide the business community evidence for advocacy — are a powerful tool for accountability. Public expenditure tracking surveys, like those done in Uganda, hold local and central governments to account for school funding, helping to ensure resources reach their target. The results of these grass-roots efforts can be fed into parliamentary reviews and oversight procedures, and can later be incorporated into national budgeting and planning processes.   The post-2015 agenda could pave the way for innovative approaches to linking citizens’ voices at the grass roots into national development plans, which would then be folded into international agendas, instead of the other way around. As Joanna Wheeler of the Institute of Development Studies wrote last March in her blog: “Citizen participation is a bold approach for the post-2015 framework, because it turns much of received wisdom about ‘aid’ and international frameworks on its head: It is not just about a small global elite ‘hearing the voices of the poor,’ but about creating sustainable and long-term mechanisms for citizens to be involved in decision-making at all levels (from local to global).   In short, while it is good that the high-level panel listens to citizens, it is far more important that local and national governments hear these same voices — as part of the systemic business of governing — and that the outcome of these deliberations informs international agendas, rather than the other way around.   Apr 2013   Governance and accountability for global development post-2015   People across the globe have been discussing the future development framework that should replace the UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) after their 2015 target date.   At the beginning of the century, the Millennium Declaration represented the aspirations and political commitment of world leaders to alleviate poverty. From that Declaration, eight goals were set to be achieved by 2015 that aimed to reduce poverty and hunger, promote education and gender equality, as well as improve health and the environment.   Although progress has been made, major challenges remain and disparities across regions, countries, and within countries have been recorded.   “In 2000, the process for selecting the MDGs was opaque and, if I may say so, technocratic. Proposals that lacked quantifiable measures and cross-national data-sets were rejected. Civil and political rights were often excluded,” said UN Human Rights Chief, Navi Pillay. “We treasured what we measured — and perhaps that was the wrong way round. It seems to me we should measure what we treasure.”   Pillay was speaking via video message to activists, civil society organizations, academia, youth and parliamentarians who gathered in Johannesburg, South Africa, for the final meeting of the Global Consultation on Governance and the Post-2015 Development Agenda co-organised by the UN Human Rights Office and the UN Development Programme, with the financial support of the Government of Germany. Participants discussed the contribution of governance and accountability to the new development agenda.   The centrality of governance to achieving development goals is widely recognized. Key elements of governance include enhancing state’s capacity to respond to the needs of people in an inclusive and equitable manner; facilitating political participation of all, including the poor and the marginalized, in the process of making decisions that affect them; ensuring personal security and fair administration of justice, and empowering people to hold governing institutions accountable.   In Johannesburg, the Director of the Research and Right to Development Division of the UN Human Rights Office, Marcia V.J. Kran, noted that the worldwide consultations had brought to light the need for human rights principles and standards to serve as the “yardstick” for people to assess development policies at the national and international levels, as well as the coherence between them.   “Governance is not just about ensuring that a country’s administration functions smoothly… It is also about how people can review what those in power do and how they can hold the powerful to account if something goes wrong. Accountability is the core of governance. If there is no accountability, governance is an empty concept,” she said.   “The MDGs were not clear on responsibilities – on who is supposed to do what. Let’s get concrete: What should be done and by whom” said Graça Machel, one of the 27 members of the High-Level Panel that advises the UN Secretary-General on the post-2015 development agenda, who also attended the Johannesburg meeting. The Panel is chaired by the Presidents of Liberia, Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, and Indonesia, Susilo Mbambang Yudhoyono, and the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, David Cameron.   Participants in the meeting also stressed that the perception that the MDGs had fallen short on effectively monitoring and evaluating progress toward attaining development meant that measurable indicators should be incorporated in the new development agenda.   Building the capacity of parliaments and their members; regulating political parties and the corporate sector to enhance accountability and transparency of financial flows; and promoting a diverse and independent media landscape, they said, were some of the measures that could help translate governments’ commitments into action.   They also found that civil society and youth activism could be an effective driver for change. Thus, the post-2015 development agenda should provide a framework to promote and protect free access to information, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of movement.   The meeting further highlighted that gender inequality was symptomatic of governance failure. Gender inequality, participants noted, is both structural and systemic in communities and parliaments, and women should therefore be encouraged to take up political office, for example. Governments, the private sector and even citizens, they added, should be made accountable for gender equality.   The outcomes of the Global Consultation on Governance will, be used to make recommendations on key governance and accountability issues to the High-Level Panel of Eminent Persons on the Post-2015 Development Agenda, Member States, the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG) and other key processes in preparation for the UN General Assembly’s special event on the MDGs and the Post-2015 Agenda in September 2013 and beyond.   http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/MDG/Pages/MDGPost2015Agenda.aspx
	View more stories