View previous stories
	Secure Land Rights for Climate Resilience by Karina Kloos Landesa, Skoll Foundation   The world's attention in December 2018 turned to Katowice, Poland, where leaders and advocates gathered to discuss the global climate change agenda at the COP24 United Nations Climate Change convening. Coming on the heels of the grim report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), there is a profound sense of urgency not only to take more drastic measures to mitigate climate change, but also to bolster efforts to support the adaptive capacity of those most affected.   Worldwide, the consequences of climate change are increasingly evident, and the link to land rights is increasingly hard to ignore.   In Central America, a 'hungry caravan' of migrants have left their homes, seeking relief from a protracted drought that has consumed food crops and contributed to widespread poverty.   In India, more than half of the country is under high levels of water stress, leaving a staggering 600 million people at increased risk of experiencing water shortages.   And in the Horn of Africa, the New York Times reports that more than 650,000 children under age 5 are severely malnourished, the consequence of a series of droughts that have pushed millions of the world's poorest to the edge of survival.   These examples are stark reminders that the most severe consequences of climate change are being inflicted upon people living in the Global South, many of whom base their livelihoods on the ability to access, use, and cultivate land.   We've written previously about how land rights can promote food security and climate resilience among rural women, men, and communities. A new Landesa infographic captures the climate-related drivers of food insecurity in the Global South, and how land rights encourage the types of investments that can make farmers more resilient.   Every person on earth is affected by climate change in some form, but people in the world's poorest places tend to bear the brunt of its consequences.   This is in part because the majority of the world's poorest live in the Global South, where scant resources and inadequate infrastructure leave countries ill-equipped to adapt to a changing climate.   What's more, many millions live in rural areas and rely on land and agriculture for their livelihoods, making them more susceptible to extreme temperatures and drought that deplete soils and devastate crops.   According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), an estimated 1.5 billion people worldwide - about one-fifth of the world's population - are directly affected by land degradation.   The UNCCD also estimates that more frequent drought will leave 1.8 billion people experiencing absolute water scarcity by 2025 - dire circumstances for rural farmers, many of whom rely on rain-fed agriculture to grow food. Yields from such rain-fed farms could fall by 22 percent across sub-Saharan Africa and as much as 50 percent in some countries within the next two years.   With approximately 820 million people worldwide already chronically undernourished and climate-related pressures on food security increasing, such trends are deeply troubling for a global community that has committed to Zero Hunger.   Complex problems defy simply solutions, and it will take a multifaceted approach to address the growing crisis over climate-induced food insecurity. But secure land rights for rural women, men, and communities are a critical piece of the puzzle.   Sustainable agriculture and land management practices - such as improved irrigation, terracing, fallowing, and agroforestry - are widely understood to conserve soil and water, building climate resiliency and boosting agricultural productivity, in both the short- and long-term.   But they're not free. Such investments require time, labor, and often money. Without secure land rights, rural landholders often lack both the resources and confidence to make critical investments to improve their land and adapt to a changing climate.   On the other hand, farmers with secure land rights are often more inclined and equipped to make climate-smart investments, including soil conservation and planting and preserving trees.   What is needed to equip rural women and men with secure rights to the land they farm? One route could be through the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which includes a mechanism for member states to make commitments for taking action on climate change.   Each of the 184 parties that have ratified the Paris Agreement - the UN's landmark agreement to combat climate change - committed to producing national climate action plans, referred to as 'Nationally Determined Contributions', or NDCs.   These NDCs map out each country's strategy for fulfilling national commitments codified in the Paris Agreement. Yet only a handful of NDCs mention land rights or tenure security as a key intervention for building climate resiliency and adaptation.   This is a missed opportunity. As world leaders, climate scientists, researchers, and members of civil society debate the global climate change agenda, their efforts must account for the billions of rural people who bear little responsibility for causing climate change but are most vulnerable to its consequences. Land rights are an important way to confront this immense inequality and promote a more secure world for all.   http://www.landesa.org/secure-land-rights-for-climate-resilience/ http://skoll.org/2018/12/04/secure-land-rights-for-climate-resilience/ Visit the related web page
	The time has come for a new social contract by International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC)   June 2019   The IMF should support the financing of universal social protection, health and education   At the International Labour Conference, IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde unveiled an institutional view on social spending that will guide Fund staff on social protection, health and education. This responds to an IMF Internal Evaluation Office report noting that the institution was increasingly out-of-step with the rights-based approach to social protection espoused by UN agencies including the ILO.   'The institutional view does not take a decisive step to align the IMF with the goal of social protection for all, including floors. Nor does it put the IMF in a position to fully support the Sustainable Development Goals on universal health coverage and free, equitable and quality primary and secondary education', commented ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow.   The IMF view is primarily focused on social assistance. These benefits, generally targeted to the poorest, are often advocated by the IMF as a measure to mitigate its conditionality and policy advice including austerity and the expansion of regressive taxation such as Value-Added Taxes. The institutional view argues that regressive taxes can be offset by more progressive social transfers.   The Fund's approach to social assistance and reducing spending has led to the promotion of narrow targeting through proxy means testing in many developing countries that erroneously excludes large numbers of recipients, and cuts or limits to pension benefits in borrowers including Greece and Ukraine. The difficulties of narrow targeting are acknowledged but do not result in a clear change in policy.   The institutional view is thin on details about health, education and essential forms of social protection beyond assistance, such as pensions. Cooperation is particularly foreseen with the World Bank, which has a record of promoting pension privatisations that ended in declining or stagnating coverage and fiscal failure. Private schemes used as a substitute for public provision tend to reduce the protection of women and precarious workers, are less effective at risk sharing and avoid the responsibility of states under international standards to provide social security.   Responding to criticism that austerity imposed by IMF loan conditions damaged social spending, the Fund introduced non-binding social spending floors in recent years. In 2018, Argentina became the first case of a binding loan condition to maintain a minimum floor of spending on certain social assistance programmes.   However, additional social programmes have been added to the calculation of the floor beyond those included in the original definition. Overall social spending in Argentina has decreased under the IMF loan programme.   The International Labour Conference discussion of the General Survey concerning the Social Protection Floors Recommendation No. 202 highlighted how pressures from the IMF to cut social spending and reduce the coverage of social protection have impeded the ability of states to deliver on their commitment to deliver adequate, comprehensive social protection systems consistent with ILO standards.   In the past, the IMF has been more open to social protection floors, working jointly with the ILO after 2010 to support financing of national floors. Throughout the creation of the institutional view, the ITUC advocated for the IMF to support countries in financing comprehensive social protection systems and close coordination with the ILO.   The strategy indicates that IMF pressure on countries to reduce the public wage bill will continue, despite the role of well-trained and adequately compensated teachers, health workers, social workers and more in delivering quality, efficient public services.   'The focus on spending efficiency could quickly become another front in IMF-led wage suppression in the public sector. The institutional view should result in a shift toward assisting countries with progressive taxation and measures to ensure real efficiency through the development of a professional public workforce that implements international goals on social protection, education and health', said Sharan Burrow. http://bit.ly/2kEp587   May 2019   The time has come for a New Social Contract   With inequality soaring and corporations capturing an ever-greater share of wealth and holding governments to ransom, the ITUC is calling for a new social contract, backed by a universal labour guarantee, in this the Centenary year of the International Labour Organization.   Workers everywhere are increasingly living on the edge as corporate profits skyrocket. Record inequality and economic insecurity are threatening democracy and eroding trust in politicians and institutions that should be serving people but are not.   'Today there are 300 million working poor in the world, 190 million officially unemployed and 60% of workers in informal jobs. Every 11 seconds, someone somewhere dies because of hazardous and dangerous work. These are not just statics - they tell a story of desperation, deprivation and rising anger.   We need to fix the rules of the global economy, and the Declaration to be adopted at the ILO in June must be the starting point', said ITUC General Secretary Sharan Burrow.   The foundation of the ILO in 1919 created the social contract, to create the social and economic conditions which would guarantee prosperity and peace. Then in 1944 the Philadelphia Declaration was adopted with the same objective. But recent decades of corporate globalisation have destroyed that vision and brought the world to the brink of environmental destruction and left billions of people behind.   This year is another opportunity to get it right, to change the rules and put people in control. We need to harvest the promise of rapid technological change for the many, rather than the few billionaires who today control people's destiny without accountability or conscience. If we don't get it right this time, we may never get another chance.   'Freedom of association, building workers power through organising and collective bargaining rights for every worker, regardless of their employment or contractual arrangements, are the foundations of social and economic justice.   These rights are under attack in every region of the world, and the rules of global trade and finance have to change to stop the race to the bottom. The new social contract needs to put the ILO at the heart of global economic decision-making, and call out the neoliberal dogma being imposed on countries by the international financial institutions', said Burrow.   'This year we can begin to liberate the trillions of dollars being hoarded in tax havens and the bank accounts of the oligarchs of corporate globalisation, by putting bargaining power back in the hands of workers. World leaders need to lift the burden from the shoulders of working people. There is no lack of wealth in the world, just a lack of political will, which we are determined to change', said Burrow.   * The ITUC represents 207 million workers in 163 countries and territories and has 331 national affiliates.   May 2019   A Universal Basic Income without quality public services is a neo-liberal paradise, writes Rosa Pavanelli.   From tech-billionaires to Socialist leaders, Universal Basic Income has caught the imagination of many across the political spectrum. This mechanism, which would give everyone regular cash payments that are enough to live on, regardless of income or work status, is increasingly promoted as a key policy to maintain social stability and ensure a decent standard of living.   Yet many in the labour movement have been unsure how to approach the topic. This is why our trade union federation, Public Services International (PSI), has been working with the New Economic Foundation to produce a detailed labour analysis on the issue. Examining 14 trials from India to Alaska, the report found that although UBI trials provided valuable insights into the nature of work and welfare there is little evidence to suggest that UBI is the best tool to address the core challenges of our time: inequality, wealth redistribution, precarious work, and digitisation.   What the studies do demonstrate is that giving cash payments to the poorest helps improve their lives and does not increase wasteful spending or laziness as many right wing politicians would have us believe. This gives strong weight to the argument that our social welfare system needs an overhaul: we must do away with punitive activity testing and demonization of the poor.   But government spending is inevitably about choices and compared to funding better universal quality public services, UBI doesn't stack up. Providing a single mother with a cash payment to fend for herself in an inflated housing market is not as effective as providing quality public housing. Giving people more money to fill up their cars is not as progressive as offering free public transport.   When it comes to UBI, the models that are universal and sufficient are unlikely to be affordable, and models that are affordable are not universal. The ILO estimates the global average cost for UBI, as a percentage of GDP, would be 32.7%. The current global average government expenditure is 33.5% of GDP.   Until we manage to dramatically increase public revenue - something which the mega-rich have been fighting tooth and nail - then it is clear any UBI program would necessitate huge cuts to key public services including education, healthcare and infrastructure. Whilst many in the UBI movement point to administrative savings and preventative measures generated from UBI, there is little evidence these will be enough to fund the UBI considering the large amounts of funding that will still be required to finance public health, education and infrastructure.   The fact is free public services, such as health and education, are one of the strongest weapons in the fight against inequality. They benefit everyone in society, but the poorest most of all. According to the OECD, publicly provided universal services give the poorest the equivalent of an extra 76% of their post-tax income and are strongly progressive.   And a UBI would not exist in a political vacuum. Once in place, some argue that the State's obligations would be largely met. Consumer citizens could then buy 'service products' on the open market. It is unsurprising that many of UBI's most famous proponents are Silicon Valley's tech-billionaires, like Mark Zuckerberg and Elon Musk.   They claim that automation will soon make UBI essential. Yet technological advances and inequality are not outside of human control. Increasing precarious work - often described as 'uberization' - has frequently been the result of corporations (such as Uber) flouting labour rules rather than any new technological development. In this regard UBI can be seen as a capitulation to deregulation and exploitation, not a solution to it.   While many jobs will be automated, this does not mean 'work' is disappearing. According to the World Health Organization (WHO), the world will be short 12.9 million healthcare workers by 2035. And by 2030, countries have to recruit 69 million teachers. Ending poverty and achieving the Sustainable Development Goals will require a huge amount of 'work'' - with a socially beneficial outcome - which the market alone simply will not provide funding for, even with a UBI.   Many advocates of UBI are raising extremely important points which should not be ignored: We need to do away with punitive systems of welfare delivery. We need to stop tech-billionaires and the mega rich from swindling money away to tax havens. We need to redistribute power, wealth and resources.   But a UBI without public services is a neoliberal's paradise. When we manage to build the political will to raise the substantial extra funds required to fight inequality - then surely funding public health, transport, housing and education would be our key priority?   Free and universal quality public services is a radical demand worth fighting for. To the progressives of the UBI movement: let's win this struggle first. http://bit.ly/2HH6S2u   * Rosa Pavanelli is General Secretary of Public Services International (PSI) and chair of the Council of Global Unions   We need to act on the income distribution between labour and capital, says Thomas Carlen, writing for Social Europe.   The wage share has been falling across the world as inequality has increased in recent decades. A co-ordinated rise is needed, starting in Europe, to reverse that.   Old economic 'truths' are being re-evaluated by economists and international organisations. Obsolete thoughts - such as that an equal income distribution is a threat to growth - have been replaced by a growing concern about widening income gaps and their negative consequences for macroeconomic performance and political stability. It should now be clear to everyone that inequality is bad for business and becomes a breeding ground for populists and protectionists.   Inequality will however continue to grow until politicians and trade unions put a stop to it. The Swedish economist Per Molander describes this in his book The Anatomy of Inequality: 'Without an active distribution policy, society moves as relentlessly toward the inequality limit [where a small elite control the entire economic surplus] as a stone plummets to the ground when dropped, falling with each moment that passes unless it encounters some resistance'.   It is obvious that wages play a key role in income distribution. The potential role of wages as a driver of growth is less accepted, however, at least among mainstream economists and business leaders.   But those who see wages merely as a cost are underestimating wages as the source of demand, sales and so production. Therefore, we need to talk about the income distribution between labour and capital.   Wages as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) have fallen all over the world since the late 1970s. According to the International Labour Organization, the wage share has declined in 91 out of 133 countries, including most advanced and many developing economies. The profit share has risen correspondingly. Data from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the International Monetary Fund show a similar trend. Wages have simply been disconnected from productivity growth. During the same period, income spreads have also widened.   A higher wage share would, according to several empirical studies using post-Keynesian models, increase domestic demand in virtually all countries. In most, this positive effect would exceed the potentially negative effects on investment and net exports, resulting in higher growth. This is particularly true for larger economic areas such as the EU since the member states mainly trade with each other.   For most households, wages are the sole source of income. And the propensity to save, rather than consume, is higher from capital income than wage income. Therefore, a higher wage share will have a greater positive effect on demand and consumption compared with higher profit shares increasing capital income for the few, which have not resulted in corresponding increases in investment. Higher real wages, on the other hand, promote labour productivity.   Wage 'moderation' thus hampers growth in most, although not all, economies. But those economies which would benefit from wage restraint, by boosting net exports, depend on other countries domestic demand. If their trading partners also suppress wages, there will be no increase in net exports.   With wage increases no longer driving growth, two other growth strategies have emerged. The first is a debt-led strategy: household consumption is driven by rising debt, as well as asset, including real-estate, bubbles. The second is an export-led strategy: growth is driven by net exports, boosted by suppressed wages and depending on a beggar-thy-neighbour policy. The consequences are growing global imbalances and increased risks of financial crises.   One might argue that a wage-led growth strategy, with the purpose of increasing consumption, is not compatible with the battle against climate breakdown. Obviously, the production and transport of goods and services must be adapted to our climate goals, regardless of growth strategy. But we do not protect the climate by allowing widening income gaps, thereby risking growing support for populist movements which often deny climate change and want to stay out of international co-operation.   According to mainstream economics, globalisation and technological progress are the key factors behind the falling wage share, meaning there is little we can do to change the situation. In this perspective, continuing international integration and automation will unceasingly increase the pressure on the wage share.   But recent studies, based on a political-economy approach, point to institutional and social factors. Wages are set in negotiations and workers bargaining power has, for several reasons, weakened since the 1980s.   First, globalisation, technological progress and deregulated financial markets give employers several fall-back options which threaten workers. Companies can move jobs to low-cost countries, substitute labour with capital and invest in real or financial assets internationally.   Secondly, increases in firm concentration, driven by the rise of superstar firms, reduce market competition and tend to lower wage shares.   Thirdly, welfare-state retrenchment and weaker income security make workers more directly dependent on their employer and lower their 'reservation' (minimally acceptable) wages.   Fourthly, unemployment has been higher during the last decades compared with the 1970s. Finally, union density has fallen in virtually all countries.   Therefore, it is absolutely possible to restore the wage share with the right policies. Sweden is a good example.   Swedish workers still have a strong bargaining position. Even if income gaps are growing in Sweden too, it is not because of growing wage gaps. Real wages have increased by 60 per cent over the last two decades, benefiting all workers.   The wage share, which initially fell with the global trend, has increased, albeit modestly, while maintaining a top position among the world's most competitive economies. This has been combined with the highest employment rate in the EU. This is one reason why Swedish trade unions regard globalisation, technological progress and free trade as opportunities, rather than threats.   The necessary reforms reflect the reasons why the wage share has fallen. We need to restore the balance of power between the social partners. In short, this means:   governments supporting trade unions, collective bargaining and co-ordinated wage negotiations; raising real wages at least in line with productivity growth; raising minimum wages; making full employment and low unemployment the overall goal of economic policy.   Strengthening the welfare state and workers income security; supporting workers employability through skill-enhancing measures, and re-regulating the financial system.   The positive effect on growth is greater for each country if several countries raise their wage share simultaneously because of the synergies involved.   There is more to win and less to lose for everyone if there is a co-ordinated increase of the wage shares. But many countries find themselves stuck in the 'prisoners dilemma', where no one wants to go first out of fear of losing competitiveness and investment to others.   Therefore, big advanced economies, preferably the EU as the European Trade Union Confederation has argued or countries with large current-account surpluses should take the lead and raise their wage shares. Small and open economies can then follow suit. This requires a more internationally co-ordinated trade union movement and co-ordinated political reforms.   In a globalised world, wages must also be discussed across borders. One forum for this is the Swedish initiative Global Deal, now handed over to the OECD, which promotes effective social dialogue. The objectives are to increase productivity, reduce inequality and enable everyone to benefit from globalisation.   An internationally co-ordinated raising of the wage share may sound like a 'mission impossible'. Yet wage shares have moved in a synchronised way falling for decades. And if we avoid this challenge, are we then willing to accept the current situation?   * Thomas Carlen is an economist at the Swedish Trade Union Confederation (LO Sweden): http://www.socialeurope.eu/restore-the-wage-share Visit the related web page
	View more stories