The GFCs

There has been a lot of talk in recent months about global crises. First was the fuel crisis, then the food crisis and now the financial crisis. One of my co-workers has pointed out that they can all be reduced to the easy acronym GFC. We love our acronyms in development work.

The level of concern about raising food prices has been interesting to me. This interest comes from a couple of angles. First, how many of us here in North America have really noticed the rising cost of food? When only about 10% of our budget is going to food it doesn't seem to matter too much if the cost of bread goes up by $1.50. Now 15% of our budget goes to food. Now, imagine that food took up 85% or more of your budget. You would notice pretty quickly the difference that $1.50 makes in your ability to pay school fees, buy medicine, pay rent and buy clothes.
This leads me to the other reason I find all this attention interesting. I think the rising food prices first started getting media attention this past spring. The higher fuel prices increased transport costs; the increasing middle class in countries like China and India and the resulting increase in demand for meat; increased of "food" being used for non-food products such as biofuel; crop failures, desertification, soil erosion, climate change. All these factors have been given credit for causing this Global Food Crisis, and they are all valid points. But it all happened all of a sudden and only when people in urban centres in the developed world started to feel the effects. It seems like it all happened overnight. But it has been happening slowly and persistently for the people in the two-thirds world. It has been happening for a long time for the 800 million people who go without enough food every day.

Now we add another GFC, the Global Financial Crisis. With the market tanking and the economy grinding to a near halt people are justified in their concern. I don't want to belittle the jobs that have been or will be lost or the retirement savings that have disappeared. These are terrible things and we are living in difficult times. But I am afraid of what this will mean for the poor, both in our own country and around the world. Governments will be so busy bailing out industry and banks. Reduced personal and family incomes will lead to a reduction in spending. We see it already. My fear is that this will come at the expense of the poor. The provincial government is already talking about less spending on health and education. My organization is already talking about "belt-tightening" measures as we anticipate a drop in donations and sponsorships.

This topic has come up several times this week and in my thinking it over I came across this posted on a blog I read occasionally http://zenpeacekeeping.typepad.com. It is a joint statement made by World Vision International, Oxfam International, Amnesty International, Plan International and Greenpeace. It is a little long, but it is a good summary of what this crisis could mean for the poor.

Billions in bailouts for the wealthy

Last week the US government provided another bailout of $37.8 billion to the giant insurance company, AIG, bringing the total of rescue loans to that one company in the last two weeks to nearly $123 billion. This is $18 billion more than the annual amount of aid to poor countries and twice that needed to achieve the internationally agreed Millennium Development Goals. In Europe the bailouts have continued. The UK government has thrown in a further £50 billion to recapitalise the UK banking sector - which is roughly what's needed for poor countries to adapt to climate change each year.
The urgency shown by rich countries to tackle the financial meltdown stands in stark contrast to their foot-dragging and broken promises over aid and poverty alleviation, human rights and climate change.
It is too soon yet to predict exactly how badly the poorest countries will fare in the financial crisis and resulting economic downturn. But it is clear that reduced demands for exports to developed countries and lower foreign investment will mean less growth and government revenue for already-fragile social protection and services.
For millions of the world's poorest citizens, it is literally a matter of life and death. In many countries social safety nets were dismantled under pressure from international financial institutions, leaving the vulnerable unprotected. In late September, while Wall Street was reeling from its financial failures in the glare of publicity, a meeting organized by the United Nations in another part of Manhattan revealed that very few governments will meet the targets set by the Millennium Development Goals to reduce poverty by 2015, and that rising food and energy prices have wiped away much of the progress made so far.
The human rights prognosis is not good. Not only are economic and social rights - including the right to housing, health and education - coming under increased pressure, there is a risk of more human rights violations. As the economy shrinks and countries tighten their belts, migrants and refugees could be pushed back to untenable situations. Social tensions could increase, leading nervous governments to clamp down on dissent and impose tough public security policies, curbing civil liberties. Already fragile states could be further weakened by the current crisis and slide back into instability and violence.
Worse could follow if rich countries decide to use the financial crisis as an excuse to cut aid and trade. History gives us cause for concern. During the 1972/3 recession, global aid spending fell by 15 per cent to just $28.8 billion. In 1990/3, aid donors slashed their spending by 25 per cent over a five-year period to $46 billion, and aid did not return to 1992 levels until 2003. Humanitarian aid - what we spend to help people hit by natural disasters and conflict - also fell sharply and over a similar time as a direct result of the 1990-3 recession (only the years of the Rwanda and Kosovo conflicts bucked that trend). In terms of trade, for instance, countries reacted to the 1929 Wall Street crash and global depression by erecting tariff barriers and world trade fell by two-thirds.
A replay of that in 2009 would be a disaster for poor exporting countries. Reduced aid and trade flows could mean that the people in the poorest countries pay the highest price for the profligacy of the credit bubble in North America and Europe.
Human rights are not a luxury for good times. Inaction in the face of climate change is not a viable option. Global poverty does nothing for global stability. Rich countries will be following a myopic and self-defeating strategy if they ignore the most pressing challenges of our times and focus solely on narrow financial interests.
This is not just about money. It is about sustained attention, international collaboration and clear political will to tackle big issues. The signs of concerted action by the G7 finance ministers and the Eurozone finance ministers to address the financial crisis are welcome but they are not enough. Governments must reduce the volatility in energy prices, food prices and the financial markets by ensuring sensible regulation, adequate protection for the rights of poor and vulnerable people, and long-term environmental sustainability. Governments must show decisive leadership to build a global economy that is green and where better lives and livelihoods for all is more important than a system that rewards a privileged few.

Joint statement from:
Dr. Dean Hirsch, Chief Executive Officer, World Vision International
Irene Khan, Secretary General, Amnesty International
Jeremy Hobbs, Executive Director, Oxfam International
Tom Miller, Chief Executive Officer, Plan International
Gerd Leipold, International Executive Director, Greenpeace