PREAMBLE:
The track record of developed countries honoring their aid commitments is not impressive (especially the G8 nations)[1]. However, until recently, there was optimism that most would honor their commitments to support the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).
To briefly revisit the MDGs for those readers who may not recall what they were about, here is a thumbnail sketch: at a United Nations conference in 2000, governments around the world pronounced the MDGs, to be achieved by 2015. Eight goals were constructed (listed below), reflecting the world's main development challenges and responding to the calls of civil society.[2] Within these goals there are 18 targets, complemented by 48 measurable indicators to measure progress towards the MDGs.
Goal 1: Halve Proportion of People in Extreme Poverty and Hunger
Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
Goal 4: Reduce Child Mortality by 2/3
Goal 5: Reduce Maternal Mortality by 3/4
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and other diseases
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Goal 8: Develop a Global Partnership of Development
Last year’s UN Special Session on MDG outcomes provided an important reminder: in relation to Goal 8 (Develop a Global Partnership of Development) there was a message for all donor countries, namely that, without more reliable support from developed countries, several Goals are likely to be missed in many developing ones.[3]
However there is now serious concern regarding the 6th goal, which comes within the remit of a “Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria”. Tragically, in November 2011, several European entities (Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the European Commission itself), ostensibly in response to fraud in a small number of developing nations (4 out of >120 recipient countries), have frozen or drastically cut back on their funding support to the Global Fund as a whole with the effect that it will not be able to take on any new commitments for a 3 year period.
Although it is understood around the world that the entire European Union is now under existential threat, and therefore unable to make good on their commitments, in our view it is a “bit rich” (to use the vernacular, no pun intended) that these rich nations, whose own financial mismanagement and fraud in some instances led to their own current morass, feel free to tar recipient countries with the same brush.
The documented fraud amounts to $34 million, which represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio, and all of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Furthermore, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. It would be interesting indeed to see how this compares with the extent and impact of fraud in the European Community itself, especially on the heels of various banking collapses, and national defaults. Pot calls kettle black?
For this issue of PacificSci Global Perspectives, we extract from an objectively critical situation analysis as presented by Results UK, an NGO registered in England, Wales and Scotland.[4]
NOTE: This is our last issue for 2011. Our Year in Review will appear as the first issue for 2012.
References:
1. White F. Development assistance for health – donor commitment as a critical success factor. Can J Public Health (2011)102,6:421-3
2. United Nations Development Programme. About the MDGs: Basics - What are the Millennium Development Goals? http://www.undp.org/mdg/basics.shtml Accessed December 15, 2011.
3. UN General Assembly. 65th Session Agenda Items 115. Special Session on the MDGs. Outcome Document: New York. September, 2010.
4. Supporting the Global Fund – making the case for immediate intervention. Background Sheet 1: RESULTS – the power to end poverty. December 11, 2011. http://results.org.uk/sites/default/files/December%202011%20Background%20Sheet%201%20Supporting%20the%20Global%20Fund.pdf Accessed December 15, 2011.
THE GLOBAL FUND TO FIGHT AIDS, TB AND MALARIA (GF)
Note: This report is extracted verbatim from the work of Results-UK (citation #4 above). While we fully endorse what they have stated, the originality of this analysis belongs entirely to them. We recognize that it was written for a primarily UK audience, but we feel that it deserves global recognition and readership.
The GF is a multilateral agency founded in 2002 and is the world’s largest financer of anti-AIDS, TB and Malaria programs. It operates as a partnership between governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities. It draws its funding from donor governments, trusts and foundations and distributes that money to implementing agencies. To ensure that GF money goes to where it is needed most, it prioritises countries with low incomes and high disease burdens. Importantly the GF is guided by the principles of accountability and transparency. It focuses explicitly on results and has an outstanding track record for delivering real impacts on the ground.
At the end of 2010 the GF has approved funding of $22 billion for more than 600 programs in 150 countries. Because it has such clear monitoring mechanisms the Fund states that it has distributed 190 million insecticide treated nets to treat malaria, provided TB treatment for 8.2 million people and provided antiretroviral drugs and holistic care for some 3.2 million people, saving 7.7 million lives.
How funding works: the replenishment process
The fund is predominantly bankrolled by contributions from the governments of developed nations. Since it was created in 2002, 95% of pledges have been from these governments (totalling $28.3bn), with the other 5% coming from private sector and philanthropic givers like the Gates Foundation. From 2001-2010 by far the largest contributor to the fund has been the USA, followed by France, Japan, Germany and the UK. In terms of giving as per cent of GNI, Sweden gives the largest proportion, followed by France, Norway, Holland and Spain.
After the initial funding it received for 2002-2004 the GF has gone through a replenishment cycle every three years, with the last of these events taking place in 2010 in New York. The GF went into the New York conference seeking $20 billion to fully fund the fight against the three diseases. Whilst this represented a doubling of contributions from the 2007 replenishment, it was considered as absolutely vital to avoid losing ground to the diseases. Unfortunately, pledges and projections at the conference only ended up totalling $11.68 billion. The result was that the GF needed to seek new funding, could not fund certain high cost programs and had to slow the pace of scale up.
The UK contribution
The UK government has been a strong historic supporter of the Fund. In 2001 the Labour government made a pledge to give £1.36 billion between 2001-2015 and has delivered £1.06bn thus far. After coming to power the new coalition undertook a review of all UK giving to multilaterals and the Fund came out very well, rated in the highest category as providing ‘Very Good’ value for money, which was only given to 9 organisations. In giving the Global Fund a top score, the Multilateral Aid Review (MAR) found its “quality and depth of reporting” were very high, and reported that “standards for financial management and audit” were very high as well. Overall it found the Global Fund to be critically important in the delivery of the MDGs.
As such, the new government has committed to continued giving to the fund at the same levels as the previous administration. The UK has not made a new pledge recently, however, our historically strong stance puts us ahead of many European countries. Civil society organisations across the UK and Europe have been calling on the UK to make a contribution of £840 million between 2011-2013, a figure that would represent a ‘fair share’ of the $20 billion that the GF requested to fill financing needs of partner countries.
What went wrong?
There have been several competing factors that have led to countries withdrawing or withholding their payments to the Global Fund.
1. The financial crisis: The global economic downturn of 2008 has severely hit the GF. With aid budgets being squeezed more tightly than ever before, many countries have chosen to hold back or renege on their commitments to the Fund, citing a variety of causes. As the crisis has continued the ratio of pledges to money actually delivered has steadily worsened, with countries including Spain, Holland, Denmark, Italy, Belgium and the US seriously behind on their commitments. Countries are finding the crisis a convenient excuse not to meet their commitments.
2. Global Fund Corruption: In January this year, corruption in GF programmes was inaccurately and sensationally reported by the Associated Press. Citing losses of $34 million dollars across several countries, the media created a situation in which Germany, Ireland, the European Commission and Sweden all announced that they were withholding funding until investigations into the causes of the losses and how they occurred were carried out.
3. A victim of its own success: Ironically, the Fund’s success up until 2010 has partly led to these problems. The Fund introduced new paradigms in the global health and international development arenas. It established a mechanism which channels resources to fund demand through the submission of evidence based, technically sound TB/Malaria/HIV proposals, and as a result has regularly met and exceeded its targets. As such, scale up in demand has been steep, leaving the Fund needing increasingly more and more funding. When global economics were good, this was a curve that could continue. Now this is clearly no longer the case.
The issue of corruption
Stories began to circulate in January 2011 about money going missing from GF supported programs in nine different countries. The total sums that were misappropriated or unaccounted for totalled around $34 million dollars. As a reaction, Germany, Ireland, Sweden and the E.C all stated that they were withholding money to support pledges. They all cited slightly different reasons – and had slightly different motivations – but all called for the Fund to conduct an investigation into its activities.
The media reports of corruption have been very damaging to the Fund, but it’s important to look at this in detail and put the figures into perspective. All of the evidence of fraud that was cited in the press was uncovered by the Fund itself after it undertook investigations. Corruption was found in 9 out of 33 investigated programs (of 145 the fund administers). In Mali, the country with the greatest losses, the Fund has reclaimed a large amount of that money and secured the convictions of nine civil servants involved in its theft. The Office of the Inspectorate General (OIG) is a completely independent body within the Fund that carries out these investigations. What’s more, the Fund had publicly announced these findings as they were uncovered. There was never any duplicity or attempts to cover up the losses. Joe Liden, a spokesman for the Fund stated that they felt they had been “treated very badly by the media.”
Within the whole of the Fund’s portfolio, the $34 million represents 0.03% of the Fund’s whole portfolio (although only 33 countries were investigated). However, these 9 programs were investigated for the very reason that they were some of the riskiest grants the Global Fund provided. Looking at the most recent set of reviews from the OIG, which analysed over $1b of grants, indicates that across the whole portfolio, no more than 1% of funds have been lost to fraud. This is substantially less than is lost by the UK’s DWP every year.2 However, the sensationalist language used by the media has stuck and the Fund’s reputation as been damaged. The Fund has been through a process of self-evaluation and produced a High Level panel report discussing the problems it faced around fiscal accountability, auditing and investigation practices and has addressed many of the criticisms made by concerned donors.
OUR COMMENT: The ethics of the European Community need to be called into question. It appears that they have held the Global Fund to a higher standard than they themselves could meet, especially given the evidence of everything from bank fraud to gross mismanagement of national finances in several of their own members (Ireland is one of the countries that have reneged on their GF commitments, but isnt this also one of the so-called “PIGS” that have exhibited financial mismanagement?), leading to the current crisis in the Euro. At least one should expect Europe to be honest about this and not play “bully in the pulpit”. Why not lay the blame for reneging on commitments on their own mismanagement, and by extension accept responsibility for any reversals that will result from funding shortfalls in global efforts to combat these diseases over the next 3 years?
We wish all readers the very best for the Holiday Season, and a Happy New Year.
Showing posts with label G8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G8. Show all posts
Thursday, 15 December 2011
Saturday, 18 December 2010
INTERNATIONAL & GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT - YEAR IN REVIEW 2010
PREAMBLE: This is our 4th annual review of topics that we covered over the year. We lead off with praise (“flowers”) and criticism (“fertilizer”) within three categories: global stewardship, international development, and human rights. Then follows a synopsis of each of the 12 blog themes throughout the year.
1. Global Stewardship
This year our pick of flowers for world leadership must go to South Africa for its enormous success in hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup of Football with evident warmth, safety and competence. This nation, much more than most, symbolizes the universal striving for world peace. So much is evident in its peaceful overthrowing of apartheid, and efforts to seek truth and reconciliation in its internal affairs. A standard is set for others to follow - we can all learn from South Africa. The blog itself celebrates the role of sport in the cause of world peace.
Our pick for the Fertilizer Prize is the recently concluded UN Climate Conference in Mexico. Its not that it was a complete failure, but that it – thanks to countries like our own (Canada) that have been foot-dragging their way forward (some would say backward) in finding ways (not) to meet this challenge – fall far short of what the world community should be doing.
We want to remain positive about the progress in Cancun, but it is very obvious that more fertilizer (this time in a positive sense) is needed. For those interested in examining an authoritative assessment of the outcome, we recommend visiting http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/02/un-climate-summit-in-cancun-mexico/
2. International Development
We make a post-humus gesture of flowers on this occasion to Frank Fenner who passed away at the ripe old age of 95. Fenner, an Australian, was a giant in the field of international and global health, most notably leading the WHO smallpox eradication certification effort, achieved in 1980.
Our choice of Fenner for flowers in this category is doubly relevant, given the poor progress achieved by the world on climate change (see: 2nd paragraph above, under Global Stewardship), as he is recently famous for the following quotation:
“Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within the next 100 years” he told the Australian newspaper in June. “A lot of other animals will too. It’s an irreversible situation. I think it is too late.” Surely we must do more now than simply hope that he is wrong about this.
The Fertilizer award in this category, now in negative sense, goes collectively to the G8 group of countries, for their continuing dismal performance, especially when set against their continued failure to live up to a UN agreement in 1970 that committed rich nations to allocating 0.7% of their GNP for this purpose. Although Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands comfortably meet this target, no G8 nation gets close to it (range = UK 0.52, Italy 0.16). In fact, when compared with other nations monitored by the OECD, the G8 whose brief meetings cost billions of dollars, perform even less well than the rest.
Really now, with a G8 like this, who needs it?
3. Human Rights
We offer flowers to the International Criminal Court (ICC) the permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression). The creation of the ICC is commonly viewed as the most significant reform of international law since 1945, giving teeth to the two bodies of international law that deal with treatment of individuals: human rights and humanitarian law. The court came into being on 1 July 2002 and can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date. The official seat of the court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.
We take this opportunity to draw attention to the ICC’s recently launched Outreach Report 2010 and related video, which presents the ICC Outreach Unit’s work from 1 October 2009 to 1 October 2010. The English-language version of this report, the video, and previous annual reports are available on the ICC website.
And we close our awards section this year with a very big pile of very smelly Fertilizer for French President Nicholas Sarkozy for his treatment of the Roma. We agree with the findings of EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who, in September, likened the recent deportation of almost 1,000 Gypsies to Romania and Bulgaria to Vichy France's treatment of Jews in the second world war. No amount of histrionic pirouetting by the perfidious Sarkozy can allow his decision to stand as other than another blow to France’s patchy record in the annals of human rights.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/14/roma-deportations-france-eu-disgrace].
2010 AS WE RECORDED IT...
January: FOOD 2030 - A NATIONAL REPORT WITH GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS
This issue highlighted the British Government’s new Food Strategy, released January 5th, 2010. It is a timely document, with implications for both the UK and the rest of the world. Here are some of the key findings:
Demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the world population tops 8.3 billion. Climate change will exacerbate matters unpredictably. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. The amount of fresh water available per head of population will decline sharply during that time. The issue of food and energy security rose high on the political agenda last year during a spike in oil and commodity prices, but then slipped in priority with falling prices. At present, 30-40% of all crops are lost due to pest and disease before they are harvested, and future droughts and increasing salinity will affect growth and produce.
February: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS AND COVER-UP BY CATHOLIC CHURCH
In this issue, we posted verbatim, a CNN report that outlined a decades old cover-up of child sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests in Ireland. The actions of Irish priests and the inaction of their church hierarchy represent the height of hypocrisy and flagrant criminal behavior, and bring into disrepute the entire edifice of organized Catholicism.
Although the action now being taken came about as a result of a commission of inquiry put into motion by the nation of Ireland, one then had to ask why this took so long and why no criminal charges have ever been laid.
The world has since learned from a leaked US diplomatic cable that the Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying.
[Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-vatican-child-sex-abuse-investigation]
In our view, this clearly does not absolve the state itself from some share of the responsibility and the consequences. Clearly it does not absolve the Vatican, which now appears to have used its enormous influence to engage in obstruction of justice.
March: OVER A BILLION HUNGRY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD - IMF AND FAO REPORT
This issue gives space to the text of an International Monetary Fund report entitled “Hunger on the Rise” developed by David Dawe and Denis Drechsler, and based on The State of Food Insecurity in the World, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 2009 (full citations provided in the blog).
In summary, world hunger spiked sharply in 2009, significantly worsening an already disappointing trend in global food security since 1996. The combination of food and economic crises has pushed the number of hungry people worldwide to historic levels.
April: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR HEALTH – NEW IMPLICATIONS ABOUT COMPARATIVE AID EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT VS NON-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDING
This issue extracted from a report recently distributed by the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, referring to work jointly published in the Lancet by Harvard University, and the University of Washington, revealing that investment in the non-government sector may result in more favourable health spending by government than by investing directly in the government sector itself.
Specifically, the study found that debt relief, and development assistance for health (DAH) to government had a negative and significant effect on domestic government spending on health such that for every US$1 of DAH to government, government health expenditures from domestic resources were reduced by $0•43 (p=0) to $1•14. However, debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to the non-governmental sector had a positive and significant effect on domestic government health spending.
May: MATERNAL MORTALITY – AN INTEGRITY TEST FOR POLITICIANS
For the lead item of this month’s blog, we presented the polite but authoritative view of the Lancet on Canada’s G8 Leadership, emphasizing the inadequacy of Canada’s approach to maternal health as a global public health issue, and followed this by the first good news in many decades, that maternal mortality globally is finally being reduced.
This issue was labeled “an integrity test for politicians” because many of (what Canadian Conservative politicians like to refer to themselves as) the “political class” appear intellectually challenged by scientifically sound evidence regarding the nature of the problem, and what works or doesn’t. It is also an ethical test… whether our ruling party is in it for cheap political gains among their home base, or whether higher reasoning will prevail in the interests of the health of millions of women around the world.
Postscript: Canada’s eventual funding commitments to address maternal and child health (MCH) excluded access to safe abortion, and made only weak provisions for family planning. (This observation was further elaborated in the September blog).
June: THE GAZA FOG OF ASYMMETRICAL VIOLENCE Need for International Inquiry
This issue presented verbatim, a recent report by Amnesty International, outlining the desperate situation of the people of Gaza due to the Israeli blockade. While this seemingly archaic military tactic continues to be excused by Israel as an act of self-defence, independent analyses have revealed this to be capricious in terms of the range of prohibited items, and it is obviously counter-productive to the peace effort although apparently good politics in Israel itself. On the ground however, the situation is nothing less than a humanitarian disaster, especially as over half the Gaza population are children.
July: FOOTBALL WORLD CUP PROMOTES SPORTS AS A FORCE FOR WORLD PEACE
We took the opportunity of the World Cup as a timely moment to take note of initiatives to bond international sport to the cause of world peace. Interestingly, this particular issue turned out to be the most frequently visited issue of our blog since it commenced in 2006!
August: HISTORIC UN RESOLUTION ON WATER AND SANITATION AS HUMAN RIGHTS
On 28th July, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on States and International Organizations to provide financial resources, build capacity and transfer technology, particularly to developing countries, in scaling up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all. The Assembly, in a text on the human right to water and sanitation, highlights that 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water and more than 2.6 billion are without access to basic sanitation.
Regretfully a full consensus was not achieved and the resolution was approved with 122 votes in favour, none against and 41 abstentions. We noted disappointment in our own Canadian government, which abstained from the vote, giving no adequate explanation.
September: MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS – OUR UNDERACHIEVING “LEADERSHIP”
Under United Nations auspices, from 20 to 22 September, a Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was held in New York. With five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the MDGs, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called on world leaders to accelerate progress towards these goals, the overall aim being to reduce World Poverty.
Despite the dire need of over a billion people living in poverty around the world, it is increasingly clear that few if any of the MDGs will be achieved by the target year of 2015. Clearly there is a crying need for a strong reaffirmation with donor policies and resources to match.
Unfortunately, recent years have witnessed a track record littered with false promises and broken commitments and in some instances shallow comprehension of what is needed to resolve on the major issues underlying world poverty. All too often, “world leaders” have pandered to their domestic political bases rather than genuinely taking on these issues.
October: CANADA LOSING ITS INFLUENCE IN THE WORLD – FOREIGN POLICY FAILURES AND "MAPLE SYRUP DIPLOMACY"
On October 12th, 2010, Canada lost in its bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Despite Canada’s tradition of global leadership, and having gained this seat on every prior bid for it, impoverished Portugal (pop 11.6 million) beat Canada by a virtual landslide. It is no exaggeration to say that, approaching the vote, Canada’s Conservative government revealed a sense of entitlement to the seat, being 7th largest donor of the UN, and hosting this year’s G8 and G20 meetings. Besides Prime Minister Stephen Harper making two appearances before the General Assembly during the run-up (having otherwise mostly ignored the UN), as a bizarre gesture, Maple Syrup gifts were given to representatives of UN members before the vote.
The juxtaposition of these events suggest that a combination of clumsy leadership and diplomatic ineptitude may lie at the root of this foreign policy failure. While Canada’s stated principles do create positive images, when you look closely at how they are interpreted under the Conservative government, the reality reveals a narrow vision that is too often arrogant, ignorant and ignoble.
November: CHINA SHAMES ITSELF - IMPRISONS MAN FOR PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY
In this issue we draw attention to how China is persecuting a man following his advocacy on behalf of public health, especially the health of children.
This is the first time we have given space to the issue of human rights in China. Like many other observers, we are impressed by China’s material advances and recognize its growing importance on the world stage. However, until human rights are elevated in importance, it will fall short of global expectations as a potential world leader.
December: INTERNATIONAL & GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT – YEAR IN REVIEW 2010…
This Issue!
AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!We extend to readers our best wishes for 2011, with hopes that the global challenges of recent years will be better understood and more humanely managed going forward. For this to happen we need more enlightened world leadership. PacificSci will continue to offer an independent view.
1. Global Stewardship
This year our pick of flowers for world leadership must go to South Africa for its enormous success in hosting the 2010 FIFA World Cup of Football with evident warmth, safety and competence. This nation, much more than most, symbolizes the universal striving for world peace. So much is evident in its peaceful overthrowing of apartheid, and efforts to seek truth and reconciliation in its internal affairs. A standard is set for others to follow - we can all learn from South Africa. The blog itself celebrates the role of sport in the cause of world peace.
Our pick for the Fertilizer Prize is the recently concluded UN Climate Conference in Mexico. Its not that it was a complete failure, but that it – thanks to countries like our own (Canada) that have been foot-dragging their way forward (some would say backward) in finding ways (not) to meet this challenge – fall far short of what the world community should be doing.
We want to remain positive about the progress in Cancun, but it is very obvious that more fertilizer (this time in a positive sense) is needed. For those interested in examining an authoritative assessment of the outcome, we recommend visiting http://climateprogress.org/2010/12/02/un-climate-summit-in-cancun-mexico/
2. International Development
We make a post-humus gesture of flowers on this occasion to Frank Fenner who passed away at the ripe old age of 95. Fenner, an Australian, was a giant in the field of international and global health, most notably leading the WHO smallpox eradication certification effort, achieved in 1980.
Our choice of Fenner for flowers in this category is doubly relevant, given the poor progress achieved by the world on climate change (see: 2nd paragraph above, under Global Stewardship), as he is recently famous for the following quotation:
“Homo sapiens will become extinct, perhaps within the next 100 years” he told the Australian newspaper in June. “A lot of other animals will too. It’s an irreversible situation. I think it is too late.” Surely we must do more now than simply hope that he is wrong about this.
The Fertilizer award in this category, now in negative sense, goes collectively to the G8 group of countries, for their continuing dismal performance, especially when set against their continued failure to live up to a UN agreement in 1970 that committed rich nations to allocating 0.7% of their GNP for this purpose. Although Sweden, Norway, Luxembourg, Denmark and the Netherlands comfortably meet this target, no G8 nation gets close to it (range = UK 0.52, Italy 0.16). In fact, when compared with other nations monitored by the OECD, the G8 whose brief meetings cost billions of dollars, perform even less well than the rest.
Really now, with a G8 like this, who needs it?
3. Human Rights
We offer flowers to the International Criminal Court (ICC) the permanent tribunal to prosecute individuals for genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression (although it cannot currently exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression). The creation of the ICC is commonly viewed as the most significant reform of international law since 1945, giving teeth to the two bodies of international law that deal with treatment of individuals: human rights and humanitarian law. The court came into being on 1 July 2002 and can only prosecute crimes committed on or after that date. The official seat of the court is in The Hague, Netherlands, but its proceedings may take place anywhere.
We take this opportunity to draw attention to the ICC’s recently launched Outreach Report 2010 and related video, which presents the ICC Outreach Unit’s work from 1 October 2009 to 1 October 2010. The English-language version of this report, the video, and previous annual reports are available on the ICC website.
And we close our awards section this year with a very big pile of very smelly Fertilizer for French President Nicholas Sarkozy for his treatment of the Roma. We agree with the findings of EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding, who, in September, likened the recent deportation of almost 1,000 Gypsies to Romania and Bulgaria to Vichy France's treatment of Jews in the second world war. No amount of histrionic pirouetting by the perfidious Sarkozy can allow his decision to stand as other than another blow to France’s patchy record in the annals of human rights.
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/14/roma-deportations-france-eu-disgrace].
2010 AS WE RECORDED IT...
January: FOOD 2030 - A NATIONAL REPORT WITH GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS
This issue highlighted the British Government’s new Food Strategy, released January 5th, 2010. It is a timely document, with implications for both the UK and the rest of the world. Here are some of the key findings:
Demand for food and energy will jump 50% by 2030 and for fresh water by 30%, as the world population tops 8.3 billion. Climate change will exacerbate matters unpredictably. The United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) predicts widespread water shortages across Africa, Europe and Asia by 2025. The amount of fresh water available per head of population will decline sharply during that time. The issue of food and energy security rose high on the political agenda last year during a spike in oil and commodity prices, but then slipped in priority with falling prices. At present, 30-40% of all crops are lost due to pest and disease before they are harvested, and future droughts and increasing salinity will affect growth and produce.
February: CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE BY PRIESTS AND COVER-UP BY CATHOLIC CHURCH
In this issue, we posted verbatim, a CNN report that outlined a decades old cover-up of child sexual abuse at the hands of Catholic priests in Ireland. The actions of Irish priests and the inaction of their church hierarchy represent the height of hypocrisy and flagrant criminal behavior, and bring into disrepute the entire edifice of organized Catholicism.
Although the action now being taken came about as a result of a commission of inquiry put into motion by the nation of Ireland, one then had to ask why this took so long and why no criminal charges have ever been laid.
The world has since learned from a leaked US diplomatic cable that the Irish government was forced to grant Vatican officials immunity from testifying.
[Reference: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/10/wikileaks-vatican-child-sex-abuse-investigation]
In our view, this clearly does not absolve the state itself from some share of the responsibility and the consequences. Clearly it does not absolve the Vatican, which now appears to have used its enormous influence to engage in obstruction of justice.
March: OVER A BILLION HUNGRY PEOPLE IN THE WORLD - IMF AND FAO REPORT
This issue gives space to the text of an International Monetary Fund report entitled “Hunger on the Rise” developed by David Dawe and Denis Drechsler, and based on The State of Food Insecurity in the World, published by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) in 2009 (full citations provided in the blog).
In summary, world hunger spiked sharply in 2009, significantly worsening an already disappointing trend in global food security since 1996. The combination of food and economic crises has pushed the number of hungry people worldwide to historic levels.
April: DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE FOR HEALTH – NEW IMPLICATIONS ABOUT COMPARATIVE AID EFFECTIVENESS OF GOVERNMENT VS NON-GOVERNMENTAL FUNDING
This issue extracted from a report recently distributed by the Pan American Health Organization, PAHO/WHO, referring to work jointly published in the Lancet by Harvard University, and the University of Washington, revealing that investment in the non-government sector may result in more favourable health spending by government than by investing directly in the government sector itself.
Specifically, the study found that debt relief, and development assistance for health (DAH) to government had a negative and significant effect on domestic government spending on health such that for every US$1 of DAH to government, government health expenditures from domestic resources were reduced by $0•43 (p=0) to $1•14. However, debt relief, and development assistance for health DAH to the non-governmental sector had a positive and significant effect on domestic government health spending.
May: MATERNAL MORTALITY – AN INTEGRITY TEST FOR POLITICIANS
For the lead item of this month’s blog, we presented the polite but authoritative view of the Lancet on Canada’s G8 Leadership, emphasizing the inadequacy of Canada’s approach to maternal health as a global public health issue, and followed this by the first good news in many decades, that maternal mortality globally is finally being reduced.
This issue was labeled “an integrity test for politicians” because many of (what Canadian Conservative politicians like to refer to themselves as) the “political class” appear intellectually challenged by scientifically sound evidence regarding the nature of the problem, and what works or doesn’t. It is also an ethical test… whether our ruling party is in it for cheap political gains among their home base, or whether higher reasoning will prevail in the interests of the health of millions of women around the world.
Postscript: Canada’s eventual funding commitments to address maternal and child health (MCH) excluded access to safe abortion, and made only weak provisions for family planning. (This observation was further elaborated in the September blog).
June: THE GAZA FOG OF ASYMMETRICAL VIOLENCE Need for International Inquiry
This issue presented verbatim, a recent report by Amnesty International, outlining the desperate situation of the people of Gaza due to the Israeli blockade. While this seemingly archaic military tactic continues to be excused by Israel as an act of self-defence, independent analyses have revealed this to be capricious in terms of the range of prohibited items, and it is obviously counter-productive to the peace effort although apparently good politics in Israel itself. On the ground however, the situation is nothing less than a humanitarian disaster, especially as over half the Gaza population are children.
July: FOOTBALL WORLD CUP PROMOTES SPORTS AS A FORCE FOR WORLD PEACE
We took the opportunity of the World Cup as a timely moment to take note of initiatives to bond international sport to the cause of world peace. Interestingly, this particular issue turned out to be the most frequently visited issue of our blog since it commenced in 2006!
August: HISTORIC UN RESOLUTION ON WATER AND SANITATION AS HUMAN RIGHTS
On 28th July, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution calling on States and International Organizations to provide financial resources, build capacity and transfer technology, particularly to developing countries, in scaling up efforts to provide safe, clean, accessible and affordable drinking water and sanitation for all. The Assembly, in a text on the human right to water and sanitation, highlights that 884 million people lack access to safe drinking water and more than 2.6 billion are without access to basic sanitation.
Regretfully a full consensus was not achieved and the resolution was approved with 122 votes in favour, none against and 41 abstentions. We noted disappointment in our own Canadian government, which abstained from the vote, giving no adequate explanation.
September: MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS – OUR UNDERACHIEVING “LEADERSHIP”
Under United Nations auspices, from 20 to 22 September, a Summit on the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) was held in New York. With five years left until the 2015 deadline to achieve the MDGs, Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon called on world leaders to accelerate progress towards these goals, the overall aim being to reduce World Poverty.
Despite the dire need of over a billion people living in poverty around the world, it is increasingly clear that few if any of the MDGs will be achieved by the target year of 2015. Clearly there is a crying need for a strong reaffirmation with donor policies and resources to match.
Unfortunately, recent years have witnessed a track record littered with false promises and broken commitments and in some instances shallow comprehension of what is needed to resolve on the major issues underlying world poverty. All too often, “world leaders” have pandered to their domestic political bases rather than genuinely taking on these issues.
October: CANADA LOSING ITS INFLUENCE IN THE WORLD – FOREIGN POLICY FAILURES AND "MAPLE SYRUP DIPLOMACY"
On October 12th, 2010, Canada lost in its bid for a seat on the United Nations Security Council. Despite Canada’s tradition of global leadership, and having gained this seat on every prior bid for it, impoverished Portugal (pop 11.6 million) beat Canada by a virtual landslide. It is no exaggeration to say that, approaching the vote, Canada’s Conservative government revealed a sense of entitlement to the seat, being 7th largest donor of the UN, and hosting this year’s G8 and G20 meetings. Besides Prime Minister Stephen Harper making two appearances before the General Assembly during the run-up (having otherwise mostly ignored the UN), as a bizarre gesture, Maple Syrup gifts were given to representatives of UN members before the vote.
The juxtaposition of these events suggest that a combination of clumsy leadership and diplomatic ineptitude may lie at the root of this foreign policy failure. While Canada’s stated principles do create positive images, when you look closely at how they are interpreted under the Conservative government, the reality reveals a narrow vision that is too often arrogant, ignorant and ignoble.
November: CHINA SHAMES ITSELF - IMPRISONS MAN FOR PUBLIC HEALTH ADVOCACY
In this issue we draw attention to how China is persecuting a man following his advocacy on behalf of public health, especially the health of children.
This is the first time we have given space to the issue of human rights in China. Like many other observers, we are impressed by China’s material advances and recognize its growing importance on the world stage. However, until human rights are elevated in importance, it will fall short of global expectations as a potential world leader.
December: INTERNATIONAL & GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT – YEAR IN REVIEW 2010…
This Issue!
AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR!We extend to readers our best wishes for 2011, with hopes that the global challenges of recent years will be better understood and more humanely managed going forward. For this to happen we need more enlightened world leadership. PacificSci will continue to offer an independent view.
Friday, 14 May 2010
MATERNAL MORTALITY – AN INTEGRITY TEST FOR POLITICIANS
PREAMBLE: One of the world’s most intractable public health problems is the high mortality of women due to pregnancy related causes. Over several decades (until recently), maternal mortality in developing countries appears to have been non-responsive to a range of interventions, perhaps because of inadequate intervention design or the inability to scale these to a level that can have impact on population health. In many countries, social and health policies that could facilitate the status of women, particularly in their right to make independent decisions with regard to their own health, have remained underdeveloped; it is of low priority in the world’s male-dominated political systems. Health services also have been inadequate to help lower maternal mortality: insufficient attention to prevention and inadequate access to treatment services of quality when critically needed.
Most donor countries recognize maternal health as a global public health priority. However, in Canada (under the regime of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper), this global imperative is being sacrificed to partisan politics of the most ill-informed kind: it risks becoming a platform for the “religious right” to rail against the use of donor funds for abortion rather than to address in a holistic manner the most important needs of women that can assure improvement in their health.
Only last year, the administration of US President Barack Obama rescinded the global “gag order” of the preceding Bush regime, that required recipients of US aid – even in the realm of reproductive health – to deny access to safe abortion services if accepting US funds. This enlightened policy shift brings the US international development policy in line with that of the global community generally. It is ironic therefore that Canada – once a leader in this respect – appears to be taking a giant step backwards. Given the removal of access to safe abortions from the frame of reference, it is extremely doubtful that a recent Request for Proposals to guide the policy of the Canadian government in this regard, could attract anyone with a rigorous track record in this area of international health development.
Taking Africa as an example, as the recent "African Century" series of articles in the Globe and Mail (ref: May 11, 2010 issue) makes clear, more than 90% of Africans live in countries where abortion is restricted. It is legally prohibited in 14, while in others it is only permitted only to preserve the life or physical health of the woman. As a result, virtually all of the estimated 5.6 million abortions performed annually in Africa are unsafe, carrying with an unconscionable risk of complications and death.
Simply put, along with access to contraception, antenatal care, safe deliveries, reliable transportation to advanced care when this is urgently required (otherwise known as emergency obstetric care, which includes surgical intervention if needed as well as prompt treatment of post-partum infection and hemorrhage), access to safe abortion is part of any coherent plan to improve reproductive health and reduce maternal mortality. Knowing all this, and both the health and international development arms of the Canadian government surely should know this, to specifically and deliberately exclude funding of safe abortions in an aid package aimed at reducing maternal mortality would render the donor complicit in those deaths.
We labeled this issue “Maternal Mortality – an Integrity Test for Politicians” after realizing that many politicians are intellectually challenged by the technical nature of what is scientifically sound evidence regarding the nature of the problem at hand, and what works or doesn’t in addressing it. It is also an ethical test… in essence whether they (the ruling political party) are in it for cheap political gains among their home base, or whether higher reasoning will prevail in the interests of the health of millions of women around the world. Just how the G8 countries deal with this in their upcoming meetings will be a direct reflection of their collective political integrity. Based on public utterances to date, it seems like all the G8 countries except Canada may pass this test.
For the lead item of this month’s blog, we therefore attach below the polite but authoritative view of the Lancet on Canada’s G8 Leadership. This we follow by the first good news in many decades, that maternal mortality globally is finally being reduced.
CANADA'S G8 HEALTH LEADERSHIP
The Lancet May 8th, 2010
As a World Report in The Lancet today shows, Canada's pledge, as host of this year's G8 Summit, to make maternal and child health one of its key issues is moving forward. At a meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia (April 27—28), the G8 development ministers agreed to back Canada's provisional set of principles to improve the health of women and children in developing nations.
Canada should be praised for making maternal and child health a priority issue for the G8. As an Article by Margaret Hogan and colleagues in today's issue shows, around 350 000 women die during childbirth every year. 9 million children younger than 5 years also die every year. Most of these deaths are preventable. Canada's health plan to address this situation is still thin on details but it promises to include training and support for frontline health workers; better nutrition and provision of micronutrients; treatment and prevention of diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, and sepsis; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS; family planning; immunisation; and clean water and sanitation.
However, a few key elements are missing from the framework. For example, there is no talk of emergency obstetric care. This omission is likely to be an oversight and should be rectified. Improving access to safe abortion services is also absent from the plan. Sadly, this omission is no accident, but a conscious decision by Canada's Conservative Government not to support groups that undertake abortions in developing countries.
This stance must change. 70 000 women die from unsafe abortions worldwide every year. The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad. Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported. Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.
Source: The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9726, Page 1580, 8 May 2010
SUMMARY: Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5
(Note: Details of source and authorship given below)
Background: Maternal mortality remains a major challenge to health systems worldwide. Reliable information about the rates and trends in maternal mortality is essential for resource mobilisation, and for planning and assessment of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5 (MDG 5), the target for which is a 75% reduction in the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from 1990 to 2015. We assessed levels and trends in maternal mortality for 181 countries.
Methods: We constructed a database of 2651 observations of maternal mortality for 181 countries for 1980—2008, from vital registration data, censuses, surveys, and verbal autopsy studies. We used robust analytical methods to generate estimates of maternal deaths and the MMR for each year between 1980 and 2008. We explored the sensitivity of our data to model specification and show the out-of-sample predictive validity of our methods.
Findings: We estimated that there were 342 900 (uncertainty interval 302 100—394 300) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008, down from 526 300 (446 400—629 600) in 1980. The global MMR decreased from 422 (358—505) in 1980 to 320 (272—388) in 1990, and was 251 (221—289) per 100 000 livebirths in 2008. The yearly rate of decline of the global MMR since 1990 was 1•3% (1•0—1•5). During 1990—2008, rates of yearly decline in the MMR varied between countries, from 8•8% (8•7—14•1) in the Maldives to an increase of 5•5% (5•2—5•6) in Zimbabwe. More than 50% of all maternal deaths were in only six countries in 2008 (India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). In the absence of HIV, there would have been 281 500 (243 900—327 900) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008.
Interpretation: Substantial, albeit varied, progress has been made towards MDG 5. Although only 23 countries are on track to achieve a 75% decrease in MMR by 2015, countries such as Egypt, China, Ecuador, and Bolivia have been achieving accelerated progress.
Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Source: Hogan MC, Foreman KJ, Naghavi M, Ahn SY, Wang M, Makela SM, Lopez AD, Lozano R, Murray CJL. Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5. The Lancet, 375, 9726, 1609 - 1623, 8 May 2010.
Most donor countries recognize maternal health as a global public health priority. However, in Canada (under the regime of Conservative Prime Minister Stephen Harper), this global imperative is being sacrificed to partisan politics of the most ill-informed kind: it risks becoming a platform for the “religious right” to rail against the use of donor funds for abortion rather than to address in a holistic manner the most important needs of women that can assure improvement in their health.
Only last year, the administration of US President Barack Obama rescinded the global “gag order” of the preceding Bush regime, that required recipients of US aid – even in the realm of reproductive health – to deny access to safe abortion services if accepting US funds. This enlightened policy shift brings the US international development policy in line with that of the global community generally. It is ironic therefore that Canada – once a leader in this respect – appears to be taking a giant step backwards. Given the removal of access to safe abortions from the frame of reference, it is extremely doubtful that a recent Request for Proposals to guide the policy of the Canadian government in this regard, could attract anyone with a rigorous track record in this area of international health development.
Taking Africa as an example, as the recent "African Century" series of articles in the Globe and Mail (ref: May 11, 2010 issue) makes clear, more than 90% of Africans live in countries where abortion is restricted. It is legally prohibited in 14, while in others it is only permitted only to preserve the life or physical health of the woman. As a result, virtually all of the estimated 5.6 million abortions performed annually in Africa are unsafe, carrying with an unconscionable risk of complications and death.
Simply put, along with access to contraception, antenatal care, safe deliveries, reliable transportation to advanced care when this is urgently required (otherwise known as emergency obstetric care, which includes surgical intervention if needed as well as prompt treatment of post-partum infection and hemorrhage), access to safe abortion is part of any coherent plan to improve reproductive health and reduce maternal mortality. Knowing all this, and both the health and international development arms of the Canadian government surely should know this, to specifically and deliberately exclude funding of safe abortions in an aid package aimed at reducing maternal mortality would render the donor complicit in those deaths.
We labeled this issue “Maternal Mortality – an Integrity Test for Politicians” after realizing that many politicians are intellectually challenged by the technical nature of what is scientifically sound evidence regarding the nature of the problem at hand, and what works or doesn’t in addressing it. It is also an ethical test… in essence whether they (the ruling political party) are in it for cheap political gains among their home base, or whether higher reasoning will prevail in the interests of the health of millions of women around the world. Just how the G8 countries deal with this in their upcoming meetings will be a direct reflection of their collective political integrity. Based on public utterances to date, it seems like all the G8 countries except Canada may pass this test.
For the lead item of this month’s blog, we therefore attach below the polite but authoritative view of the Lancet on Canada’s G8 Leadership. This we follow by the first good news in many decades, that maternal mortality globally is finally being reduced.
CANADA'S G8 HEALTH LEADERSHIP
The Lancet May 8th, 2010
As a World Report in The Lancet today shows, Canada's pledge, as host of this year's G8 Summit, to make maternal and child health one of its key issues is moving forward. At a meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia (April 27—28), the G8 development ministers agreed to back Canada's provisional set of principles to improve the health of women and children in developing nations.
Canada should be praised for making maternal and child health a priority issue for the G8. As an Article by Margaret Hogan and colleagues in today's issue shows, around 350 000 women die during childbirth every year. 9 million children younger than 5 years also die every year. Most of these deaths are preventable. Canada's health plan to address this situation is still thin on details but it promises to include training and support for frontline health workers; better nutrition and provision of micronutrients; treatment and prevention of diseases such as pneumonia, diarrhoea, malaria, and sepsis; screening and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV/AIDS; family planning; immunisation; and clean water and sanitation.
However, a few key elements are missing from the framework. For example, there is no talk of emergency obstetric care. This omission is likely to be an oversight and should be rectified. Improving access to safe abortion services is also absent from the plan. Sadly, this omission is no accident, but a conscious decision by Canada's Conservative Government not to support groups that undertake abortions in developing countries.
This stance must change. 70 000 women die from unsafe abortions worldwide every year. The Canadian Government does not deprive women living in Canada from access to safe abortions; it is therefore hypocritical and unjust that it tries to do so abroad. Although the country's decision only affects a small number of developing countries where abortion is legal, bans on the procedure, which are detrimental to public health, should be challenged by the G8, not tacitly supported. Canada and the other G8 nations could show real leadership with a final maternal health plan that is based on sound scientific evidence and not prejudice.
Source: The Lancet, Volume 375, Issue 9726, Page 1580, 8 May 2010
SUMMARY: Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5
(Note: Details of source and authorship given below)
Background: Maternal mortality remains a major challenge to health systems worldwide. Reliable information about the rates and trends in maternal mortality is essential for resource mobilisation, and for planning and assessment of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5 (MDG 5), the target for which is a 75% reduction in the maternal mortality ratio (MMR) from 1990 to 2015. We assessed levels and trends in maternal mortality for 181 countries.
Methods: We constructed a database of 2651 observations of maternal mortality for 181 countries for 1980—2008, from vital registration data, censuses, surveys, and verbal autopsy studies. We used robust analytical methods to generate estimates of maternal deaths and the MMR for each year between 1980 and 2008. We explored the sensitivity of our data to model specification and show the out-of-sample predictive validity of our methods.
Findings: We estimated that there were 342 900 (uncertainty interval 302 100—394 300) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008, down from 526 300 (446 400—629 600) in 1980. The global MMR decreased from 422 (358—505) in 1980 to 320 (272—388) in 1990, and was 251 (221—289) per 100 000 livebirths in 2008. The yearly rate of decline of the global MMR since 1990 was 1•3% (1•0—1•5). During 1990—2008, rates of yearly decline in the MMR varied between countries, from 8•8% (8•7—14•1) in the Maldives to an increase of 5•5% (5•2—5•6) in Zimbabwe. More than 50% of all maternal deaths were in only six countries in 2008 (India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo). In the absence of HIV, there would have been 281 500 (243 900—327 900) maternal deaths worldwide in 2008.
Interpretation: Substantial, albeit varied, progress has been made towards MDG 5. Although only 23 countries are on track to achieve a 75% decrease in MMR by 2015, countries such as Egypt, China, Ecuador, and Bolivia have been achieving accelerated progress.
Funding: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Source: Hogan MC, Foreman KJ, Naghavi M, Ahn SY, Wang M, Makela SM, Lopez AD, Lozano R, Murray CJL. Maternal mortality for 181 countries, 1980—2008: a systematic analysis of progress towards Millennium Development Goal 5. The Lancet, 375, 9726, 1609 - 1623, 8 May 2010.
Thursday, 15 May 2008
THE GLOBAL ARMS TRADE - An Atrocity?
PREFACE: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. The world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children… This is not a way of life at all, in any true sense. Under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.
— Former U.S. President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a speech on April 16, 1953
To find out who shares responsibility for global militarization, follow the money trail. Regardless of attempts to legitimize the trade, the historical reality is that bribery, corruption and mercenary as well as national self-interest lie at the heart of the trade. This month’s blog highlights the mainstream facts and some relevant reference sources.
WORLD MILITARY EXPENDITURES: World military expenditure in 2006 was estimated at $1204 billion in current prices, an increase of 3.5% in real terms since 2005 and of 37% over the 10-year period since 1997. Average spending per capita increased from $173 in 2005 to $177 in 2006 at constant (2005) prices and exchange rates and to $184 at current prices. The USA is responsible for 46% of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5% each.
USA: The rapid increase in the United States' military spending is to a large extent due to continued costly military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between September 2001 and June 2006, the US Government provided a total of $432 billion in annual and supplemental appropriations under the heading 'global war on terrorism'. This massive increase in US military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001. In addition to its direct impact of high military expenditure, there are also indirect and more long-term effects. According to one study taking these factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated to $2267 billion.
CHINA: In 2006 China continued its steep increase in military expenditure, for the first time surpassing that of Japan and hence replacing Japan as the country in Asia with the highest level of military expenditure and as the fourth biggest spender in the world. Amid intense discussions on the right level of Japanese military spending, Japan decided, for the fifth consecutive year, to reduce its military spending in 2006 while at the same time focusing its military budget on missile defence.
THE GLOBAL MARKET FOR ARMS: Aside from spending on their own military “needs”, it is fairly obvious from the figures quoted below that the leading arms dealing countries in the world are reaping major economic gains from exporting their military technologies. The only G-8 country not ranking highly on arms exporting is Japan.
Sellers: During the period 2000-2006, the US sold $45.4 billion worth of armaments into the global marketplace, ahead of Russia at $40.5 billion, followed by Germany at $11.6 billion and France at $11.1 billion. This was followed by the UK (7.0), the Netherlands (3.7), Sweden (3.1), Italy (3.0), China (2.9) with Ukraine (2.5) completing the top ten. Israel and Canada came in at 2.3B and 1.3 respectively.
Buyers: A comparison of government spending priorities across samples of countries in different per capita income groups shows that the lower the income group, the higher the priority given to military spending in relation to social spending. For example, UN data sources show that military expenditures exceed public expenditures on health or education for almost every country in South Asia (exception: the Maldives). Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers.[2] During the years 1996-2003, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 63.9% of all such agreements worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations constituted 60.4% of all such agreements globally from 2000-2003, and 53.6% of these agreements in 2003. The top seven recipient countries, comprising 59% of all purchases from 1999-2006, are: India 11%, China 8%, Saudi Arabia 8%, Egypt 6%, UAE 6%, Israel 5% and Pakistan 5%.[3]
References:
1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html Accessed April 24, 2008.
2. Goliath Business Knowledge on Demand. Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4561391/Conventional-Arms-Transfers-to-developing.html Accessed April 25, 2008.
3. Anup Shah. Arms Trade – a Major cause of Suffering. October 30, 2007. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp
COMMENTARY
There is clear evidence that the international transfer of arms or the training of foreign security forces can provide repressive governments and abusive armed groups with the means to carry out or intensify gross human rights violations. Arms brokers have been at the center of many of the most disturbing arms deals, including weapons transfers to abusive armed groups and countries under U.N. arms embargoes.[1] From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.
The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings. So who profits most from this murderous trade? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for eighty eight per cent of reported conventional arms exports. “We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.” Former US President Jimmy Carter, presidential campaign, 1976
References:
1. Amnesty International USA. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-priorities/arms-trade/page.do?id=1011003&n1=3&n2=24 Accessed April 25, 2008.
2. The Arms Industry. Control Arms Campaign, October 2003. http://www.controlarms.org/the_issues/arms_industry.htm Accessed April 25, 2008.
RECOMMENDED SITE: We close this brief review with reference to a specialized website that we believe lays out the facts in a much more comprehensive manner than we have done:
Reference: Anup Shah. Arms Trade – a Major cause of Suffering. October 30, 2007. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp
— Former U.S. President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, in a speech on April 16, 1953
To find out who shares responsibility for global militarization, follow the money trail. Regardless of attempts to legitimize the trade, the historical reality is that bribery, corruption and mercenary as well as national self-interest lie at the heart of the trade. This month’s blog highlights the mainstream facts and some relevant reference sources.
WORLD MILITARY EXPENDITURES: World military expenditure in 2006 was estimated at $1204 billion in current prices, an increase of 3.5% in real terms since 2005 and of 37% over the 10-year period since 1997. Average spending per capita increased from $173 in 2005 to $177 in 2006 at constant (2005) prices and exchange rates and to $184 at current prices. The USA is responsible for 46% of the world total, distantly followed by the UK, France, Japan and China with 4-5% each.
USA: The rapid increase in the United States' military spending is to a large extent due to continued costly military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Between September 2001 and June 2006, the US Government provided a total of $432 billion in annual and supplemental appropriations under the heading 'global war on terrorism'. This massive increase in US military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001. In addition to its direct impact of high military expenditure, there are also indirect and more long-term effects. According to one study taking these factors into account, the overall past and future costs until year 2016 to the USA for the war in Iraq have been estimated to $2267 billion.
CHINA: In 2006 China continued its steep increase in military expenditure, for the first time surpassing that of Japan and hence replacing Japan as the country in Asia with the highest level of military expenditure and as the fourth biggest spender in the world. Amid intense discussions on the right level of Japanese military spending, Japan decided, for the fifth consecutive year, to reduce its military spending in 2006 while at the same time focusing its military budget on missile defence.
THE GLOBAL MARKET FOR ARMS: Aside from spending on their own military “needs”, it is fairly obvious from the figures quoted below that the leading arms dealing countries in the world are reaping major economic gains from exporting their military technologies. The only G-8 country not ranking highly on arms exporting is Japan.
Sellers: During the period 2000-2006, the US sold $45.4 billion worth of armaments into the global marketplace, ahead of Russia at $40.5 billion, followed by Germany at $11.6 billion and France at $11.1 billion. This was followed by the UK (7.0), the Netherlands (3.7), Sweden (3.1), Italy (3.0), China (2.9) with Ukraine (2.5) completing the top ten. Israel and Canada came in at 2.3B and 1.3 respectively.
Buyers: A comparison of government spending priorities across samples of countries in different per capita income groups shows that the lower the income group, the higher the priority given to military spending in relation to social spending. For example, UN data sources show that military expenditures exceed public expenditures on health or education for almost every country in South Asia (exception: the Maldives). Developing nations continue to be the primary focus of foreign arms sales activity by weapons suppliers.[2] During the years 1996-2003, the value of arms transfer agreements with developing nations comprised 63.9% of all such agreements worldwide. More recently, arms transfer agreements with developing nations constituted 60.4% of all such agreements globally from 2000-2003, and 53.6% of these agreements in 2003. The top seven recipient countries, comprising 59% of all purchases from 1999-2006, are: India 11%, China 8%, Saudi Arabia 8%, Egypt 6%, UAE 6%, Israel 5% and Pakistan 5%.[3]
References:
1. Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html Accessed April 24, 2008.
2. Goliath Business Knowledge on Demand. Conventional Arms Transfers to Developing Nations. http://goliath.ecnext.com/coms2/gi_0199-4561391/Conventional-Arms-Transfers-to-developing.html Accessed April 25, 2008.
3. Anup Shah. Arms Trade – a Major cause of Suffering. October 30, 2007. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp
COMMENTARY
There is clear evidence that the international transfer of arms or the training of foreign security forces can provide repressive governments and abusive armed groups with the means to carry out or intensify gross human rights violations. Arms brokers have been at the center of many of the most disturbing arms deals, including weapons transfers to abusive armed groups and countries under U.N. arms embargoes.[1] From 1998 to 2001, the USA, the UK, and France earned more income from arms sales to developing countries than they gave in aid.
The arms industry is unlike any other. It operates without regulation. It suffers from widespread corruption and bribes. And it makes its profits on the back of machines designed to kill and maim human beings. So who profits most from this murderous trade? The five permanent members of the UN Security Council—the USA, UK, France, Russia, and China. Together, they are responsible for eighty eight per cent of reported conventional arms exports. “We can’t have it both ways. We can’t be both the world’s leading champion of peace and the world’s leading supplier of arms.” Former US President Jimmy Carter, presidential campaign, 1976
References:
1. Amnesty International USA. http://www.amnestyusa.org/our-priorities/arms-trade/page.do?id=1011003&n1=3&n2=24 Accessed April 25, 2008.
2. The Arms Industry. Control Arms Campaign, October 2003. http://www.controlarms.org/the_issues/arms_industry.htm Accessed April 25, 2008.
RECOMMENDED SITE: We close this brief review with reference to a specialized website that we believe lays out the facts in a much more comprehensive manner than we have done:
Reference: Anup Shah. Arms Trade – a Major cause of Suffering. October 30, 2007. http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/ArmsTrade/BigBusiness.asp
Monday, 1 October 2007
IS CLIMATE CHANGE AN ACT OF AGRESSION?
PREAMBLE: In this issue we abstract an article carried by The Economist (on-line edition Sept 24th, 2007). The article reported on Ugandan President, Yoweri Museveni's declaration that climate change is an act of aggression by the rich world against the world’s poor. We also note, on the same topic, the following statement from the Church World Service (CWS): "The issue for CWS is how climate change frames development and justice", said Rajyashri Waghray, who directs education and advocacy for the CWS.
For stark contrast we note Canada’s uncertain posture, now quoted from a Globe and Mail Editorial of September 26: “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s progress from a climate-change skeptic to an environmental convert has been a perplexing odyssey. After a half-hearted attempt to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions late last year, his Conservative government hurriedly introduced new regulations and incentives, which made a good start in fostering reductions. Earlier…(in September), in Australia, he even announced his personal commitment to ‘careful environmental stewardship’. That seemed heartfelt. Now it is fair to question the sincerity of that conversion. On… (Sept 24), at a UN climate change conference aimed at saving the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Harper announced that Canada had asked to join a rival climate-change pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership. The six members of that pact include nations that have refused to ratify the protocol, such as the United States, and others among the world’s worst polluters, such as India and China. Together they account for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions”.
And now The Economist’s discussion of the Ugandan Prime Minister’s proposition, and their assessment of the situation and implications in Africa...
CLIMATE CHANGE AS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION
At a recent African Union summit, Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, declared climate change an act of aggression by the rich world against the world’s poor. Indeed, if predictions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hold true, climate change may have a graver effect on Africa than on any other continent. One may well ask…Why should the poorest die for the continued excesses of the richest?
According to The Economist, the IPCC's most recent regional report raises the spectre of rising mortality. It predicts a minimum 2.5°C increase in temperature in Africa by 2030; drylands bordering deserts may get drier, wetlands bordering rainforests may get wetter. The panel suggests the supply of food in Africa will be “severely compromised” by climate change, with crop yields in danger of collapsing in some countries.
In the drylands, water may become a critical issue. Soaring temperatures and erratic rainfall may dry up surface water. Between 75m and 250m Africans, out of the 800m or so now living in sub-Saharan Africa, may be short of water. The soil will hold less moisture, bore-holes will become contaminated, and women and girls will have to walk ever greater distances to fetch water. Vegetative cover will recede. The IPCC guesses that 600,000 square kilometres (232,000 square miles) of cultivable land may be ruined.
Warming may also hurt animal habitats and biodiversity. More algae in freshwater lakes will hit fishing. The glaciers of Uganda's Rwenzori mountains, of Tanzania's Kilimanjaro and of Kenya's eponymous mountain may disappear; only 7 of the 18 glaciers recorded on Mount Kenya in 1900 still remain. At the same time, a likely rise in sea levels may threaten the coastal infrastructure of northern Egypt, the Gambia, the Gulf of Guinea and Senegal.
There are two caveats to this gloomy scenario: 1) some parts of Africa may benefit from climate change. Increased rainfall in highland areas in eastern Africa could, for example, be beneficial. 2) though climate-change models have improved, they have been unreliable in Africa; the detail is guesswork.
Still, states The Economist, some scientists think that climate change may be even crueler to parts of Africa than the IPCC predicts. The important point, they say, is not the degree of warming but the continent's vulnerability to it. A University of Pretoria study estimates that Africa might lose $25 billion in crop failure due to rising temperatures and another $4 billion from less rain. The already impoverished drylands would suffer most. Some cite the war in Sudan's Darfur region as proof of the damage done by climate change, soil erosion and overpopulation.
Unfortunately, in the opinion of The Economist, few African leaders have grasped the scale of the challenge... Most oil-producers have squandered their bonanza. Nigeria has failed to plan for how to stem the dreadful pollution in its oil-producing Delta region or to prevent desertification tearing at the fabric of its dry Muslim north. South Africa is only just beginning to own up to its coal addiction. Uganda's Mr Museveni is fighting off a rare insurrection from his supporters against plans to turn a piece of Ugandan rainforest over to farming. The World Meteorological Organisation says that weather-data collection in Africa has recently got worse, just as the need for accurate figures has grown; many of the automatic weather stations it helped set up have fallen into disrepair. The African Union has done little to sound the climate-change alarm.
Kenya's president, Mwai Kibaki, says that Africa should “join hands” with its friends in the rich world over climate change. He wants more carbon-trading projects to come to Africa; so far, most have gone to Asia. His advisers admit that Mr Kibaki's ambitious plan to turn Kenya into an industrial country by 2020 worries environmentalists, but say that reforestation, thermal power and better management of water and grazing would, if they materialized, offset the damage.
Africa emits far less carbon than other continents, so its recently faster-growing economies do not gravely menace its environment. Some rich-country consumers, however, want to punish African countries for air freighting northwards some of their produce, from flowers to wine.
Hardier new varieties of staple crops, drip irrigation schemes and technologies such as solar power should help Africa adapt to climate change. But so can simple shifts in policy. For instance, a government decision in Burkina Faso to let farmers own the trees on their land has increased the country's tree cover.
The Economist’s conclusion: As the G8 rich countries are failing so far to fulfill the promises they made in 2005 to boost aid to Africa, the continent should not expect much new money to protect the environment. In the short run, Africa's own politicians need to take a lead, even if the people most culpable for the damage done by climate change live elsewhere.
Sources:
. Church World Service and partners prepare to act on climate change. May 2, 2007. http://www.churchworldservice.org/Educ_Advo/news/2007/climatechange.html
. Globe and Mail. Lead Editorial. Sept 26, 2007.
. Economist.com. Global Warming in Africa – drying up and flooding out. Sept 24, 2007. http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9163426
COMMENT: What is important about the contrasting viewpoints presented, from those of President Museveni, to the Church World Service, The Economist, to the anti-Kyoto stance of Prime Minister Harper and the Asian-Pacific partnership, is that ultimately they highlight climate change as an ethical issue that almost inevitably will come up as a focus for discussion at the UN negotiations on climate change scheduled for Bali in December.
For stark contrast we note Canada’s uncertain posture, now quoted from a Globe and Mail Editorial of September 26: “Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s progress from a climate-change skeptic to an environmental convert has been a perplexing odyssey. After a half-hearted attempt to tackle greenhouse-gas emissions late last year, his Conservative government hurriedly introduced new regulations and incentives, which made a good start in fostering reductions. Earlier…(in September), in Australia, he even announced his personal commitment to ‘careful environmental stewardship’. That seemed heartfelt. Now it is fair to question the sincerity of that conversion. On… (Sept 24), at a UN climate change conference aimed at saving the Kyoto Protocol, Mr Harper announced that Canada had asked to join a rival climate-change pact, the Asia-Pacific Partnership. The six members of that pact include nations that have refused to ratify the protocol, such as the United States, and others among the world’s worst polluters, such as India and China. Together they account for nearly half of all greenhouse gas emissions”.
And now The Economist’s discussion of the Ugandan Prime Minister’s proposition, and their assessment of the situation and implications in Africa...
CLIMATE CHANGE AS AN ACT OF AGGRESSION
At a recent African Union summit, Uganda's president, Yoweri Museveni, declared climate change an act of aggression by the rich world against the world’s poor. Indeed, if predictions of the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) hold true, climate change may have a graver effect on Africa than on any other continent. One may well ask…Why should the poorest die for the continued excesses of the richest?
According to The Economist, the IPCC's most recent regional report raises the spectre of rising mortality. It predicts a minimum 2.5°C increase in temperature in Africa by 2030; drylands bordering deserts may get drier, wetlands bordering rainforests may get wetter. The panel suggests the supply of food in Africa will be “severely compromised” by climate change, with crop yields in danger of collapsing in some countries.
In the drylands, water may become a critical issue. Soaring temperatures and erratic rainfall may dry up surface water. Between 75m and 250m Africans, out of the 800m or so now living in sub-Saharan Africa, may be short of water. The soil will hold less moisture, bore-holes will become contaminated, and women and girls will have to walk ever greater distances to fetch water. Vegetative cover will recede. The IPCC guesses that 600,000 square kilometres (232,000 square miles) of cultivable land may be ruined.
Warming may also hurt animal habitats and biodiversity. More algae in freshwater lakes will hit fishing. The glaciers of Uganda's Rwenzori mountains, of Tanzania's Kilimanjaro and of Kenya's eponymous mountain may disappear; only 7 of the 18 glaciers recorded on Mount Kenya in 1900 still remain. At the same time, a likely rise in sea levels may threaten the coastal infrastructure of northern Egypt, the Gambia, the Gulf of Guinea and Senegal.
There are two caveats to this gloomy scenario: 1) some parts of Africa may benefit from climate change. Increased rainfall in highland areas in eastern Africa could, for example, be beneficial. 2) though climate-change models have improved, they have been unreliable in Africa; the detail is guesswork.
Still, states The Economist, some scientists think that climate change may be even crueler to parts of Africa than the IPCC predicts. The important point, they say, is not the degree of warming but the continent's vulnerability to it. A University of Pretoria study estimates that Africa might lose $25 billion in crop failure due to rising temperatures and another $4 billion from less rain. The already impoverished drylands would suffer most. Some cite the war in Sudan's Darfur region as proof of the damage done by climate change, soil erosion and overpopulation.
Unfortunately, in the opinion of The Economist, few African leaders have grasped the scale of the challenge... Most oil-producers have squandered their bonanza. Nigeria has failed to plan for how to stem the dreadful pollution in its oil-producing Delta region or to prevent desertification tearing at the fabric of its dry Muslim north. South Africa is only just beginning to own up to its coal addiction. Uganda's Mr Museveni is fighting off a rare insurrection from his supporters against plans to turn a piece of Ugandan rainforest over to farming. The World Meteorological Organisation says that weather-data collection in Africa has recently got worse, just as the need for accurate figures has grown; many of the automatic weather stations it helped set up have fallen into disrepair. The African Union has done little to sound the climate-change alarm.
Kenya's president, Mwai Kibaki, says that Africa should “join hands” with its friends in the rich world over climate change. He wants more carbon-trading projects to come to Africa; so far, most have gone to Asia. His advisers admit that Mr Kibaki's ambitious plan to turn Kenya into an industrial country by 2020 worries environmentalists, but say that reforestation, thermal power and better management of water and grazing would, if they materialized, offset the damage.
Africa emits far less carbon than other continents, so its recently faster-growing economies do not gravely menace its environment. Some rich-country consumers, however, want to punish African countries for air freighting northwards some of their produce, from flowers to wine.
Hardier new varieties of staple crops, drip irrigation schemes and technologies such as solar power should help Africa adapt to climate change. But so can simple shifts in policy. For instance, a government decision in Burkina Faso to let farmers own the trees on their land has increased the country's tree cover.
The Economist’s conclusion: As the G8 rich countries are failing so far to fulfill the promises they made in 2005 to boost aid to Africa, the continent should not expect much new money to protect the environment. In the short run, Africa's own politicians need to take a lead, even if the people most culpable for the damage done by climate change live elsewhere.
Sources:
. Church World Service and partners prepare to act on climate change. May 2, 2007. http://www.churchworldservice.org/Educ_Advo/news/2007/climatechange.html
. Globe and Mail. Lead Editorial. Sept 26, 2007.
. Economist.com. Global Warming in Africa – drying up and flooding out. Sept 24, 2007. http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9163426
COMMENT: What is important about the contrasting viewpoints presented, from those of President Museveni, to the Church World Service, The Economist, to the anti-Kyoto stance of Prime Minister Harper and the Asian-Pacific partnership, is that ultimately they highlight climate change as an ethical issue that almost inevitably will come up as a focus for discussion at the UN negotiations on climate change scheduled for Bali in December.
Friday, 1 June 2007
OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE AND GLOBAL HEALTH TRENDS
PREAMBLE: During our first 6 months, this report addressed the following global issues: climate change, child development, colonized minorities, food security, human rights, and other news and reviews. In most instances we also addressed the relevance of these issues to Canada, our home base. To locate these issues you may either scan down this issue to earlier issues, or Google search by combining the keywords just noted with the term pacificsci.
This June 2007 issue reviews the vexing issue of official development assistance from wealthy developed countries such as Canada, makes reference to a report on global social and economic trends, then selects reports from a discipline that is essential to understanding global health trends: Health Situation Analysis. This refers to information on health conditions, supported by vital and health statistics critical to strategic and operational development planning. Our selected examples include Africa, the State of the World Children, and Projections of Mortality and Burden of Disease to 2030.
Our sidebar addresses the emergence of “corporate hybrids”, freedom of speech and tolerance for intellectual opinions.
G7 OFFICIAL DEVELOPMENT ASSISTANCE (ODA)
The most recent confirmed OECD data for ODA (2005) reveal that, although absolute amounts are higher, G7 countries allocate proportionally less Gross National Income (GNI) for international development: 0.30%, compared with .50% for non-G7 nations. Of 22 OECD nations only 5 met the UN target of at least 0.7%: Norway, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands, and Luxembourg, none of which are G7 countries. The lowest G7 allocation is made by the USA (0.22%; among 15 non- G7 nations, only Portugal and Greece give less than this), while Canada comes in slightly above the G7 mean at 0.34%. Clearly, both individually and collectively, the G7 should show more leadership.
Note: OECD rankings do not include Russia, a G8 country (G7 + 1).
Reference: Final ODA Data for 2005. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/52/18/37790990.pdf
SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT CANADA’s ODA
Questions are being raised about Canada’s ODA priorities eg., $30 million in 2006 to China, an emerging political and economic powerhouse. Parliamentarians urging increased aid to truly poor nations say the government’s refusal to support proposed new legislation to guide ODA reveals lack of commitment. “Canada used to be a leader and is now a… laggard” said Alexa McDonough, NDP foreign affairs critic. According to McDonough, the planned 2006 ODA of just over $3 billion represents 0.32 % of GNI, down from 0.34% last year and far off the 0.7% target that Canada helped set. Josee Verner, Minister for international aid, replied “spending in 2007-08 will increase by 8%, in line with the goal of doubling by 2011 the amount spent on ODA in 2001”.
Source: Sue Bailey. The Canadian Press. March 27, 2007
EDITORIAL: an annual increase in absolute expenditures in the order of 8% will simply maintain the status quo with little movement towards the target of 0.7% GNI
REPORT FROM 8TH GLOBAL DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE, Beijing. For up-to-date social and economic trends, visit the Global Development Network April 2007 newsletter. Topics include: the rise of Asia in the global economy; growth and poverty in Latin America; structural transformation opportunities in Africa and the Middle East. http://www.gdnet.org/pdf2/research_monitor/2007-April_conference%20edition_Research%20Monitor.pdf
HEALTH SITUATION OF SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA
The health situation of Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) is the least favourable of all regions. Following steady declines until the mid-1990s, adult mortality sharply reversed, with the disease burden increasingly dominated by HIV/AIDS superimposed on already heavy burdens from endemic malaria, water-borne diseases, vaccine-preventable diseases, nutritional deficiencies, and other preventable conditions. In some settings, this was compounded by war and civil strife, with consequent increases in violent death, food shortages, poverty and displacement of people, further fueling a rural to urban migration for economic survival. In parts of SSA, adult mortality rates are at their highest in 3 decades; a rapid drop in life expectancy (LE) is seen in 38 countries (LE age 40 or less in 8 of these). Without HIV/AIDS, LE at birth would have been almost 6.1 years higher in 2002. The slippage is not only due to HIV/AIDS: for example, despite major gains in immunization coverage during the 1980s, these have reversed since, reflecting a loss of capacity to deliver primary health care. In the meantime, the health profiles of Africa and the world are not standing still: the pattern is shifting with a steady increase in Non-Communicable Diseases and injuries. Even given Africa’s preoccupation with infectious diseases, which still dominate the disease burden, planners must now be alert to this emerging and future disease burden.
Source: The foregoing brief report is a paraphrased extract from a health situation analysis carried out by PacificSci for an assignment in East Africa completed in 2006.
THE HEALTH OF THE PEOPLE: THE AFRICAN REGIONAL HEALTH REPORT: A fully comprehensive situation analysis has recently been published by the WHO Regional Office for Africa. http://www.who.int/bulletin/africanhealth/en/index.html
THE STATE OF THE WORLD’s CHILDREN 2007
This UNICEF report focuses on the discrimination and disempowerment experienced by women and girls. It discusses how gender equality will move the UN Millennium Development Goals forward, and how investment in women’s rights will ultimately produce a dual dividend: advancing the rights of women and children. Seven interventions are advocated:
1. Abolish school fees and invest in girls' education
2. Invest government funding in gender equality
3. Enact legislation to create a level playing field for women and to address domestic as well as gender-based violence
4. Ensure women's participation in politics
5. Involve women's grassroots organizations in policy development
6. Engage men and boys on the importance of gender equality
7. Improve research and data on gender issues.
For the full report as a PDF document: http://www.unicef.org/sowc07/report/report.php
PROJECTIONS OF MORTALITY & DISEASE BURDEN TO 2030
Revised global and regional projections of mortality and burden of disease by cause for 2005, 2015 and 2030 are now available from the World Health Organization. Principal investigators (CD Mathers & D Loncar) applied separate projection models for males and females, stratified into 7 age groups. The website below offers online access to the article, a working paper, and references to papers on data sources and methods. Detailed results for projected deaths and DALYs can be downloaded as Excel spreadsheets. The analyses were carried out at country level with aggregation into regional or income groups. The investigators used socio-economic projections to model future mortality and morbidity patterns, assuming slower and faster rates of development and population growth, taking into account independent variables: income, education, time, and tobacco use. The results suggest that, from 2002 to 2030, life expectancy will increase throughout the world, with an upward shift in the age of deaths, with considerably fewer younger children dying, while deaths due to cancer and heart disease will increase. Deaths from infectious diseases will decline overall, while mortality from HIV/AIDS will continue to increase. http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/bodprojections2030/en/index.html
Acknowledgment: In constructing our summary, a review by Robert Goldberg on ProCOR (Recommended link in sidebar) was helpful, including his note of caution regarding the quality of data used to develop the predictive models and assumptions utilized.
THANKS FOR VISITING PacificSci GLOBAL PERSPECTIVES!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
