At Jubilee Scotland we have been part of many campaigns calling for debt relief and the cancellation of unjust debt in the global south. Adding to the unjust sovereign debt that many nations need relief for financially, there is another type of debt that needs to be addressed by it’s systemic nature, debt incurred by climate change.  Climate change does not affect people equally. Those individuals, communities and countries affected the most by climate change are also those who have contributed the least to it. Everyday in the global south, there are droughts, natural disasters, food shortages and loss of habitat, as a result of the climate crisis. Many of the affected countries go into debt, because they lack additional finances to respond to these climate disasters.

At the same time, climate change is primarily caused by rich, high-emission countries, including the UK and Scotland. We therefore owe a moral debt to those countries and communities that suffer the most from climate change.  

The 26th Conference of the Parties (COP26) which takes place in Glasgow in November 2021 is set to be the most important UN climate conference for years. COP26 will focus on the immediate need for dramatic climate mitigation targets to be set by Scotland and other world leaders. Additionally, global south countries will be looking for finance initiatives, as more funding is necessary to adapt to the devastating impact of the climate crisis.

In partnership with Oxfam Scotland, Stop Climate Chaos Scotland and SCIAF, we have been researching the ways that the Scottish government can make a meaningful impact at COP26. The Scottish Government has previously committed to putting the voices of people affected by climate change at the heart of the conference. By increasing the Climate Justice Fund and developing a position on loss and damage and championing this issue at COP26, Scotland can show it is serious about its commitment to climate justice and set an example for other global north countries. 

Anne Funnemark, campaign director at Jubilee Scotland and lead author of the report has said: “The climate emergency is, quite literally, costing the earth for developing countries. Ahead of COP26 in Glasgow, rich countries must demonstrate that they will stand shoulder to shoulder with the world’s poorest people by offering more financial support to countries on the frontline of the climate emergency to adapt to climate change while also compensating them for their losses.”

We’re calling on the Scottish Government to :

• Significantly increase the Climate Justice Fund with new and additional finance, such as from a high-emitter tax

• Proactively call for other rich countries, including the UK, to increase their own climate finance informed by a Fair Shares analysis, while championing additionality before and at COP26

• Undertake a review of the Climate Justice Fund to build on its success, ensuring that it is fully aligned with best practice in climate adaptation globally

• Develop a position on loss and damage and use this to champion progress on it at COP26. Namely, a financial mechanism for the WIM and meaningful development of the Santiago Network

Read the report here, or through our viewer below.

Spread the word...

The post Financing Climate Justice : Scotland at COP26 appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

As household debt in the UK has become the highest it’s ever been on record,  many lower income households finds themselves unable to save money at all, increasing these households’ vulnerability in times of financial insecurity.  Households unable to make ends meet have been said by the Office of National Statistics  “to be living beyond their means”. 

Blaming of borrowers often occurs whenever the topic of household debt comes up. The notion that debtedness is the fault of the individual, is often fuelled by soundbites and stories in the media. Society promotes the idea that it is a self-inflicted punishment for something one person has done, because they’re the ones signing up to credit cards, taking out loans, repaying the mortgage. But most household debt isn’t because people are frivolous like many presume. Rather, it is caused by reductions of wages and benefits, redundancy, and illness. According to Stepchange’s Scotland in the Red Report, before COVID-19 the main cause of household debt was  ‘life events’, Life events are classified as unexpected shocks that put a burden on a person’s finances. In many cases, such events are costly burdens that complicate a person’s life, with no room for flexibility. 

With a third of people being affected financially by COVID-19, a wide range of people have experienced a ‘life event’ that has affected them financially.  An estimated 4 million people have been added to the number with substantial household debt since the crisis began. This begs the question of whether or not this will pave the way for people to talk about their debts and how it affects them.

At the same time, The Bank of England stated that £7.4bn of consumer credit was repaid during the first month of lockdown, the biggest net repayment in a month since 1993. A huge reduction in retail spending led to this, with the outstanding debts on credit cards remaining at £64bn. This positive sounding news demonstrates how the lockdown has added to the wealth divide in the UK. People who were able to keep working can see their debts cleared from a lack of incentive to spend, while many workers being hit by job losses and cut wages take on more debt while on furlough. If this trend continues we are unlikely to see a decrease in stigma associated with debt. It’s possible that these figures could be used by creditors to present a distorted version of events when payment holidays end, adding to the guilt of people who are unable to repay when so many others could.

A poll conducted by Citizens Advice Scotland this summer found that 1 in 4 Scottish people were concerned about their debt repayments. In response to these findings a spokesperson for the Scottish Government said that “We recognise the stress and strain debt can create and we would encourage anyone with concerns to contact organisations such as CAS to get advice and support.” While this statement acknowledges the fact that it’s a stressful time for people in debt, it passes the buck of having a conversation about debt back onto the charities that have already done so much to bring the issue to the foreground. Along with voting down the recent plans for rent controls, the Scottish Government hasn’t done much to address people’s heightened debt concerns. 

A reduction of the stigma around household debt is necessary to widen the conversation on the topic and increase the pressure on government and public lenders to make systematic changes to our flawed financial system. To make this happen  we have to harness the shared experience of COVID-19’s impact on household debt. People should not be treated like criminals for the chaotic circumstances that life throws at them. The conversation needs to be facilitated in a way where the Scottish government talks about personal debt, in a transparent way that makes people feel heard instead of at risk for speaking out.  If we don’t talk about the devastating impact of household debt openly and address the scale of the problem, we won’t build back as a better society. 

Spread the word...

The post To help people through the COVID-19 recession, we need to reduce the stigma around household debt appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

The outbreak of COVID-19 has reminded us what is really important – looking after each other and our communities, our health and well-being, our public services. Now, as Scotland moves past a peak of infections, our attention turns to what comes next The choices made by the government now will affect our communities and our climate for generations to come. 

The recovery plan must lay the foundations of a greener, fairer Scotland for everyone. Where we reduce inequalities, strengthen public services and provide an adequate income for everyone. Where we do our fair share of climate action and restore nature. Where we all have a say in decisions that affect us.

We are proud to stand with over 80 organisations in Scotland calling for a Just and Green Recovery in Scotland. Together, we wrote to the First Minister outlining five steps for the recovery which you can read here.

This is just the beginning, we need to grow and show public support for a recovery that helps us transform our society for the better

Will you join Scotland’s movement to Build Back Better?

Sign the petition here!

Spread the word...

The post A Just and Green Recovery for Scotland appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

We need to assess the public health crisis that is about to explode in the Global South if debt is not outright cancelled. While most Northern countries are in the midst of fighting against the virus, the heaviest impact caused by the pandemic will be on countries in Africa, South & Latin America and Southeast Asia. With many of the Healthcare and social security systems of these countries being ill-equipped to handle the outbreak, the virus will have a devastating effect on the poorest communities. Jubilee Scotland has signed onto a new Debt Jubilee along with 200 other organisations, alling for the cancellation of debt payments paid out from global south countries to the World Bank and IMF during this time. This petition  is one of many calling on the government to take a stance on a pressing issue. It’s estimated by the Jubilee Debt Campaign that over $300 Billion in full debt cancellation is necessary for these countries to fight the virus over the next year. Some payments have been delayed so far, but by merely suspending debt payments, they only defer the problems of these countries for a little while. 

This approach ends up costing creditors nothing, but borrowing countries will have bigger repayments and higher debt risks down the line for many of these countries. Covid-19 has already led to falls in commodity prices and projected increases in borrowing costs in the global south, with limited resources at hand to handle a public health crisis. If these countries have to rely on more outside loans to fight the pandemic they will be stuck in high interest debt traps for decades to come.  One of the biggest risks that these countries are exposed to is the legal challenges that can be brought upon them for failing to keep up their payments. The G20 have called upon private creditors to delay payments, but they are not obliged to. Currently 77 countries are estimated to pay $9.4 Billion from May to December, as part of the G20 deal. Private lenders can sue governments in the UK courts for following the G20’s advice and suspending payments. But the Global South should not be pushed into this by the western institutions who have pledged to help them.

We need your help to call on Chancellor Rishi Sunak, to promote debt relief in these countries that are worst affected by the virus. By signing up to our petition, you help us put across the message that we need real debt cancellation and ways to work out debt in future that doesn’t put human lives at risk. 

Spread the word...

The post A call for a new Debt Jubilee appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

Oxfam International’s Head of Washington DC Office, Nadia Daar, said:

“We commend Congresswoman Maxine Waters, Chairwoman of the HFSC, for advancing this crucial reform agenda at the IFC where the US remains the largest shareholder, and applaud IFC CEO Philippe Le Houérou for his leadership in making these reforms possible. This is a huge step forward not just for the IFC, but for how we understand the role of the private sector in development.”

“This historic decision from the IFC will ensure its investments support improvements in education without excluding children or impoverishing families. Public aid money should not be used to fund corporate-backed private school chains that fuel inequality. Other donor agencies and governments now need to follow suit.”

This freeze is in response to concerns raised by 170 organizations, including Jubilee Scotland who called on the World Bank to end support for these forms of private education that profit on the exploitation of poor children, creating wider inequality. We called for expansions of public education that everyone can access- instead of ‘low-fee private schools’ which exclude girls, impoverished children and paid extremely low wages to under qualified teachers. In Uganda and Kenya, these schools have been accused of refusing to comply with minimum government education standards.

In addition to the freeze the IFC announced an evaluation of its investments in private schools by the World Bank’s independent evaluation group. Oxfam have stated that the COVID-19 Pandemic cannot be used by any donor as an excuse to invest in for-profit education, with the need for these organisations to financing to help countries meet educational needs of millions of children out of school with no access to online classes, tutors or computers.

This move by the bank has been a good start for ending private financing that negatively impacts communities while letting private companies profit. It is time for the UK to take out their investment in these schools that are part of this problem, especially when this investment is supposed to be providing aid.

The Guardian published an article this weekend that focuses on the UK’s current position on this issue.

“The Department for International Development (DfID) has given millions of pounds to low-fee private schools (LFPS) in countries around the world, including Nigeria, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana and Pakistan. It believes the money can help improve the educational prospects of children in places where public-sector schools are poor or lacking.

But the funding, some of it channelled through DfID’s private investment arm, CDC, has proved controversial. Among those that have received UK taxpayer cash are the private school chain Bridge International Academies (BIA) which has also been the recipient of money from Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg.”

Bridge International Academies runs low-cost schools with the UK investing £12.3 in the company. Last year a World Bank watchdog, the Compliance Adviser Ombudsman (CAO) investigated BIA’s operations in Kenya and found allegations of human rights abuses, poor working conditions, discrimination, lack of transparency and intimidation, as well as concerns about pay, health and safety and sanitation.

At the time the DFID said they would investigate the situation, something which they are continuing to work on with the WBG. But this should be a sign that the policy of DFID investing aid money in Public Private Partnerships can can lead to situations like this. PPPs and their lack of accountability and transparency have led to fee-paying schools with questionable quality popping up in countries which need to fight for free and universal education.

Linda Oduor-Noah, project manager at East African Campaign for Human Rights commented “We have heard first-hand from other investors that they are keenly awaiting the outcome of the investigation,”she said. “I would like Bridge to respect human rights and I think that no for-profit entity should masquerade as having social agenda, when at the end of the day profit drives all decision making. People involved in the provision of public goods should never endeavour to make profit off the poor.” Bridge Schools have had a researcher arrested and have lobbied the investigation of the issues of their schools. The reseracher they arrested, Curtis Riep made the recommendation to not fund Bridge Schools as they neglect legal standards while driving profit, a clear case of a PPP that starts with an altrustic goal that become consumed by profit margins as time goes on.

As a private company they have produced research and press releases justifying the existence of PPPs that come off as strange and potentially misleading PR moves. In one report produced by BIA about the British public’s support and approval of Privately provided education in foreign countries, they say that over half of people are in support of these type of schools. They’ve done the same for the public opinon of USA citizens, but the reports use leading questions that doesn’t show any transparency of what these private schools actually are like.

These reports don’t talk about the actual work they do, but just dress up some market research, that makes it look like people are in favor of this, but It’s hard to say that the every-man on the street in any English speaking country has enough information to make a valid assessment of the issues surrounding privatization of education in Africa. With statistics that look good, they can claim that people approve of what they do without shedding much light on it at all or twisting figures and claims. They asked people if a social enterprise company like them should run schools that cost parents about $7 US dollars a month, in countries where there is a lack of other schools. Of course this sounds like a great idea when you think about what that amount of money means to you, but this is without mentioning that $7 can be a huge amount of a persons income in these countries. The teachers at these Schools work up to 65 hours per week and only take away $100 per month. In Kenya, sending three children to a Bridge school is estimated to represent almost a third of the monthly income of families living on $1.25 (94p) a day, according to a joint study by Kenya National Union of Teachers and Education International, a federation representing 32 million teachers and support staff. Instead of spending time

The European investment bank financed Bridge International Academies Ltd (BIA) through an equity fund, who became involved in a controversial PPP educational project in Liberia. Indeed, the Liberian government outsourced the lion share of its public pre-primary and primary schools to BIA, but the process was not competitive, local communities were not properly consulted, and there was not full transparency.

This is just one of many providing this form of private-for-profit education, PPPs in Africa that provide public services in a way that makes it harder to make people accountable when they can’t meet standards that they promised. The issues is that many countries can’t offer a full education system alone without some reform of the corruption within their society, in places like Liberia the education system has been broken for years. Private alternatives are marginally better for learning outcomes, but still fail students on basic human rights and protections from abuse.

The steps that the World Bank group have taken are great and hopefully open up a conversation about how to ensure the education in the global south can thrive and not be used as a tool to drive profit. But this is an issue that should be closely watched. While our government uses PPPs to provide part of our education infrastructure with mixed results, handing a contract over to private companies to overhaul a whole system in places like the Global South edges out what the ultimate aim should be in these places – quality universal free education for all children.

This article was initially posted on our Medium.com blog.

Spread the word...

The post British aid money should not be spent on building Bridge private schools appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

Some of the world’s poorest countries are facing health and economic crisis unlike what we have seen here. By cancelling the upcoming debt payments owed by these countries, it would be the best way to free up existing public revenue to support their people and not be burdened with debt that rises unsustainably over the next few years of recovery.

The IMF and the World Bank have called for debt payments by the poorest countries to other governments to be suspended, but with the effects of the pandemic likely to last for years, delaying rather than cancelling payments won’t solve the problem. 

Cancellation also needs to apply to all creditors, including bilateral, multilateral and private lenders, to ensure freed-up money goes to support the pandemic response, and not to pay off other debts.

Anne Funnemark Campaign director of Jubilee Scotland, said: “Millions of people in some of the world’s poorest countries are facing devastating health, social and economic crises as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. Permanently cancelling upcoming debt payments owed by these countries would be the fastest way to free up existing public resources to tackle this unprecedented crisis and to save lives.

“The suspension on debt payments called for by the IMF and World Bank will fall short of this goal if it doesn’t apply to all lenders, and only postpones payments. Full cancellation of all external debt payments is critical, along with emergency finance that doesn’t add to debt burdens. This must be followed up with a more comprehensive and long-term approach to debt crisis resolution.”

As well as a cancellation of debt service, up to an additional US$ 73.1 billion of emergency finance will be needed to help low income economies as they respond to the crisis in 2020. This must be provided through grants, rather than loans, to stop recipient countries getting even deeper into debt. Addressing the long-term debt pressures on developing countries also requires decision-makers finally agreeing reforms to the international system for dealing with sovereign debt restructuring, once the acute Covid-19 crisis has passed. 

A joint letter– signed by Jubilee Scotland – will be sent to governments and their representatives at the IMF and World Bank today. It calls for:

• The permanent cancellation of all external debt payments due in 2020 by developing countries, with no accrual of interest and charges and no penalties. 
• The provision of additional, fresh emergency finance that does not create more debt.
• Debt cancellation and new financing to be provided free of demands for market-friendly and austerity-focused policy reforms in developing countries.
• Measures to be put in place to protect developing countries from lawsuits when ceasing 2020 debt payments.
• A process under UN auspices to be agreed in the longer term, to support systematic, timely, and fair restructuring of sovereign debt.

Spread the word...

The post Jubilee Scotland signs on to new debt jubilee to tackle COVID-19 in the Global South. appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

Last month at the Scottish Parliament we launched our report ‘Rethinking Private Financing’, the culmination of work from Jubilee Scotland over the past year researching PPP & PFI schemes. You can download and read it here. The launch was hosted by Neil Findlay MSP, who spoke to us about how passionate he was about this issue affecting Scottish people. In late January Neil Findlay had questioned Holyrood’s approach to many of the key issues the government have been quiet or unclear about when it comes to financing projects with private money, and what they plan to do in future.

Scandal at Holyrood

Derek Mackay MSP as the Finance Secretary of Scotland was the person answering these questions put forward to parliament, a mere fortnight before he was hit with a scandal that has put his career as a politican into disrepute. Mackay has been suspended from the SNP for sending inappropriate messages to a 16 year old, breaching a duty and care expected as a member of government, failing to  uphold a responsibility not to act in a way that puts young people at risk. In that context, these may be some of the last questions Mackay ever answers at Holyrood, but they still offer a snapshot of the Government’s current approach to these schemes that Jubilee Scotland are campaigning against.

Questions asked of the Scottish Government

Question S5W-27047: Neil Findlay, Lothian, Scottish Labour, Date Lodged: 21/01/2020 To ask the Scottish Government what its position is on whether local authorities could benefit from direct borrowing for public projects, rather than financing them through public private partnerships.

Answered by Derek Mackay (29/01/2020):Local authorities are entitled to use all resources available to them including their existing borrowing powers and support from the Scottish Government. It is however up to local authorities to decide how they wish to borrow and any commitments made by them are based on what they deem to be prudent and affordable.

The government’s approach to this is relatively Laisse-Faire as they have limited borrowing capacity themselves. Of course local authorities have to make financial decisions that are responsible, but the commitments that a PPP binds a council by are never prudent. They are at such high rates of interest that nobody can honestly say with what we know now, that they are affordable. They only seem that way in the short term. So by saying this, you are effectively shifting the blame onto councils for the debt they’ve accumulated, taking no moral responsibility while still introducing NPDs, a replacement model for the PFI.  What is forgotten here is while councils are allowed to use all resources available to them, there is no real alternative to PPPs supported on a national level in Scotland – there needs to be other options.

Spread the word...

The post Questioning the Scottish government’s approach to Private Finance appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

The problem with PPP

At Jubilee Scotland we campaign for the cancellation of unjust debt worldwide. This year we have been focusing at one of the main causes of rising debt here at home and abroad, one that has long been criticised yet little has been done about. Public Private Partnerships (PPPs) are long-term contracts where the private sector designs, builds, finances and operates an infrastructure project.  This scheme in its various forms over the years has left local authorities across Scotland paying much more than needed for public projects and in some cases putting people at risk. Long contracts with high interest rates and poor building standards have left Scotland with flawed or unfinished buildings, the taxpayers sometimes paying double what they’re actually worth. It has created unjust debt problems and added unnecessary financial pressure on local services across the public sector.

The Oxgangs School catastrophe put PPPs on the map for a lot of people in Scotland. After the wall collapse 17 schools across Edinburgh that were built under the same PPP, ‘Edinburgh Schools Partnership’ were forced to close and undergo inspection and repairs. 2 years later, after the partnership told the council that all problems had been fixed, it was found that there was still issues with many of the buildings, forcing the council to undertake emergency repairs of their own. Because of the nature of these PPPs, the parties responsible are usually protected through corporate confidentiality contracts, but it’s the council that take all the blame for schools they were promised were built properly.

Private Profit over public safety

Recently two of the countries biggest hospitals have been in dispute with their own faulty PPPs. NHS Lothian is paying out £1.4m every month for the new unfinished Sick Kids Hospital with little oversight of how much of that money is going back into the public purse. The hospital hasn’t opened because of design flaws that make it uninhabitable, yet there’s nobody to take to task, nobody to answer questions why these mistakes have happened. NHS Greater Glasgow and Clyde have decided to take legal action against the contractor of both hospitals. Brookfield Multiplex were responsible for the construction of Queen Elizabeth University Hospital which opened in 2015 with many severe issues, leading to deaths in the children’s ward due to contaminated water. 

PPPs like these have led to a loss of accountability in our public services, because local councils and the government are rarely given any power to renegotiate when things take a turn. The country has a ballooning amount of debt that we have no control over as the contracts in a PPP are not usually transparent, last for decades and almost always favour the private contractor. Scotland has had issues with them, but has still has been involved in exporting PPPs to countries abroad through the UK’s Department For International Development. On an international level these Partnerships have led to corruption, environmental issues and inequality. It’s an unacceptable move for a country that committed to the Sustainable Development Goals to export schemes that undermine progress on them.

Finding a way forward

We need an alternative solution for Scotland’s problems with funding. On the 29th of January 2020, the fourth anniversary of the Oxgangs School collapse, we will debut our report at the Scottish Government. It examines Scotland’s relationship with PPPs, highlighting all the issues with the current system of private financing while presenting solutions to how we can fund infrastructure here in Scotland that the public have control of. By taking on an approach that serves the needs of local communities, we will be able to make their projects work for us instead of being being held ransom by private companies to access of our own public services.

Click here to download our report, Rethinking Private Financing of Scottish Public Projects

Spread the word...

The post Our Report for change – Rethinking Private Financing of Scottish Public Projects appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

1. The Scottish Government launched its White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future’ on the 26th November. In this, debt relief is highlighted as a priority for international development, with the statement: “The Scottish Government will give careful consideration to the question of ‘unjust’ debts; will work to ensure that Scottish export politics do not create new unjust debts; and support moves to establish Scotland as an international centre for debt arbitration.” While remaining neutral on the issue of Scottish independence, Jubilee Scotland is welcoming the Government’s recognition of sovereign debt as a key issue for Scotland’s international development policy. This is a great campaign success. It is recognised however that in either scenario following the referendum Jubilee Scotland’s work must continue to ensure unjust debts are given full consideration through an audit of Scottish and UK debts and a commitment made to cancel all those deemed to be unjust. Jubilee Scotland’s paper outlining their asks for debt justice in both a yes and no vote, and responses by the Yes Scotland and Better Together campaigns can be found here. The Scottish Government’s commitment appears in chapter 6 of the white paper.
2. Egypt has been revealed to be the most indebted country in the Middle East and Africa, seventh in the World. (Argentina remains in first place globally as the country least likely to be able to pay its debts.) Egypt’s debts now make up 79.8 percent of its GDP, totalling $234.4 billion which is the equivalent of $2600 for every Egyptian citizen. The likelihood of Egypt being unable to pay its debts has now risen to 37.9 percent. Egypt is a key case for Scotland and the UK with many debts owed by the country being to UK Export Finance for loans made during the Mubarak regime and for arms. Meanwhile, Kuwait plans to buy $2 billion of Egyptian bonds as part of a second aid package having already pledged $15 billion in aid alongside Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates earlier this year. Read more on Egypt’s debts here.
3. Grenada is making plans to lower its income tax threshold on the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and as part of its debt restructuring programme. Grenada is currently seeking to hold a conference with all of its creditors to come to a mutual agreement about how to meet its debt obligations.
4. The IMF Fiscal Monitor Report estimates that Pakistan requires $76.9 billion, the equivalent of 30 percent of its yearly GDP to pay off its existing debts. This places it at the top of the of the list of indebted emerging countries and suggests it is going to find itself borrowing more in order to meet its repayments.
5. Several developing countries, including Jamaica, El Salvador and Pakistan, are failing to meet international development goals after rich countries reneged on a pledge to deal with their debts. Moreover, unjust debts in countries such as Greece, Portugal and Latvia are now increasing poverty at an alarming rate. These findings are part of Jubilee Debt Campaign’s ‘Life and debt: Global studies of debt and resistance’, published in October 2013. The report compares debt crises in nine countries: Egypt, El Salvador, Greece, Jamaica, Latvia, Pakistan, the Philippines, Portugal and Tunisia. Key findings include:
   • Jamaica pays more on its foreign debt repayments than Greece at a staggering 33 percent of its revenue.
   • Greece is spending 29 percent on its revenue on debt repayments.
   • El Salvador continues to spend 25% of government revenue on foreign debt payments, the debt originating from lending by the western world to the vicious military junta in the 1980s, whilst hunger and extreme poverty are increasing.
   • Pakistan is unlikely to be able to meet many of the Millennium Development Goals because of its debts, including those aiming to halve the proportion of people going hungry, eliminating gender disparity at all levels of education, and reducing by two-thirds the child mortality rate.

   The report also gives inspiring examples of the campaigns in countries for debt justice, for example calls in Tunisia for a debt audit.

6. At the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo, Sri Lanka, 15-17th November 2013, on the issue of debt it was minuted that: ‘Heads welcomed the report of the Commonwealth High Level Mission on the debt and financing challenges of Small States. Heads emphasised the need to continue advancing global awareness of unsustainable Small States’ debt and the accompanying financial challenges they confront, building on the Mission’s recent work. They endorsed the recommendations of the Mission’s Report, underlining the importance of continued collaboration within the international community to address these debt and financing challenges and to build small states’ resilience as well as continued engagement on innovative solutions such as the Mission’s proposals for debt reduction and the inclusion of a vulnerability criterion in debt alleviation interventions and allocation procedures of international financial institutions. Heads reaffirmed their support for the Commonwealth Secretariat’s current debt management and recording work.’ It is reassuring to see sovereign debt maintaining a place on the agenda of the Commonwealth Heads of Government. The report to which they refer includes recommendations on the need for integration of resilience building of small states, provision of grace periods for debt repayment during times of natural disasters or other external shocks and provision of countercyclical loans. Whilst these are valuable contributions to the pursuit of debt justice, Jubilee Scotland believes these efforts must go further if they are to tackle the unjust economic systems which support existing lending and borrowing principles. Equally, more attention must be paid to the concept of ‘unjust debt’ and its necessary cancellation.
7. The IMF wants Sri Lanka to boost its tax revenues to cut both its budget deficit and public debts, a further demonstration of the IMF seeking to impose its economic policies on developing countries. Read the full story here.
8. Qatar has agreed to provide $150 million in debt relief to Palestine. This was announced by US Secretary of State John Kerry during Israeli-Palestinian peace talks in October although no further details were provided.
9. A new Eurodad report, ‘The new debt vulnerabilities. 10 reasons why the debt crisis is not over’ was published in November 2013. It finds that debt vulnerabilities have changed, but overall have not been substantially reduced. The number of bank failures has dropped since the height of the financial crisis which is good news. However, the downside is that governments have paid a high price to stabilise the financial sector, and sovereign debt levels have surged. It states that: Debt has not been canceled or paid off, it has simply been shifted from one balance sheet to another, and primarily from the private purse to public or government coffers. The opportunity to use the financial crisis for fundamental reforms in nation and international debt management and debt crises prevention and resolution has largely been wasted. To read a summary of the report and its recommendations as well as download a copy you can visit the Eurodad website.
10. A Bank of England report has criticised existing methods of dealing with sovereign debt crisis. Referring to bailouts in Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Cyprus, the authors say using public money to bail out nations leaves taxpayers shouldering an “inequitable” burden. They suggest that private creditors, those who lent indebted nations the cash in the first place, should instead foot the bill for any rescue. Whilst acknowledging that current trends in ad hoc bailouts in response to debt crises are poor, the report pays no attention to considering alternative longer-term solutions to debt workout upon which Jubilee Scotland campaigns. It maintains a commitment to bailouts and simply shifts emphasis from public to private rescue plans. Note: in a disclaimer the report states that the views are not necessarily the official view of the Bank of England, rather the authors of the paper.
11. US American Brooking Institution recently published a new paper on sovereign debt restructuring entitled ‘Revisiting Sovereign Bankruptcy’. It highlights creditors’ role in irresponsible lending, a positive statement in shifting focus away from placing blame on debtor countries for their debt burden. It also promotes the contribution of stakeholders, including NGOs and civil society, in discussions of debt restructuring. Jubilee Scotland welcomes these commitments. On the downside, however, there are only very weak proposals for a reformed scheme. Whilst understanding the need a statutory insolvency framework for sovereign states – a system through which debts can be restructured – rather than presenting alternative ways in which this can be done they point largely only to a wide range of challenges which are presented. Read a full account written by Jürgen Kaiser of Erlassjahr, a Eurodad member and a partner organisation of Jubilee Scotland.

Spread the word...

The post Debt around the world – winter 2013 appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

If Malawi had received its debt relief with no hidden reductions and cuts, it would have had $101 million extra per annum free in its budget (the UK, in comparison, gave $180 million in 2006: SID, table 16.2). What it has really had is less impressive even than this. At best Malawi’s debt relief amounts to nothing more than a marginal adjustment to its domestic debt interest bill; at worst it amounts to less than nothing.

In September 2006 Malawi completed the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries process. Goodall Gondwe set out his intention to use the money saved specifically for the benefit of the poor. “Mr Speaker, Sir, and Honourable Members”, he stated, “during the budget review in March, it was proposed to spend these debt relief resources on those social activities that would benefit the poorer segment of the population.” (2007/8 Budget Statement, para. 48 – link now broken.)

But this appears to be impossible, since the terms and conditions of the debt relief Malawi received actually reduce the amount of money available for “the poorer segment”.

Gondwe’s 2007/8 Budget Speech explains that the overall debt stock was reduced from $3.0 billion to $0.5 billion, leading to saving in interest and capital repayments of $101 million in 2007/8; however, Malawi had been receiving $36 million per annum since the year 2000 in interim debt relief; so extra value provided by debt relief in 2006 was around $65 million per annum

However, a large proportion of this new debt relief money was provided under the terms of the deal agreed at the G8 Summit in Scotland in 2005: and under these terms, countries receiving debt relief also get a cut-back in the amount of development loans they receive from the World Bank. One of the terms of the debt relief deal for Malawi was that its World Bank funding would be reduced by $27 million per annum (this is, apparently, because the US won out over the UK during the 2005 G8 Summit debt relief negotiations: download article here). Now, the World Bank provides money to Malawi, it says, specifically to help with reducing poverty; given this, it seems fair to say that this $27 million per annum reduction is money that would have been, and now is not, available to benefit the “poorer segment”.

Malawi has – or had, in 2006 – huge domestic debts; this is because the government under Muluzi shored up its budgets by borrowing large amounts from Malawian and Malawi-resident businesses. An agreement was made with the IMF that a large proportion of the money saved through getting debt relief in 2006 would be directed towards reducing domestic debt. This agreement, set out in the 2006 Article IV Consultation(para. 22) ringfences $26 million per annum for the Malawian budget, and directs the the remainder to reducing domestic debt.

This means that only $26 million per annum is available for spending specifically on projects that benefit “the poorer segment of the population”. But we have already seen that the World Bank is reducing the money available for reducing poverty by $27 million per annum So Malawi had less, not more, money available for spending against poverty as a result of getting debt relief.

Certainly, by reducing domestic debt, the Malawi government will have a lower domestic debt interest bill to pay, and this will improve its financial situation overall. The IMF Article IV consultation says it will reduce domestic debt by 1.4% GDP; I have not tried to calculate the significance of this for the annual domestic debt interest bill. However, the claim made by governments and NGOs alike, was that debt relief money would go directly to pro-poor spending. “The debt relief to be provided as a result of reaching completion point will provide a great push to Malawi’s poverty reduction efforts”, said Michael Baxter, World Bank country director for Malawi.

This is a tremendous overstatement. If Malawi had received debt relief without these underlying conditions, it would have made less difference than an ungenerous donor. As it is, the debt relief will result in less money available specifically for “pro-poor” spending, but with some circumstantial reduction in the pressure of the domestic debt interest bill.

Debt relief is a noble cause: but delivered in this form it is vitiated.

Jubilee Scotland

Spread the word...

The post Malawi’s debt relief enigma appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.