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.

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.

Presentation by Dexter Whitfield, European Services Strategy Unit, to meeting ‘Rethinking Private Financing of Scottish Public Projects’ at the Scottish Parliament on 29 January 2020, organised by Jubilee Scotland and chaired by Neil Findlay, MSP.

I welcome the refreshing straight-talking report on NDP and hub PPP contracts from Audit Scotland this week. I strongly recommend that the Scottish Parliament, local authorities and public bodies immediately adopt six strategies for public infrastructure projects in Scotland.

1 – Increase direct public investment in public infrastructure and stop all planned Mutual Investment Model projects

The Government should take the opportunity to increase direct public investment in infrastructure in the current period of low interest rates.

Planned MIM projects and those that have been approved with options appraisal and business cases, but yet not commenced the start of the contractual procurement process, should be stopped. The Scottish Government should support the local authorities and public bodies in arranging direct public investment for these projects.

The Mutual Investment Model (MIM) allows the public sector to invest up to 20% of the risk capital in project companies and to meet the private investment classification (off public sector balance sheet). However, the public sector, in effect, becomes a commercial partner with the private sector in sharing all the risks and rewards. This significantly deepens the degree of privatisation, extends the scope of secondary market trading in PPP equity and the takeover or merger of infrastructure funds (Whitfield 2016 and 2017b).

2 – Scotland should adopt a new public design/finance and operate model

This would have three objectives, to integrate the design and construction process, to reduce the cost of construction and to minimise the risk of delays. Two examples illustrate how these objectives can be achieved.

The UK’s Integrated Project Insurance (IPI) offers a guaranteed maximum price and protection against defects underwritten by insurance. A project alliance is formed with a Gain/Pain Share agreement under IPI in which all members of the project Alliance share in risk and reward. It was recently successfully piloted at Dudley College. The target outturn construction cost of £9.83m was agreed and exceeded by only 1.8%. The client share of the additional cost was only 0.34% of the target cost. The building was ready for occupation as planned at the start of the 2017/18 academic year.

Construction Management At Risk (CMAR) has been widely used in many US states for public building, transportation and utility projects. The client selects an architect who commences the design and later selects the construction manager/contractor, based on qualifications and track record, before the design stage is completed. The architect and construction manager work together in the final stage of the design process. The construction manager/contractor gives the client a guaranteed maximum price and coordinates all the subcontracted work. This process strengthens coordination, enhances transparency, delivers efficiencies and minimises delays (Whitfield, 2020).

3 – Local authorities and public bodies should intensify the monitoring of PPPs to identify defaults and poor performance.

Monitoring of PPP projects has often been inadequate due to inadequate monitoring staffing levels being included in business cases and contracts and over-reliance on self-monitoring by the private sector. Local authorities should now intensify contract monitoring focusing on all aspects of the quality of performance and other contractual requirements. This information should be reported to relevant committees and publicly disclosed.

Local authorities should also establish contract reviews where defaults and poor performance have been significant or systemic. They should draw on evidence from service users, community and tenants organisations and trade unions. There remains considerable scope for local authorities and public bodies to consider terminating operational PPP service contracts and return provision in-house. Where defaults and poor performance are evidenced and remain after the issue of contractual warnings by the authority, termination without compensation is a viable and legal option. In some cases a contractor has withdrawn from a contract on technical or operational grounds. There have been 27 PPP contract terminations and 12 buyouts in the UK to date (Whitfield, 2020).

4 – Establish a comprehensive and rigorous Economic, Social, Equality and Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis methodology

This should be mandatory for all infrastructure projects in Scotland. The Scottish Government should also require comprehensive and rigorous impact assessments to identify the positive and negative economic, employment, equality and environmental consequences of projects and to identify where and what form of mitigation action is required.

The quality of impact assessment is reliant on assessment of the impact on inputs, processes, outputs, equity and outcomes to establish cause and effect and the use of a counterfactual (the situation that would exist if the project did not proceed). Furthermore, employment impacts must include a full analysis of current jobs, terms and conditions, health and safety and equality practices and planned changes.

5 – The Scottish Parliament and local authorities should oppose the sale of equity in PPPs

The average annual rate of return on the sale of equity in PPP projects was 28.7% (based on a significant data sample) at the end of 2016 with acquisition mainly by offshore infrastructure funds in tax havens (Whitfield, 2017b). This evidence is in sharp contrast with the expected 12%-15% rate of return contained in PPP business cases or contract documentation.

The scale of equity transactions and offshoring to tax havens is very significant. “A total of 87.5% of Scotland’s PFI/PPP education projects (280 out of 320 schools) are currently partly or wholly owned by offshore tax haven funds. Nearly half the schools had 100% of their equity owned offshore” (Table 11, Whitfield, 2016). The NDP and MIM models in effect lock-in and legitimate public sector investment in PPP projects and the secondary market.

Whilst the sale of equity is legally permissible, there is a very strong case that it should be opposed on political economy and ethical grounds.

6 – Challenge the trend of Scottish pension fund investment in PPPs

There are direct links between Scottish public sector pension fund investments, offshore tax havens and shares in NPD and hub companies. At least four Scottish pension funds have investments in offshore infrastructure funds with stakes in NPD and hub projects. Glasgow City Council, on behalf of Strathclyde Pension Fund, has had a £30m investment in the Equitix Fund IV LP since 2016 which was extended by further £50m investment in the Equitix Fund V LP, managed by Equitix GP 5 Limited (Guernsey).

Edinburgh City Council, on behalf of Lothian Pension Fund and Lothian Buses Pension Fund and the Falkirk Council Pension Fund have investments in the Equitix Fund II LP. Equitix Ltd is one of the largest UK PPP companies and although a registered UK company it is owned by Tetragon Financial Group Limited and registered offshore in Guernsey (Whitfield, 2018).

The targeted 10% annual rate of return of these investments is not in the public interest because it ramps up the cost of public infrastructure. Likewise, public sector investments in NDP and MIM projects feed potential gains in the secondary market which may only cover the cost of risky investment in other PPP projects.

I believe these policies are essential in developing a genuine public alternative to PPPs in Scotland.

References

Whitfield, D. (2016) The financial commodification of public infrastructure: The growth of offshore PFI/PPP

secondary market infrastructure funds, ESSU Research Report No. 8,

https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/financial-commodification-public-infrastructure.pdf

Whitfield, D. (2017a) PFI/PPP Buyouts, Bailouts, Terminations and Major Problem Contracts, ESSU Research

Report No. 9,

https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/pfi-ppp-buyouts-bailouts-and-terminations.pdf

Whitfield, D. (2017b) PPP profiteering and Offshoring: New Evidence, PPP Equity Database 1998-2016 (UK), ESSU Research Report No.10,

https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PPP-profiteering-Offshoring-New-Evidence.pdf

Whitfield, D. (2018) Ownership and Offshoring of NPD and Hub Projects: Scottish Futures Trust, May,
https://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/SFT-Offshoring-report.pdf

Whitfield, D, (2020) Public Alternative to the Privatisation of Life, Spokesman Books, Nottingham.

Spread the word...

The post Dexter Whitfield recommends that Holyrood stops all MIM projects 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.

‘Odious debt’ is a concept which enjoys some international credibility, but not nearly enough! Put simply, it is based on the idea that, if a dictator takes out loans for violent, abusive or simply frivolous purposes, his people should not be required to pay back the debt after he has gone. Every victory of debt-cancellation on this basis – and there are many such campaigns all over the world – strengthens this important doctrine.

Why is there any need for this? What was wrong with campaigning for debt cancellation solely on the basis of a country’s poverty? Here are a couple of reasons to be going along with, although there are plenty more.

Firstly, the existing debt-cancellation mechanisms demand that a country be branded as a ‘Heavily Indebted Poor Country’ before it qualifies for debt relief. It is obvious why this is demeaning.

Secondly, if debt cancellation is enacted on the basis of bad lending, it turns the spotlight back on the lender, and perhaps makes them think twice about dealing with dictators in the future.

This is a global movement within which Jubilee Scotland plays a small part. Jubilee USA are campaigning, for example, on cancelling the debts extended to Haiti’s infamous Duvalier regime, the European anti-debt coalition EURODAD is working to get government’s to sign a declaration of responsible lending, while the Norwegian government has already cancelled its debts to Ecuador and other countries on the grounds of illegitimacy.

More to follow…

Spread the word...

The post January Campaign Update on Indonesia appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

At about 2.30pm, several thousand people dressed in black emerged from the ranks of the eighty-thousand peaceful demonstrators and marched at the police. Clashes started shortly afterwards. The police’s initial charges were limited, and did not disperse the group in black – though they did send panicking bystanders fleeing into the festival area that had been agreed as a no-conflict zone. After several hours, as crowds restricted access by fire engines to a burning car, heavy anti-riot machines were brought in and five hundred injuries from tear gas ensured, with two hundred arrests and injuries to twenty police (according to reports).

I don’t think that the violent protesters on Saturday had a thought-out political programme (whereas the peaceful summit blockaders do – and they are being injured and arrested in large numbers, possibly as a result of tougher policing following Saturday’s violence). However, their actions lent the Summit a needed air of crisis. For as regards the intermeshed causes of global poverty, the only thing in question at the Summit is what margin of backsliding will be countenanced. This G8 is a theatre of sterile debate: 2005’s categorical pledges to end global poverty have been broken down – as they always are – into incomprehensible technical formulae, which consume the intellectual energy that should be spent on making a just world.

For background information, and pictures, see Jubilee Scotland’s website.

Debt and poverty: the trends and debates.

Level of reduction

The G8’s debt deal has been implemented for twenty-two countries. This has reduced the net debts of these countries from US$34.7 billion to US$15.4 billion (calculated by Eurodad using World Bank figures: see Eurodad p.6). Of these twenty-two, the eighteen in Sub Saharan Africa have had debts reduced from US$26.3 billion to US$9.3 billion.

Meanwhile:

The World Bank offsets the costs of this debt cancellation by reducing the loans it makes to the countries in question (see “World Bank Debt Relief – TOTAL scam“, and “Disappearing Debt Relief“).

The crucial question for us is: by how much are countries’ monthly debt repayments being reduced? The IMF’s recent State of Implementation for HIPC (PDF here) report shows that, due to new borrowing, the debt service is not reducing by very much at all. It looks like it is down by about a fifth (18%) (p.10, fig.4).

How can it be that the overall debts are being reduced by over half, but the debt service reduces only by a fifth? One reason is that countries are taking on new loans. The IMF says that countries will have to show “strengthened management of both external and domestic debt” to avoid falling back into unsustainable debt. That is, it blames the countries themselves for their debt problems. But, arguably, the root problem of debt was not poor financial management: it was the structurally unfair trade that prevents the poorest negotiating a fair price for their exports. The fact that countries are having to take on new loans to survive suggests that the structural problems are unresolved. There will always be those, however, who want to present the African finance ministers as feckless or venal. Another reason may be that the loans being cancelled were not really being serviced anyway, or that there were other debts that were not being serviced which were serviced using the relief (this certainly happened in Zambia), such that the debt cancellation was on paper only.

However, some judge the debt cancellation a success, because what definitely is reducing is the ratio between debt service and export earnings. This is down by over half (p.10, fig.4). The very poor countries are making more from exports, and so are judged by able to pay off their debts.

The IMF reports that poverty reducing expenditures have increased from 7% of GDP to 10% of GDP in the poorest, most indebted countries, since 1999; however, the definition of what counts as a poverty reducing expenditure has also been expanding over that period, so the actual increase may be lower. An alternative World Bank report says there is an increase in education spending, and a very slight increase in health spending, in the poorest countries (p.12 nt.16).

A fair summary of the present situation, then, could be that the G8 has done very little to solve the problem of debt, and that the high primary goods prices caused by China’s growth are providing a temporary respite to Africa’s problems.

Spread the word...

The post G8 in Rostock: The State of Debt appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.

Officially, Zambia is receiving a reduction in debt service equal to 5.3% of its GDP, annually, over the next few years; but according to McKinley and Weeks the new money available for anti-poverty spending is only 0.8% of GDP.  Where’s the rest?

1. Redirection of G8 debt relief to private debts

According to Weeks and McKinley, over half of the funds accruing to Zambia by way of debt relief are redirected to pay other debts.

Given that the Bank of Zambia faced large debt service obligations, whose non-payment could have resulted in a curtailment of non-HIPC donor assistance, [some of the] HIPC interim debt service relief accruing to the Bank of Zambia was designated for debt service payments.  [IMF 2005]

Thus, according to McKinley and Weeks, “over half of HIPC interim debt relief (3.1 out of 5.7 percentage points) was merely an accounting entry.”

The debts to be serviced by this redirection of HIPC money are likely to be private sector debts – possibly government bonds bought by domestic businesses, possibly commercial banks in donor (G8) countries.  If so, banks are benefitting from money supposedly given to the poor.  Note that the figures given above are for interim HIPC relief; the figures for relief at completion point are lower (see section 3, below), but still considerable.

2. Tighter public spending limits

One of the conditions Zambia had to meet for debt relief was a reduction in its fiscal deficit: public overspending was to be reduced from 3.9% of GDP (2000-2004) to 0.6% of GDP (2006 onwards) (p. 11, table four).  Unless these savings are found by cutting budgets which have nothing to do with human development, the consequences will be felt by the poor.

3. Reduction in grants and other loans

As pointed out previously, the World Bank reduces the amount of aid available to heavily indebted countries in order to offset the cost of debt cancellation.  According to EURODAD, Zambia will receive debt service reduction of $38 million in financial year 07-08; but it will have its loans from the World Bank’s International Development Association reduced by about $31 million (pdf of report here; table 4; loans reduction calculated by subtracting column three from column two, or column four from column one).  Net benefit to Zambia of G8 deal is thus $7 million a year.

McKinley and Weeks calculate the reduction in grants, plus the accounting entries described above, to total 3.0% of GDP.  In summary (paraphrasing p.11):

The G8 debt deal ought to reduce Zambia’s debt service by 6.9% of GDP.  Better terms of trade also improves things by 0.2% of GDP.  Total improvement in Zambia’s finances ought to be 7.1% of GDP (as it stood in 2005).

However:

Redirection of debt relief to commercial debt service, plus reduction in grants, reduces this by 3.0. Tighter deficit limits reduces it by 3.3.

So:

Real benefit to Zambia of G8 Debt Deal is: 0.8% of GDP.

However…

The use of debt relief to service commercial debts looks like a naked transfer of aid money to the private sector, but it’s possible that the IMF is doing Zambia a favour by allowing this.  Officially, countries are meant to clear debt arrears before they can receive HIPC relief; this redirection of interim relief might have been a way for Zambia to meet that criteria and so qualify for completion point.  This needs further investigation.

On the face of it, though, it seems the conditions attached to debt relief have the effect of making virtually all the money disappear.  If the analysis is right – and if, as seems possible, what holds for Zambia also holds generally – we can expect very little improvement over the next few years, and the lack of improvement might well be used to discredit the idea of debt relief itself. 

But if the situation really is as McKinley and Weeks describe, debt relief is not at fault: the fault lies with the conditions under which it is disbursed.

Spread the word...

The post Disappearing debt relief appeared first on Jubilee Scotland.