Social Watch Report 2010

y the local watchers. Bulgaria is also falling short onmeeting the targets or ensuring the quality of its assistance.Much worse is the situation in Italy, wherein spite of its G8 presidency last year, the Governmentis “dismantling” its development cooperation.Some countries like Malta, which showed positivefigures, are shown by the local watchers as engagedin creative accounting, by adding to the reportedODA resources spent locally to support migrantsand refugees. Other countries, such as Slovenia have“neither a strategy for development cooperation nora system to evaluate aid efficiency.” And, on top ofthis, the commitments “will be difficult to upholdin the current situation, with national budget cuts inalmost every sector.”Finland seems to be one of the few exceptions,since the new Development Policy Program has introduceda remarkable shift. Yet, the Finnish watchersstill report it lacks a “focus on social developmentand social rights” plus the danger that keepingpercentage commitments might still result in a decreaseof the absolute numbers, due to the shrinkingeconomy. The best reported results in this regardare those of Switzerland, where after much publiccampaigning the Government has finally presentedin June 2010 a proposal to increase Swiss ODA.South-South cooperation is the source of manyhopes in this context, where emerging economiesare seen as new alternative markets and also newsources of aid. Yet, Social Watch India notes that inits behavior as donor India “attaches the same conditionsto its external aid that it refuses to accept as arecipient country, typically linking assistance to thepurchase of Indian goods and services.”Since foreign aid can at best complement thenational efforts to achieve basic dignity for all, asrequested by the MDGs and the human rights obligationsof all countries, where are the resources goingto come from? Many developing countries want toattract Foreign Direct Investments (FDI) to help meettheir development objectives.Yet, in times of crisis FDI tends to behave, likeODA, in a pro-cyclical way. This is the case in Serbia,where the local social-watchers report that “theflow of Foreign Direct Investments has slowed as aconsequence of the global financial crisis, makingthe economy more fragile and unstable. Anti-crisismeasures are based on taking out new loans fromthe international financial institutions and cuttingpublic expenditure on education, health care andpensions–all of which risk pushing even more peopleinto poverty.”Foreign investment is a double-edged swordThe watchers in Zambia have found that FDI “hasplayed an increasingly important role in the country’seconomy, rehabilitating the copper industry andboosting production and exports of non-traditionalproducts and services. However, this investment hasnot been used effectively to promote developmentand reduce poverty. Instead, it is contributing to anerosion of people’s rights, including developmentrights, the right to food, education, a clean environmentand women’s participation in political decisionmaking.”Similarly in Nigeria, the impact of foreigninvestment “is not yet being felt by the poor. Legislationfavouring FDI should be accompanied bymechanisms that guarantee transparency. Despitethe Government’s allocation of financial and otherresources to combat poverty, the sad fact is thatpoverty has continued to grow at a fast pace overthe last 15 years.”In Bolivia, “Foreign Direct Investments does notgenerate better conditions (…) since this systemtakes more money out of (the country) than it generatesin domestic economy.”In Uganda, the Government hopes to attractinvestor and at the same time increase citizen participationand control over public affairs by integratingInformation and Communication Technologies(ICT) into their development management as well asinto a variety of areas of social life. The local NGOsreport through Social Watch that “if the Governmentwants to bring about a real improvement of livingconditions, its effort should be consistent with povertyreduction strategies and investments in humandevelopment.”In many places, instead of being complementary,the same policies that should make the countryattractive to foreign investors make it vulnerable toforeign shocks and destroy the social fabric. “TheGovernment’s belief that it is possible to reduce povertyand inequality while at the same time embracingthe neoliberal agenda has proven not only unrealisticbut also imprudent,” conclude the watchers inCroatia, where recession in 2009 nullified severalyears of social improvements.The watchers in Hungary reach a similar conclusion:“Despite the fact that it was the first country inEastern Europe to adopt International Monetary Fundprescriptions in 1982 and that it was more highly developedthan its neighbours when it embraced a marketeconomy, Hungary is now the weakest economyin the region” and “wavers between potential socialupheaval – if a change of direction is not made – andthe total collapse of a very vulnerable economy. Thephantom of right-wing extremism lurks in the background,fed by popular discontent.”In India, the national Social Watch coalition observesthat “FDI is also adding to the ‘jobless growth’phenomenon” and “even though FDI inflows haveincreased over the years, its ability to deliver genuine(and inclusive) financing for development remains indoubt. In order to make sure it benefits the countryas a whole, including domestic businesses and localcommunities, the country’s economic structuresmust facilitate the creation of the enabling environmentneeded to promote greater FDI spillover effects,both to domestic business and to local communities.”Mother Nature, another victimThe environment has been a victim of the crisis asmuch as the social sector. In Germany, according toWorld Wildlife Fund, only six out of the 32 stimulusmeasures had a positive impact on the environment,and just 13% of them can be considered sustainable.In Bahrein, the country’s rapid development that willallow it to meet most of the MDG targets “has beenreached at the cost of the environment” accordingto the local social-watchers. “Biodiversity loss is onthe rise. Green palm trees, for example, have beenreplaced by concrete complexes” and the claiming ofland for urban development “from the sea at the expenseof bays, lagoons and beaches (…) has causedthe destruction of natural habitats and the extinctionof many marine species.”In Thailand also, the local Social Watch coalitionis concerned about the high environmental cost ofpolicies striving for industrialization at any cost. Evenworse is the case of Bangladesh, “a minuscule polluter(but) an enormous victim of global warming”and of the financial crisis. Both of them originate inthe richest countries and affect the most the peoplethat live in poverty and had no blame or part in creatingthem.Taxation and representationSometimes the strategies to deal with the crisis attemptto “export the problem” and obtain short termbenefits making others pay. In the Czech Republic,the watchers’ report that society is “riddled with corruption”and “deeply affected by inequality, discrimination,racism and segregation.” At the same time,“exports of weapons are on the rise in contradictionof the official foreign policy goals of supporting humanrights and development and assisting with humanitarianaid.” In Finland, civil society groups findthat official development assistance is frequentlysupporting Finnish investments abroad, which oftenhave “negative impacts on human development” inthe poor parts of the world.At the receiving end of those wrong aid and financialpolicies, a country like Ghana is found by thelocal Social Watch report to be dependent “on foreignaid and international financial institutions over the lastthree decades or more.” The result has been “massunemployment, huge balance of payments deficitsand low manufacturing and agricultural output.”While the 1992 constitution “provides the legal basisand specific policies to enhance the welfare and protectionof women and children, (…) the Government’sminimal investment in education, health, water re-Social Watch7