The Drum Beat 247 - Reality Check: Trade, Resource Allocation, Development and Communication

***
Peer Review Health Communication Resources at Health e Communication! (no longer active)

A collaboration between the Health Communication Partnership and The Communication Initiative - Health e Communication, an online resource, is designed to grow and evolve as practitioners from around the world submit and review case studies, planning models, research and evaluation documents, and lectures and speeches.

Please participate!

***

This Drum Beat is one of a series of commentary and analysis pieces. Chris Morry, Director of Special Projects and Technical Development of The Communication Initiative (The CI), explores trade and overseas development assistance in relation to ending global poverty and hunger. He examines some of the statistical trends and contradictions that have occurred to him while collecting data for The CI's Base Line section and asks some questions about the communication challenges within those contradictions. What follows is his perspective - NOT that of the Partners collectively or individually.

We are interested in featuring a range of critical analysis commentaries of the communication for change field. These will appear regularly on the first Monday of each month and are meant to inspire dialogue throughout the month. Though we cannot guarantee to feature your commentary, as we have a limited number of issues to be published each year, if you wish to contribute please contact Deborah Heimann dheimann@comminit.com Many thanks!

***

Reality Check: Trade, Resource Allocation, Development and Communication

Benjamin Disraeli said that there are three kinds of lies - lies, damn lies and statistics. Mark Twain, also fond of Mr. Disraeli's quote, and good for a pithy saying himself, reflected on the nature of honesty and decided a good rule of thumb was 'when in doubt tell the truth'. In the following analysis, I try to keep Mr. Disraeli and Mr Twain in mind as I look at some of the statistical data on trade and overseas development assistance (ODA) posted in The Communication Initiative's Base Line section (no longer supported) and the role that trade and ODA policies and practice seem to play in the effort to end global poverty and hunger. The statistics point to a difficult and often negative relationship between trade and ODA realities on the one hand, and much publicised global commitments to significant reductions in poverty and hunger on the other. While statistics are obviously open to interpretation and selective use, there comes a point where most of them begin to say more or less the same thing.

At this point it's reasonable to assume a certain amount of doubt about the development paths and policies we've been using. Of course doubt doesn't lead to certainty about what to do next, but Mr Twain might suggest a first step would be to tell the truth about the doubt. Especially when such doubt raises challenges for development communication in terms of its commitment to the goals of reducing poverty and hunger and also to its commitment to engaging people in open and honest dialogue about their own development needs and how best to address them. If these figures reflect reality (and remember, a lot of them are put together by the communication departments of UN agencies and NGO's) they challenge communication practitioners to focus a lot more attention on major and controversial global policy change. If they are damn lies or worse - just statistics - they challenge communicators to look more closely at themselves and their own communication practise.

Major Trends:

1. Global action against HUNGER has had its SUCCESSES...
[Source: FAO]

• The world's population will be better fed by 2030.
• The number of hungry is expected to decline from 800 million today to 440 million in 2030.

But...

• 100's of millions in developing countries will remain chronically hungry.
• The 1996 target to reduce the number of hungry people by half by 2015 will STILL NOT have been met by 2030.

2. The global economy has grown and significant REDUCTIONS IN absolute POVERTY have been achieved...
[Source: UNDP]

• The proportion of the world's people living in extreme poverty fell from 29% in 1990 to 23% in 1999.
• During the 1990s extreme poverty was halved in East Asia and the Pacific and fell by 7% in South Asia.
• East Asia and the Pacific achieved 5.7% annual growth in per capita income in the 1990s; in South Asia, 3.3%.

But...

• During the 1990s the number of people in extreme poverty in sub-Saharan Africa rose from 242 million to 300 million.
• In Central and Eastern Europe and the CIS per capita income shrank 2.4% a year; in sub-Saharan Africa, 0.3%.
• 20 countries in sub-Saharan Africa, with more than half of the region's people, are poorer now than in 1990 - 23 are poorer than in 1975.

3. Global poverty reduction: PROGRESS IS UNEVEN...
[Source: World Bank]

• The proportion of people living in extreme poverty (less than US$1 a day) in developing countries dropped by almost half between 1981 and 2001, from 40 to 21 percent of global population.
• In China alone, sustained growth has lifted more than 150 million people out of poverty since 1990.

Yet...

• These gains are largely in East Asia and in many countries in Africa, Latin America, Eastern Europe and Central Asia the proportion of poor has grown - or fallen only slightly.

4. Global SPENDING PRIORITIES do not prioritise development issues...
[Source: Save the Children UK]

The world spends nearly $1,000 billion a year on arms, $300 billion on agricultural subsidies, and $50 billion on aid.

If we look at health care figures in Ethiopia...

• 20% of Ethiopian government expenditure goes to providing health and education - this provides $1.50 per person per year for health care.
• The WHO estimates a minimum of $30-40 per person per year to provide a very basic level of health care.
• In the UK the government spends over $1,000 per person per year.

A shift in global resource allocation from military and agricultural subsidies to development aid and social spending would enable countries like Ethiopia to increase health and education spending. Of course, such a global shift would mean shifts in many countries domestic spending priorities including Ethiopia's.

5. PROMISES are made but not kept...
[Source: Save the Children UK]

• Many countries have agreed to make 0.7 per cent of their wealth available for overseas aid.

Yet...

• The 22 richest donors committed on average just 0.22% of their income to overseas aid in 2002.
• Official aid to sub-Saharan Africa has fallen from $30 to $20 per person per year in the last decade.

6. The global ECONOMIC pie has gotten bigger but the growing GAP between rich and poor says something about how it is being shared...
[Source: UNDP]

• The richest 1% of the world's people receives as much income each year as the poorest 57%.
• Among the 73 countries with data (and 80% of the world's people), 48 have seen inequality increase since the 1950s, 16 have experienced no change and only 9 - with 4% of the world's people - have seen inequality fall.

Trade Policies - Ending Poverty And Hunger?

7. South Asia and TRADE LIBERALISATION...
[Source: Infochange]

By the early 1990s all the countries in South Asia had embarked on the process of liberalising their economies, opening up their markets and implementing reforms to improve economic management.

During this time:

• The income of half a billion South Asians declined.
• South Asia's average growth rate, 5.8% during 1980-89, fell to 5.4%.
• Despite the fact that the largest country in the region (India) had a growth rate of over 6.5% the absolute number of people in poverty has increased.
• Inter- and intra-regional disparities have persisted. Income distribution has been skewed in favour of higher-income groups.
• Resource allocations to poverty alleviation programmes have been declining in real terms.

8. AGRICULTURAL TRADE policies have been singled out as major impediments to achieving global development goals...
[Source: International Food Policy Research Institute]

Harrison Amukoyi's farm sits on a hillside in western Kenya. He raises several crops and a dairy cow on less than 2 acres. To sell milk, Harrison and his neighbours must compete with subsidised milk from industrialised countries being sold in local markets and depressing prices for Kenyan farmers.

• Subsidies by industrialised nations cost developing countries about US$24 billion annually in lost agricultural and agro-industrial income.
• Latin America and the Caribbean lose about US$8.3 billion in annual income from agriculture.
• Developing countries in Asia lose US$6.6 billion.
• Sub-Saharan Africa loses nearly US$2 billion.

9. And in MEXICO...
[Source: Oxfam International]

• Basic grain imports into Mexico under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) doubled between 1994 and 2001 to 110 million tons with a value of $18.5 billion.
• In the case of corn, Mexico imports an average of 6 million tons annually, compared to 2.5 million tons prior to NAFTA.
• The US exports wheat at 46%, and corn at 20%, below their production price.
• Mexico's increasing reliance on imports has led to actual prices to Mexican producers falling between 35% and 60%.
• Today, the price of corn for producers is $80 per ton though production cost is $120 per ton - domestic production has stagnated, food dependency has increased and the livelihoods of 2.5 million corn producers have been affected.
• The price reduction has not benefited consumers and the price of tortillas, the base diet of the majority of Mexicans, has risen from 0.80 pesos/kg in 1993 to 5.00 pesos/kg in 2002.

10. FARMERS on the losing end...
[Source: Baobab Connections]

• In the 1950s, an African farmer produced 10 quintals of grain, kept 8 to feed his/her family, and had 2 left to sell on the market at $29 per quintal (current rates), leaving $57 to cover basic expenses.

Today, a quintal of grain is worth less than $14. A farmer who produces 10 quintals must sell 4 to earn the same he/she did in the 1950's or keep 10 to feed the family and not be able to cover basic expenses.

Should This Mean Anything To Development Communicators?

Considering these few statistics along with the stories from those most affected leaves me feeling that a milestones such as halving hunger by 2015 is both an achievable and necessary minimum and an impossible challenge.

Impossible, if things continue as they are...

• The global economic pie is growing but this growth is unevenly distributed leaving inadequate resources for the enormous development challenges the world's people face.
• There have been significant successes over the past decades but these are not evenly distributed and in some cases are slipping backwards.
• Global spending priorities place key human development needs far behind other priorities such as spending on the military and agricultural subsidies.

Achievable, if we make some changes in priorities and policies...

• Increase ODA quickly to levels long promised by wealthy countries.
• Move towards more equitable trade policies starting with agriculture.
• Look for mechanisms to ensure benefits from growth in the global economy are not so heavily concentrated amongst a few.
• Identify and build on successes where they exist and maintain development supports over long enough terms to avoid 'slippage'.
• Build a global consensus around world spending priorities that adequately responds to essential development issues such as health, education and the reduction of poverty and hunger.

And minimal because...

• Reducing hunger by half still leaves 100's of millions in unspeakable circumstance.

Clearly these are complex and challenging issues and the bullets above are only partial and skeletal starting points. However, they do raise some important questions for people involved in communication for development. It is increasingly evident that the statistics and real human stories gathered and publicised so regularly by the research and communication departments of the UN system and NGO's point to some obvious and intransigent obstacles to global development. Even Mr Disraeli may find the growing body of statistics supported by stories of human suffering and inequality difficult to simply dismiss. Unless, of course, they are lies propagated on ourselves in which case there is some serious soul searching to be done about global communication for development practise.

However, accepting that these statistics paint an honest picture of what's going on, they raise doubts about fundamental policy structures and approaches to development at the global level that pose questions about how those involved in communication for development should respond to the global forces that impact the local choices people make every day. Such questions as...

1. Is there a communication for development role in identifying and responding to contradictions between global development goals and resource allocation or policy realities?
2. What is the appropriate level of focus for "good" development communication on these issues? Can development communication rise to challenges involving global advocacy? How can development communication best take on issues such as these that are highly politically contentious?

If the evidence is enough to raise doubts about the possibility of achieving widely publicised and desperately needed development goals in the context of present trade and ODA policy and practise - and this is what the communication research of some of the largest practitioners of communication for development tells us - should we not heed Mr Twain and be honest? As communication practitioners do we not need to review our own data and communication strategies to ensure that we are doing all we can to meet and surpass the minimal development goals the world has set itself?

Many thanks.

Chris Morry
cmorry@comminit.com
April 30, 2004
***

Please participate in a Pulse Poll
on this same theme:

Communication for development practitioners should focus more on responding to contradictions between global development goals and resource allocation/policy realities.

Do you agree or disagree?

***

This issue of The Drum Beat is meant to inspire dialogue and conversation among the Drum Beat network. ***

This issue of The Drum Beat is an opinion piece and has been written and signed by the individual writer. The views expressed herein are the perspective of the writer and are not necessarily reflective of the views or opinions of The Communication Initiative or any of The Communication Initiative Partners.

***

The Drum Beat seeks to cover the full range of communication for development activities. Inclusion of an item does not imply endorsement or support by The Partners.

Please send material for The Drum Beat to the Editor - Deborah Heimann dheimann@comminit.com

To reproduce any portion of The Drum Beat, see our policy.

To subscribe, click here.