Select Committee on International Development Minutes of Evidence


APPENDIX 3

Memorandum from the World Development Movement

  As a member of the Jubilee 2000 coalition we have not repeated the overview of the problem which we know will be provided to the committee by coalition partners. Our submission focuses on solutions.

  The World Development Movement (WDM) believes that no country should have its developmental efforts thwarted due to debt repayments. This is an issue of great importance to our members, and on which we have campaigned for over 10 years. We believe the millennium is an ideal time to provide a fresh start to millions of people currently living under the shadow of debt. This will require the cancellation of the backlog of unpayable debt of the poorest countries by the year 2000. Unpayable debts are those which cannot be repaid without damaging prospects of economic and human development.

  The British Government has always played a key role on debt issues. The WDM welcomes the Chancellor's Mauritius Mandate and the Development White Paper's position on debt. However we believe even more could, and should, be done.

  An increasing proportion of debt is owed to the multilateral institutions. Here the Government's task is to push the existing Highly Indebted Poor Country (HIPC) proposal further, for example by giving it priority at the G8 meeting in Birmingham. On bilateral debt, the Government can lead by example by unilaterally cancelling all the unpayable debts of the poorest countries.

MULTILATERAL DEBT

  The Highly Indebted Poor Country initiative was a theoretical triumph. After years of denial the World Bank and International Monetary Fund finally accepted that they too had a responsibility to reduce the burden of debt for the poorest countries. As such it provides an invaluable starting point. The reality is rather less rosy. Only three or four countries are likely to receive any actual debt relief by the year 2000. The small number of countries deemed eligible have a long and tortuous road to travel before their debts are reduced.

  Our concern is that the Chancellor and International Development Secretary need to push hard for a better HIPC initiative which provides more debt relief than currently planned. In doing so they would be supported by many in the World Bank as well as NGOs. In the past the UK has played a much more positive role than the Germans or Japanese. However, we are concerned that officials have not always given this issue sufficient priority in negotiations and we feel more could be done. While we recognise that a gradual approach may be more effective within the World Bank and IMF we want to be clear on the ultimate objective of Government policy, and suggest more ambitious targets are needed.

  There are three areas where we feel more needs to be done: the number of countries; the speed of implementation, and the form of conditionality attached to debt relief.

THE NUMBER OF COUNTRIES

  The World Bank/IMF criteria for defining "sustainable debt" are unrealistic, as they overestimate most countries' ability to repay. The number of countries and the amount of debt relief each country will receive has therefore been underestimated. The HIPC initiative covers around 20 countries with unsustainable debt problems. The cost is estimated at between US$4.8 and US$7.7 billion. Jubilee 2000 has made estimates based on more realistic eligibility criteria, identifying around 50 countries with unsustainable debt problems. About US$100 billion needs to be written off.

  The Mauritius Mandate does not appear to make any reference to increasing the number of countries eligible for debt relief under the HIPC initiative.

THE SPEED OF IMPLEMENTATION

  As a Member of the Jubilee 2000 coalition our goal is to see all countries with unsustainable debt burdens receiving debt relief by the year 2000. We understand from German officials that no more than six countries are likely to reach "completion point" under the HIPC initiative by the Millennium. (These would be Uganda, Bolivia, Guyana and Mozambique before 2000 and Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire in the year 2000.) Even this is probably an over-optimistic prediction.

  In the Mauritius Mandate the Chancellor was clear on the need to speed up the existing HIPC initiative (and DFID has reiterated this desire). However his proposal appears to go no further than the HIPC initiative. He called for three-quarters of all eligible countries to have "firm decisions on the amount and terms of debt relief by 2000. Which point this actually refers to in the HIPC process is not clear but it seems most plausible that this means that they should have reached the "decision point" under the HIPC initiative where a country's debt sustainability is assessed and the amount and timing of debt relief agreed. Under the HIPC initiative 17 of the 20 or so eligible countries were anyway due to have reached the decision point by 2000.

  Under HIPC, countries have first to get to decision point and then implement another three years of a Structural Adjustment Programme (SAPs) before getting any debt relief. The decision to grant debt relief may change between decision point and completion point if during these three years their debt indicators change, for example if their export earnings increase.

  Nicaragua and Tanzania were expected to get debt relief but have recently been declared "off-track" in their SAPs. They are renegotiating with the IMF and their prospects for debt relief have been put on hold.

  The process could move substantially faster if countries did not have to adhere to six years of a SAP, a requirement which is simply unfeasible for many of the poorest countries, whether or not it is desirable. As a first step the period of conditionality could at least be reduced to three years, with much more flexibility in the assessment of adherence.

  The speed with which debt relief is granted is now an issue of political will rather than technical hurdles.

CONDITIONALITY

  Debt relief is typically granted conditional on compliance with a World Bank/IMF approved Structural Adjustment Programme. In its report on the White Paper the International Development Committee has already noted the concern expressed about SAPs. The imposition of inappropriate and sometimes damaging macro-economic conditions attached to debt relief is, in our view, at least as problematic as the actual drain of resources due to debt repayments.

  The challenge is to ensure that debt relief is spent wisely, in the interests of the poor, without heaping yet more conditions onto an already overburdened relationship between First and Third World countries which is far from an equal partnership.

  Current SAPs are harmful because they are based on an outdated model which damages the poorest, without achieving substantial economic growth. They fail because they are blanket approaches which ignore the enormous differences between debtor countries, and take little account of social and political contexts. They flounder because the governments implementing them have no ownership, and frequently do not have the political consensus necessary to impose the austerity measures involved.

  It is suggested in the Human Development Report 1997 that "New forms of adjustment are needed that promote both growth and poverty reduction. Adjustment through reallocation and growth rather than adjustment through contraction is one option to explore ".[39]WDM supports the proposals made by the Secretary for State for International Development that IMF conditions should be evaluated against their contribution to meeting the DfID 2015 targets.

  There is no single set of conditions which should replace SAPs. Local ownership and specificity is part of the solution. Arrangements which are based on a debtor government's own poverty reduction plan are more likely to succeed. So too would conditions which are based as far as possible on outcomes (such as a reduction in infant and maternal mortality) rather than disputed methods like monetarist economic policies. But perhaps most importantly, we need the minds of the World Bank IMF and DFID staff to be set to working out what kind of economic conditions will ensure "pro-poor" growth. We are all agreed on the desirability of pro-poor growth, but few of us are sure how to achieve it.

BILATERAL DEBT

  On bilateral debt, the Government can lead by example rather than being held up by other less enlightened Paris Club members. The UK is the sixth largest bilateral creditor of the most indebted countries, and is owed 4 per cent of their outstanding bilateral debt.

  The Secretary of State recently announced the cancellation of up to £132 million Commonwealth country debts owed to DFID. There seems little reason not to write off the other 47 per cent of DFID's debs owed by the poorest countries—both Commonwealth and non-Commonwealth.

  Almost all (95 per cent) of the poorest countries' debts to the British Government are owed to the Export Credit Guarantee Department (ECGD). The ECGD guarantees repayment to British companies for certain sales to foreign buyers. If the foreign buyer—either a company or government—defaults on its payment to a British company then the ECGD pays off the British company. The debt is then owed to the ECGD.

  Working within the context of the Paris Club, the Government can act unilaterally to increase the percentage of debt written off (up to 100 per cent for those countries most in need). In addition, at present only those debts accrued before the debtor first appealed to the Paris Club are eligible for debt relief. For some countries a substantial proportion of their debt can therefore not be written off, however dire their need. It would be a triumph for common sense if the government were also to look at post "cut-off" date debt.

  The WDM is particularly concerned that one third of all the poorest countries' debts to the ECGD are as a result of arms sales.

  The challenge here is not only to cancel all unpayable debts, but also prevent the build up of future unpayable debt while maintaining a system of export credits which enable Third World countries to buy goods from the UK.

  The Chancellor's unilateral two-year moratorium on export credits for unproductive expenditure is an excellent start. We obviously hope that this will serve to persuade other creditors to follow suit, and that it will become permanent. An explanation of what is meant by "unproductive" is needed, and environmental and social impact assessments on all export credits would help to ensure that they are used productively. This issue has been a long running agenda item at the G7, but so far little has been achieved. The summit in Birmingham this year will again provide an excellent opportunity for decisive action.

  WDM agrees with UNDP's analysis of what is needed. "More effective debt relief-larger in scale, faster in operation. Many proposals have been introduced over the past decade, but the levels and rates of implementation are pathetic in relation to the problems that debt poses for the severely indebted low-income countries. Only with debt reduction can poverty be reduced in many of these countries."[40] Without substantial debt relief for the poorest countries DFID's 2015 targets for poverty reduction cannot possible be met.

World Development Movement

November 1997


39   UNDP Human Development Report 1997 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), p. 77.  Back

40   UNDP Human Development Report 1997, op cit, p. 113.  Back


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 14 May 1998