APPENDIX 11
Memorandum submitted by Save the Children
UK
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to
comment on the White Paper and I enclose Save the Children's detailed
submission to the International Development Committee.
We welcome the White Paper and its overall direction,
in particular: how globalisation can be managed to benefit the
poor; the focus on aid co-ordination; getting the international
system to work more effectively; and untying aid. We are pleased
to see the stance taken on specific issues such as child labour
and breaking the cycle of child poverty. We would, however, have
liked to see a greater focus on children, building on the 1997
White Paper which explicitly acknowledged child rights and a commitment
to `children's protection and participation alongside the provision
of effective and sustainable services'.
Whilst there is much to welcome in the Paper
we remain concerned that there are a number of potentially harmful
consequences of globalisation which the paper either does not
fully tackle or where there is a lack of detail regarding delivery.
Without clarity on this we remain concerned about the potential
for globalisation to deepen child poverty rather than alleviate
it.
Our main concerns relate to:
Globalisation and the Poorest
Despite the positive aspects of the Paper we
are concerned at the lack of detailed discussion on the types
of important negative impacts of globalisation on some groups
and thus policies to ensure that they benefit. In particular no
strategies are outlined to ensure that policies are pro-child,
or processes identified to assess the impact of polices on children.
We are also concerned that whilst the paper
deals with macroeconomic prerequisites for national growth, there
is inadequate attention given to inequalities within and between
states and the social and economic strategies required to redress
inequalities, which do not neglect `poor performers'.
MARKET REFORM
AND PROVISION
OF PUBLIC
GOODS
Social and Economic Policy coherence
We remain concerned at the continuing impact
of market reform on poor children's access to key basic services
such as health and education. We would have liked to see more
detail on concrete strategies for ensuring that children will
not be denied access on the basis of inability to pay. We are
disappointed that the paper goes no further than the current HIPC
initiative as a means to enable poor countries to increase their
ability to fund public spending on the provision of quality and
affordable basic services. The Paper also provides an opportunity
to address the contentious issue of public-private partnership
in the provision of health care. This is an increasingly urgent
issue which the Paper does not adequately address.
TRADE:
International financial institutions:
Corporate Responsibility:
We remain concerned that if concrete steps are
not taken quickly to enable poor countries to take advantage of
trade globalisation, they will be excluded in the long term. In
our view the existing proposals, as outlined in the paper, do
not go far enough.
We welcome the call to ensure a poverty focus
in the IMF. However, we would like to have seen more on how this
will be achieved and how DFID will encourage modification of adjustment
processes to take account of their impact on the poor.
There is much to welcome in the Paper on the
promotion of global corporate responsibility. However, we remain
concerned that the Paper does not fully address issues of global
governance in relation to economic and corporate governance and
human rights arenas to ensure that any adverse social impacts
of economic policies are mitigated and that civil, political and
economic rights are upheld.
Mike Aaronson
Save the Children UK
January 2001
| 
