The G20 is an unlikely champion of social justice. Financial Times journalist Alan Beattie, underscoring the group’s lack of clear direction, once likened it to a “pantomime horse manned by a troupe of clowns.”
However, Brazilian presidency offers an opportunity to change this perception.
With Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva at the helm, the G20 is poised to become the launchpad for a landmark initiative to tackle hunger, poverty and extreme inequality. The Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty, which would be launched in November, aims to turn the tide in what has so far been a losing battle to achieve the UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).
Partly modeled on Brazil’s own “zero hunger” campaign, perhaps the biggest human development success story of the 21st century, the alliance aims to mobilize the financing and leadership needed to support the achievement of the SDGs. More than 100 countries have signaled their intention to join.
Would it make a difference?
Founded in 1999, the G20 was conceived as a forum for industrialized and developing countries to discuss and coordinate policies to ensure financial stability, bridging the global north-south divide. The grouping has plenty of political and economic muscle: Its members account for more than 80 percent of the world’s economic output and two-thirds of its population. What has been missing is a sense of strategic direction and shared purpose. The group reached the zenith of its influence in 2009, when then-British prime minister Gordon Brown used its leaders’ summit to broker a massive financial deal that staved off a global recession. Since then, it has steadily slid into irrelevance.
The G20’s ever-expanding agenda is part of the problem. Beyond finance and banking, the group’s dialogue now spans everything from artificial intelligence to cryptocurrencies, the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, climate change and the SDGs. However, it is hard to identify a single area in which the G20 has made a tangible difference. Its preferred currency is not actionable plans backed by political leadership, but anodyne communiques that paper over political differences.
Brazil is now challenging this inertia. Even before assuming the G20 presidency, Lula announced the creation of a task force to develop innovative financing mechanisms through which the group could support underfunded national poverty-reduction programs. Adroitly led by Brazilian officials, the resulting dialogue has spawned the alliance.
Few countries are better equipped to lead a concerted drive to combat hunger than Brazil. During his first presidency from 2003 to 2010, Lula launched a massive campaign to eradicate poverty and hunger in Brazil, which included the Bolsa Familia cash-transfer program, policies to support smallholder agriculture, a higher minimum wage and investment in basic healthcare. A national school program provided more than 40 million children with nutritious meals. Critically, the Brazilian National Council for Food Security provided coordinated leadership, cutting across ministerial silos and facilitating public participation.
Over the decade following the launch of the “zero-hunger” campaign, economic growth and redistributive government policies enabled about 30 million Brazilians to escape poverty. As the number of undernourished Brazilians fell from 19 million to 3 million, the UN Food and Agriculture Organization removed Brazil from its “world hunger map.”
Unfortunately, the gains were short-lived. Hunger and poverty increased dramatically as former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro’s right-wing administration cut social programs. However, the pendulum has now swung in the other direction. Shortly after taking office again in January last year, Lula’s new government launched its Brazil Without Hunger initiative, an ambitious effort to eradicate severe food insecurity within four years.
A similar level of ambition is now needed to achieve the SDGs. If current trends continue, about 600 million people will live in extreme poverty by the end of the decade — more than double the UN’s target. Progress toward the eradication of hunger has gone into reverse. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has warned that without urgent action, the SDG agenda “will become an epitaph for a world that might have been.”
The G20’s Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty could avert this outcome. In a recent report to the G20 presidency that I coauthored with Kathryn Nwajiaku-Dahou and Hetty Kovach, we outlined strategies that could help replicate Lula’s success in Brazil on a global scale.
As a first step, the G20 could throw its weight behind efforts to increase international development financing for reducing hunger and poverty. We estimate current financing at just US$75 billion annually. Instead of endlessly debating the SDGs, the G20 could put in place reforms, recommended by its own special expert group, that would boost concessional lending by US$180 billion by using the multilateral development bank system more effectively.
Debt relief is another priority. More than US$80 billion this year would flow out of poorer developing countries in debt-service payments, much of it directed to commercial creditors. These payments are crowding out spending on health, nutrition and education. The G20’s current debt initiative has failed to tackle the issue head-on, but the organization could play a role in converting unpayable debts into investments in people.
Despite today’s extreme polarization, combating undernutrition provides the G20 with a unifying cause — and a practical policy option. Consider, for example, child malnutrition. More than one-third of children in low and lower-middle-income countries are living with hunger. Providing these children with nutritious school meals would help reduce malnutrition, alleviate poverty and enhance learning. A global aid commitment of about US$1.5 billion could support national efforts that would extend the reach of school meals to hundreds of millions more children, replacing hunger with hope.
However, inadequate financing is only part of the problem. As our report shows, the aid delivery architecture is fragmented, inefficient and hopelessly outmoded. Too much aid is delivered through projects and uncoordinated multilateral funds that prioritize donor agendas — and donor control — over practical needs. By pooling resources and establishing clearly defined antipoverty and hunger-reduction goals, G20 countries could increase efficiency, reduce transaction costs and strengthen national ownership.
“If with so little we have done so much in Brazil, imagine what could have been done on a global scale if the fight against hunger and poverty were a real priority for the international community,” Lula said in a 2006 address to the UN.
The Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty offers the G20 an opportunity to go beyond imagining a better future and help create one.
Kevin Watkins, a former chief executive officer of Save the Children UK, is a visiting professor at the Firoz Lalji Institute for Africa at the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus in the Legislative Yuan has made an internal decision to freeze NT$1.8 billion (US$54.7 million) of the indigenous submarine project’s NT$2 billion budget. This means that up to 90 percent of the budget cannot be utilized. It would only be accessible if the legislature agrees to lift the freeze sometime in the future. However, for Taiwan to construct its own submarines, it must rely on foreign support for several key pieces of equipment and technology. These foreign supporters would also be forced to endure significant pressure, infiltration and influence from Beijing. In other words,
“I compare the Communist Party to my mother,” sings a student at a boarding school in a Tibetan region of China’s Qinghai province. “If faith has a color,” others at a different school sing, “it would surely be Chinese red.” In a major story for the New York Times this month, Chris Buckley wrote about the forced placement of hundreds of thousands of Tibetan children in boarding schools, where many suffer physical and psychological abuse. Separating these children from their families, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aims to substitute itself for their parents and for their religion. Buckley’s reporting is
Last week, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), together holding more than half of the legislative seats, cut about NT$94 billion (US$2.85 billion) from the yearly budget. The cuts include 60 percent of the government’s advertising budget, 10 percent of administrative expenses, 3 percent of the military budget, and 60 percent of the international travel, overseas education and training allowances. In addition, the two parties have proposed freezing the budgets of many ministries and departments, including NT$1.8 billion from the Ministry of National Defense’s Indigenous Defense Submarine program — 90 percent of the program’s proposed
RSS