|
Dr.
Peter J. Henriot The two greatest blocks to human development in Africa today are the burden of external debt and the pandemic of HIV/AIDS. Are these two problems related? Are solutions to these two related? What practical responses are possible as we work to deal with both of these mega-problems? And what does this mean specifically in Zambia? During the ICASA meeting in September 1999 in Lusaka, I was asked to comment on a proposal made by the Government of the Republic of Zambia (GRZ) for a proposal that would make available for HIV/AIDS programmes some resources freed up by debt relief programmes that could be arranged with bilateral donors. I made the comments not representing specific HIV/AIDS programmes, though as a pastoral worker and development consultant resident in Zambia for over a decade, I am deeply concerned with the problem of the destruction of life in this country because of HIV/AIDS. Rather I presented a position coming from the movement in civil society that is attempting to deal with the other great destroyer of life, the external debt owed by Zambia and regularly serviced at the expense of such vital life programmes as health care, education, and other social services. Debt Cancellation for Zambia In his paper presenting the GRZ proposal at the ICASA meeting, the Minister of Finance and Economic Development powerfully analysed both the extent and consequences of HIV/AIDS in Zambia and the depth and impact of our huge external debt. A debt stock of over US$ 6.5 billion for a population of around 10 million comes to US$ 650 for every Zambian woman, man and child, over twice the GDP per capita. The debt is clearly unsustainable and Zambia is obviously a "Heavily Indebted Poor Country." In terms of human suffering, we know well the consequences of the Government’s commitment to regular debt servicing that now exceeds spending on health, education and other welfare services combined. Sufficient money is not found in the national budget for meeting basic social needs such as books for schools and drugs for clinics, but is found for servicing the national debt. Yet no nation can develop without educated and healthy citizens, no matter how faithfully it may meet debt servicing requirements. One-third of school-age children in Zambia (ages 7-13) (the majority of whom are girls) are not enrolled in schools. Many of those who are in school face untrained teachers, sit on the floor, do not have books or other educational materials, and are in classrooms for only a few hours a day. Health services are a national disaster, as represented in the shocking figures of infant and under-five mortality, maternal mortality, declining life expectancy, and general morbidity conditions. Keen analysis of Zambia’s debt situation and sharp critique of the economic reform package known as SAP or ESAF have revealed the links between these factors and the human suffering so widely experienced and shockingly growing in Zambia today. That is why Zambian, civil society – churches, NGOs, trade unions, student groups, women’s groups, professional societies, concerned individuals, etc. – have come together to join the international campaign calling for a cancellation of the debts we endure. Jubilee 2000 is the name, immediate action for equitable and effective debt relief is the programme. More than three hundred thousand signatures (45% from rural areas in this country) were taken from Zambia to the G-8 meeting in Cologne in June, joining the 17 million signatures gathered from around the world in the Jubilee 2000 campaign. The argument behind this campaign was well summarised in a joint pastoral letter issued in August 1998 by the three major church bodies, representing Protestants, Catholics and evangelicals. The pastoral letter stated adamantly that Zambia’s debt is clearly unpayable:
The call of our debt campaign is for cancellation, not for half-way, totally inadequate measures of a reformed HIPC or a human-faced ESAF. The "Lusaka Declaration," coming from a meeting of fourteen African nations last May, stated unequivocally: "We reject HIPC and the other current debt relief processes" that are tied to imposed reform programmes that are "deepening economic, social and ecological hardships for the vast majority of people" in Africa. Debt Relief Benefits Whom? It is very clear that Zambia is deserving of debt relief, but the key question is: is Zambia credible with what it would do with debt relief? Any debt relief must be put to the cause of poverty eradication -- not simply poverty alleviation such as welfare safety nets or emergency food relief. Productivity, employment, small capital availability, agricultural enhancement, physical infrastructure such as feeder roads in rural areas, women’s empowerment, environmental protection: these and many more areas are where debt relief must be designated to move toward effective poverty eradication. But many persons in donor countries and many more citizens in Zambia are asking today a very sharp and pertinent question: what guarantee do we have that resources freed up through debt cancellation will in fact go to poverty eradication and not to causes such as new Mercedes Benz for Ministers, new uniforms for the military, new bank accounts for key politicians? This question is not politically motivated but realistically formed. And it must be realistically answered, lest Zambia, no matter how deserving we may be of debt relief, will not be credible enough to receive it. That is why our CCJP/JCTR Debt Project (jointly sponsored by the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace and the Jesuit Centre for Theological Reflection) is currently devoting efforts to establish effective debt mechanisms that involve civil society in setting conditions for how debt relief is to be spent. These are what we call "conditionalities from below," not the "conditionalities from above" imposed only by outside donors and international institutions. We are suggesting four such mechanisms:
Central to all these proposals is the involvement of civil society and the effort to guarantee a credible use of resources freed up by debt relief. The proposal put forth by the Zambian Government is an example of the third type of mechanism, designed to guarantee that debt relief does indeed involve civil society in assuring "conditionalities from below." How can we evaluate this Zambian proposal for a multi-donor "Debt for Development" arrangement? Criteria for "Debt for Development" As the Minister of Finance and Economic Development explained in his ICASA presentation, the proposal aims to scale up an expanded response to "breaking the back of HIV/AIDS in Zambia." In order to generate new resources for HIV/AIDS prevention and control, scarce national resources, presently used to service debt, would be set aside under commonly agreed-upon terms. Civil, private and public sector institutions would be enabled to implement programmes in a combined response that would be part of the overall National HIV/AIDS Strategy. As details of the Strategy are worked out, there is a very strong concern of the civil society engaged in the debt campaign here in Zambia, a concern about the orientation, organisation and operation of this "Debt for Development" arrangement. Recognising that this proposed arrangement would be the first large-scale initiative to channel debt relief resources into poverty eradication, we want to be assured that it sets a precedent that meets these three criteria:
First, accountability and transparency must be there as foreign donors and Zambian citizens alike demand this. The programme will not be accepted by donors nor owned by citizens if there is not honest and open accounting at every moment of the arrangements. This will not be easy in the current Zambian political and administrative climate. A government that finds it difficult to be transparent with both Members of Parliament and ordinary citizens about the whereabouts of the millions of US dollars gathered during the privatisation process must work very hard to be transparent about the millions of US dollars that might be gathered through debt relief arrangements. The debt campaign of civil society says very clearly: no to any debt arrangement, no matter how attractive it might be, that is not scrupulously accountable to the citizens of Zambia as well as to donors. Second, wide public participation means that the arrangements are open to the involvement of the many sectors of civil society that will be affected by these arrangements. This includes NGOs involved in HIV/AIDS work and also NGOs involved in debt work. The light of publicity, the fire of debate, the sense of sharing, the structures of partnership: all these must be guaranteed in the arrangements for debt relief. No "behind doors" decisions, no exclusion of key partners, no "token" representatives, no un-owned resolutions, etc. Finally, the arrangements must be aimed at poverty eradication and not simply poverty alleviation. It is a matter of development, not welfare, a question of empowerment, not dependency. Clearly, this requires a fresher and wider vision than is frequently exercised in government and NGO bureaucracies. For instance, debt relief money must not go only into social sectors like health and education. Sometimes money put into road construction between a village and a clinic, or electricity for rural schools, or employment of agricultural extension workers can be much more effective in poverty eradication than simply sectoral monies spent in narrowly defined "health and education" projects. Evaluation of HIV/AIDS Proposal Given these three criteria, how can we evaluate the proposed multi-donor "Debt for Development" arrangement? Obviously, more study needs to be made of the GRZ proposal. But the Minister’s ICASA presentation does seem to move significantly in the direction of meeting in its vision and strategy the demands for accountability, participation and poverty eradication. First, the principles of financial and programmatic accountability are made explicit in the proposal and a clear commitment is made to independent management of the debt relief funds. Prior agreement by all parties to mechanisms for collecting and reporting information about the progress of the programmes must be reached before any funding is released. And structures for an open process are required to be set in place. Second, a Debt Relief Steering Committee will assure that the debt programme is not a Government-controlled effort but a partnership involving civil, private and public sectors. The exact character, composition and charter of the Committee remains to be designed, but at least the proposal speaks of it in a way appears satisfactory. Finally, the multi-sectoral approach to HIV/AIDS can be shaped to poverty eradication by implementing truly cross-cutting strategies in the activities of ministries and civil society. For example, education of the girl child should not only be in prevention of HIV but in literacy that enhances dignity and empowers choices. Promotion of behaviour change requires more than seminars, but also job opportunities and recreational facilities. Youth programmes should not simply offer more condoms but also more education in traditional cultural values. Such approaches are not short-term poverty alleviation or welfare, but long-term poverty eradication or development. Conclusion In conclusion, let me make clear about what I am saying and what I am not saying. First, the national Zambian debt campaign, comprising Jubilee 2000-Zambia, the CCJP/JCTR Debt Project and many other groups, reiterates its call for full cancellation of Zambia’s debt. We reject the half-way measures like reformed designs of HIPC and ESAF. Second, we call for the implementation of debt mechanisms that assure that any freed resources go to poverty eradication and we insist on the participation of civil society in monitoring negotiations and deciding priorities. These are the "conditionalities from below" that we promote. Third, in speaking approvingly of the GRZ proposal for a "Debt for Development" arrangement aimed at HIV/AIDS programmes, we express appreciation for inclusion of the principles of accountability, participation and poverty eradication. However, we do not endorse the proposal unreservedly, since we need to see more details about its actual structure and about the Government’s real commitment. Fourth, we do not say that HIV/AIDS prevention, control and treatment is the only poverty eradication priority and thus we do not endorse any proposal that would make HIV/AIDS programmes the sole recipient of debt relief resources. But we do see the proposal laid on the table at the ICASA meeting as giant step forward in the design and implementation of debt relief that can effectively benefit the poor.
Published
in the TIMES OF ZAMBIA, Tuesday 2 November 1999
|