G8 fails to fulfill Gleneagles promise on Aid by Oxfam International 11:25pm 6th Jun, 2007   8 June 2007    Oxfam response to G8 statement on Africa.    G8 leaders announced $60 billion in funding for AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis today, trumpeting it as a promise fulfilled.    Oxfam’s senior policy advisor Max Lawson commented on the G8´s final outcome on Africa: “We must not be distracted by big numbers. What the $60 billion headline means at best is just $3bn extra in aid by 2010. This means the G8 will still fall far short of their Gleneagles pledges.    The millions of poor people in Africa need the concrete annual aid increases they were promised – nothing less. Too much is at stake.    Before this summit, Oxfam showed that the G8 were set to miss their 2010 target by a massive $30bn. Today´s announcement may only close that gap to $27bn.    The new money announced today is important in the fight against HIV/AIDS and to provide education for all, but it should be seen for what it is - a small step when we need giant leaps.”    G8’s $60 Billion Aid Announcement Analyzed.    G8 leaders announced $60 billion in funding for AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis today, trumpeting it as a promise fulfilled. It is the only significant aid money in the G8 Africa communiqué. There are two things wrong with this figure. Firstly it is cumulative over an unspecified time period, at least five years, and has simply been totaled up to give as big a number as possible. Secondly a lot of it was existing aid and not new commitments.    Considering both these issues, the long timeline and the old trick of announcing what they are already doing as if it were new, this actually represents at best only $3 billion in new annual money by 2010, miles off the Gleneagles promise of $50 billion increase in overall new aid by that year.    Why it is only $3 billion?    First, the communiqué does not specify how many years the $60 billion is to cover, but one can presume at least five years, i.e. averaging $12 billion a year, but on a gradual increase from a lower figure.    Second, currently donors give $7.3 billion a year for HIV/AIDS alone, $5.4 billion of that is US continuation of current spending, announced last week. The $60 billion figure may also include other current health funding besides programs for these three diseases. This would mean the amount of new money would be even lower than $3 billion in 2010.    If we assume the disbursement will parallel that of the US program, which accelerates increases over five years [$7 billion this year; $8 next year, $10 billion the year after etc.], it would mean at most $3 billion in new funding in the year 2010, when the G8 has promised to provide $50 billion in overall aid, $25 billion of it to Africa.    The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis and UNAIDS estimate the need for additional funding for these diseases just for 2007 totals $6 billion, and that this will likely grow to as much as $23 billion by 2010.    Promise of universal treatment for HIV/AIDS.    The G8 statement also suggests that 5 million is the number of people under treatment in Africa which will constitute the “universal access” they promised in 2005. UNAIDS has taken it to mean 80% of those who need it, which would amount to 7 to 9 million in Africa by 2010, not 5 million. Other estimates are much higher.    Conclusion    The G8 announcement is at most a very modest step forward on funding for infectious diseases, and potentially a small step back on universal treatment for HIV/AIDS. But it is a HUGE promise unfulfilled on the $50 billion promised in Gleneagles for total new aid.    Oxfam estimates the G8 will fall $30 billion short in 2010 on current trends, and this announcement would reduce that by at most only $3 billion or 10%. At best they will miss their promises by $27 billion instead of $30.What is needed are sustained year on year commitments by each country to achieve the $50 billion new aid promised.    June 8th, 2007    A Cheap Promise, A Costly Decision    The G8 today announced their decision on “a commitment of $60 billion for AIDS, TB and malaria money.” But beneath the spin, dazzling the world with numbers, in fact they have just ‘reannounced’ their existing aid budgets, with only $3 billion in new money. This is miles off the 2005 promise of $50 billion new aid a year needed to halve poverty, and while important in the fight against HIV / AIDS, should be seen for what it is – a small step when we need a big leap.    The decision makes me feel extremely sad. This was a promise that was made two years ago because it was urgent. Many lives are being lost across Africa right now. Many more will die now that aid will be delayed. The timing of the promise is as important as the promise itself; it shouldn’t be about “one day we’ll do it.” Day in day out we live with the plight of people across Africa who daily have to take life and death decisions to survive the day, the week, the next month.    In Africa we are doing all we can to deliver medicines for those who need them, and to raise national incomes towards social services, within the resources of fragile economies and health systems. The G8 made promises to deliver more and better aid in 2005 on the basis that this money is critical. While African countries have worked to move forward; the G8 have not only broken their promise, but have tried to claim a breakthrough when they have not delivered.    Without listening to the voices of millions of people around the world, all calling for social justice, the G8 have acted in favour of their own pockets yet again. How many times can promises be made to the poor and then broken? For how long can we live in a world where those who have all the power to save lives, don’t do so?    We are not talking about a luxury. Like everyone else, people in Africa need health care. Without health there is no promise. People are dying every day. I’m sorry to be blunt, but you can’t keep a promise to a dead person.    07 June 2007    Oxfam reaction to G8 agreement on climate change.    Today the group of G8 countries meeting in Germany announced that they had come to an agreement on climate change. The core elements of the communiqué that emerged on Thursday afternoon were: Agreement to work within the established UN process and to complete negotiations on a post-2012 UN multilateral framework by 2009. They will "consider the commitments" by the EC, Japan, and Canada to cut emissions by 50% by 2050. "Substantial cuts" for all G8 members but no specific numerical emissions reduction targets for US and Russia. No commitment from the G8 as whole to staying below 2C warming.    Oxfam''''s Senior Policy Advisor, Antonio Hill said: "It is welcome that G8 leaders have endorsed the UN process to tackle climate change and agreed to negotiate a post-2012 framework within this forum. This means that the poorest countries, who are most affected by climate change will have a seat at the table where solutions are discussed.    "It is also welcome that the EU, Canada and Japan have reiterated their individual commitments to halving carbon emissions by 2050, and that other countries have supported the need for cuts.    "However, it is profoundly disappointing that some members, including the world''''s leading polluter, the US, have failed to sign up to specific targets or even an indicative global stabilization goal. This means that the world is still on track for global warming above 2C – dangerous climate change that will devastate poor countries and massively undermine the fight against poverty.    "After this meeting is over, poor people will still face grave risks associated with catastrophic climate change, including increasingly severe droughts, floods and famines. The eight most powerful countries in the world had an unprecedented opportunity this week to boost global efforts to respond to the threat of global warming and sharply reduce the risks that poor people face. They have taken one step forward, but they should be running by now."    Oxfam added that the G8 should also look to make commitments at this meeting on extra funds to help poor countries adapt to climate change.    Antonio Hill: "The eight countries represented here are the most responsible for global warming and the most able to help poor countries adapt to its impact. On top of agreements on mitigation, we are looking to them to make concrete financial commitments for adaptation.    "Poor countries, particularly those in Africa, will not be able to bear the burden that climate change brings. Conservative estimates put adaptation costs at at least $50bn. The G8 should pay 80% of this."    Oxfam also said that in the remaining hours of the summit the issue of increased aid to help fund basic services such as health and education needed to be addressed. At the time of writing, the reiteration of promises made two years ago at the G8 summit in Gleneagles to double aid to Africa, was still not guaranteed.    The G8 should also indicate their continued commitment to reform of world trade rules to reduce poverty, and their intention to stop pushing damaging free trade agreements on developing countries. Visit the related web page
	Next (more recent) news item
	Next (older) news item