View previous stories
	Economic policies have social implications by United Nations News   October 2011   “Successful policies are those that do not overlook the fact that economic policies have social implications,” says Sha Zukang, the United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Economic and Social Affairs and Secretary-General of next year’s UN Conference on Socials Development (Rio+20) to be held in Brazil.   He urged countries to pursue economic policies that take social considerations into account to ensure that the poor, youth, persons with disability and the elderly do not continue to bear the brunt of fiscal austerity measures and unemployment in the uncertain global economy.   “Successful policies are those that promote economic and social development together with human rights protection, more and better jobs, social cohesion and less inequality,” Mr. Sha said.   He stressed that the world must design ways of integrating social and economic policies to ensure “people-centred recovery and long-term” sustainable development.   He highlighted three approaches that he said can facilitate the achievement of inclusive and sustainable development.   “First, in the current economic climate, it is important to maintain our commitment to poverty eradication and social justice.   We must retain and strengthen social objectives, not to diminish them,” he said, noting that countries must safeguard growth-enhancing social expenditures even at they strive to bring fiscal deficits under control.   “Second, experience has shown that job creation is paramount. As policy responses to the current crises are developed, jobs are needed for inclusive recovery and poverty reduction.   “Third, the establishment and expansion of social protection floor is also imperative. Such a floor protects people from extreme poverty and deprivation. And it functions as an automatic stabilizer by supporting aggregate demand during economic downturns,” said Mr. Sha.   He said the Rio+20 conference will be an opportunity to integrate social concerns with the economic and environmental pillars of sustainable development.   “We know that a green economy must support poverty eradication. We must develop a green economy that creates jobs for the poor and sustainable livelihoods”.   “From Poverty to Sustainability: Putting People at the Centre of Inclusive Development,” the theme for this years International Day for the Eradication of Poverty reflects the core challenges that remain in the wake of the global financial and economic crisis, says Daniela Bas, Director of the Social Policy and Development Division, of the UN Department of Economic and Social Affairs.   Global unemployment remains at record highs; food insecurity is affecting millions of people; and progress toward poverty eradication has slowed.   2010 estimates suggest that because of the crisis some 84 million more people fell into or were trapped in extreme poverty than would have otherwise occurred. While Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia were among the most affected regions, poverty also grew in industrialized countries.   Vulnerable and marginalized social groups, including persons with disabilities, older persons, indigenous people, and people living in rural areas, continue to bear a disproportionate burden of poverty.   While indigenous people are some 5 per cent of the world"s population, they make up 15 per cent of the world"s poor. In developing countries, some 70 per cent of the poor live in rural areas.   The 2012 United Nations Conference on Sustainable Development, or Rio+20, can provide us a landmark opportunity to work towards overcoming these staggering inequalities.   We can launch the world on one pathway to people-centred, fair and more equitable sustainable development, and make the theme of today’s commemoration a reality.   To accomplish this, Rio+20 must reinforce the importance of poverty eradication, social inclusion, and human rights as the core objectives of sustainable development.   Strategies for moving the new agenda forward must also properly integrate the three pillars of sustainable development – social development, economic development and environmental protection.   The transition to a green economy stands out as the way forward to sustainability, and we need to ensure that this new economy does not perpetuate the problems of the past. We need to ensure that all people have access to decent employment opportunities and adequate social protection.   We must find solutions for providing everyone with food and nutrition, safe drinking water and access to sanitation. We also need to ensure access to quality education and healthcare for all people.   Taken together, these actions form a proven safety net protecting people from extreme poverty and deprivation.   Ultimately, we need solutions that empower today’s poor to escape the trap of poverty and that enable a future that avoids it.   For our future to be sustainable, it must be inclusive. We all need to be a part of the solution. All stakeholders, and particularly people living in poverty, must have the opportunity to participate fully in the decisions that will affect them. Their voices must be heard, loud and clear, in the Rio+20 process. Visit the related web page
	Free Trade Provisions limits public health protections by Deborah Gleeson La Trobe University Opinion   A new trade agreement being negotiated between Australia, the United States and seven other countries could profoundly affect health of citizens in Australia and around the Pacific Rim for the foreseeable future.   The Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, which involves Australia, the US, New Zealand, Chile, Singapore, Brunei, Peru, Vietnam and Malaysia is being hailed as a "21st century" agreement that will cement Australia"s place in the global economy and strengthen its position in the region.   But big US corporations are trying to use this agreement to force binding obligations on the other parties, including Australia, that are likely to reduce access to essential medicines and constrain the ability of governments to protect the health of their citizens.   The issues of greatest concern to public health experts are US proposals to include stringent intellectual property provisions and investment provisions in the agreement. These provisions go far beyond what Australia was prepared to agree to in the Australia-US Free Trade Agreement.   Australia"s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme could be decimated if the intellectual property provisions tabled by the US Government are adopted. The PBS is firmly in the sights of the powerful US pharmaceutical industry because it has inspired the introduction of similar programs in other countries.   Our PBS is generally successful in keeping the cost of medicines low for consumers. This is achieved through a process called reference pricing, where the price paid to a manufacturer for a particular drug is determined by comparison with cheaper generic drugs. Medicines are only listed on the PBS if they are determined to be safer and more effective than existing drugs.   Leaked US Government proposals indicate that the US is seeking intellectual property clauses in the proposed Pacific agreement that will grant pharmaceutical companies greater power in setting the prices of drugs, and will make it harder for generic manufacturers to produce cheaper versions.   These clauses will make patents easier to obtain, even for minor variations to existing drugs, and prevent unwarranted patent applications from being challenged before they are granted. Pharmaceutical companies will be able to market prescription drugs directly to consumers over the internet, a practice which is banned in all countries except for the US and New Zealand because it encourages over-prescribing.   Even more worrying than the effect of these clauses on Australia"s PBS is their likely effect on the prices and availability of HIV/AIDS drugs and other essential medicines in developing countries.   Take Vietnam for example. These clauses would mandate extensive changes to Vietnam"s patent laws to lower patenting standards and eliminate safeguards against unwarranted patents. According to an Oxfam report, similar provisions in the Jordan-US FTA increased the cost of medicines by 20per cent and threatened the government"s ability to continue providing health services.   Furthermore, the US is seeking provisions designed to protect the value of the investments of US businesses in other countries.   These investment provisions enable companies to sue governments in international courts if their laws and policies are perceived to reduce the value of the company"s investments.   Philip Morris has taken advantage of investment provisions in other trade agreements and investment treaties, suing the Uruguay Government in 2010 over its tobacco control measures and more recently indicating its intention to sue the Australian Government over the introduction of tobacco plain packaging, using an obscure Australian investment treaty with Hong Kong.   The dangers of these types of provisions are clear: they restrict the ability of governments to legislate to protect health, and they give power to foreign businesses to determine domestic policy.   The Australian Government has repeatedly affirmed that it would not be bullied by the tobacco industry into giving up on plain packaging. Legal advice suggests that Philip Morris is unlikely to win its claim, but it could cause delays to the legislation and cost the government millions of dollars in defending the case.   If investment provisions are included in the proposed Pacific agreement, the tobacco industry will have further opportunities to tie up the government in expensive legal action and stall the introduction of effective tobacco control policies.   The impact of these provisions is likely to be far more serious in developing countries, where the health burden caused by tobacco is much higher and tobacco companies have more at stake.   Governments of developing countries have fewer resources to spend on the battle and may be more cautious about introducing further controls over the tobacco industry.   Australia should reject the health-damaging clauses the US is asking for and proactively shape the agreement for the best possible health outcomes in Australia and around the Pacific Rim.   * Dr Deborah Gleeson is a Research Fellow in the School of Public Health and Human Biosciences at La Trobe University. First published in the August edition of the Canberra Times.
	View more stories