What does the G8 recent debt cancellation to poor nations represent for women in those selected countries?
September 2005
An interview with Zo Randriamaro, a human rights and gender activist from Madagascar. A sociologist by trade, Zo has served as an expert within several international development organizations, the United Nations and USAID. She was the former Manager of the Gender and Economic Reforms in Africa (GERA) regional programme, and has recently joined the WEDO Board (Women’s Environment and Development Organization).
AWID: Why are so many groups (human rights, women’s rights and civil society organizations) campaigning right now for debt cancellation?
ZR: I think that this is a result of a combination of factors tied to a changing economic and political context as well as various approaches to the debt problem within international institutions. It is clear that one of the reasons why the debt issue has moved to the forefront in the international arena is because of the increasing pressure civil society organizations have created through numerous campaigns such as jubilee 2000 for debt cancellation. The significant impact of such a pressure has been amongst other things, a growing awareness of the debt problem and its consequences on civil society organizations, such as women’s organizations and the public at large.
As far as women’s rights are concerned, several campaigns and studies have highlighted the negative impacts of the debt on women and their family’s access to essential social services. These impacts are a result of expenditure and budgetary cuts to cover the cost of servicing the debt, which usually involve social sectors such as education and health. As well, numerous studies have shown that debt repayment economic measures, rather they were tax policies, monetary policies or budgetary measures; all had negative consequences with greater impact on women than on men because of existing structural gender inequalities particularly in terms of access to and control over resources.
Pressure by civil society has also led the governments of these indebted countries to increasingly voice the issue of incompatibility between their goals to fight against poverty and their development goals and the conditions imposed upon them as they pertain to their repayment of the debt. As for African nations, a clear example of this collective claim was quite evident in the NEPAD (The New Partnership for Africa’s Development) where it figures prominently.
If we were to examine the changes in the approaches to the debt problem within international financial institutions (the World Bank and the Monetary Fund) who play a central role in this area, one can see an internal dynamic which has led to questioning certain guiding principles which governed the debt problem in the 70’s. This internal dynamic has been partially generated by the external pressures I mentioned earlier, but also mainly by the constant failures of measures put in place in order to repay the debt, such as the first generation of Structural Adjustment programs (SAP) whose final outcome was to guarantee repayment from debtor nations.
Following their failure, Bretton Woods institutions launched a new approach to the debt problem which essentially was put in place through the heavily indebted poor countries (HIPC) Initiative along with what could be called the “second generation of SAP introduced through the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers (PRSPs). While the PRSP process was still driven by the main SAP conditionality which was a determining factor in the increase of poverty and its feminization, they also introduced a participatory approach to the Poverty Reduction Strategies. This approach aims particularly at guaranteeing the participation of civil society in the PRSPs. Without going into further details as for the nature of such participation which is quite debatable, I believe nonetheless that it contributed to raising awareness and led to civil society organizations mobilizing. By opening up spaces to question and voice these issues, the PRSP process contributed somewhat to the vulgarization of the debt problem amongst a greater number of organizations from civil society, specially women’s organizations which have recently become a preferred target as a result of the claims some of them have made to see women participate more fully to the PRSP process.
AWID: The G8 has just agreed to cancel the debt for a group of African countries. What does the cancellation entail? What impacts will it have on women’s lives in those countries?
ZR: In order to best understand the potential impacts of this debt cancellation on women’s lives, one must first understand the reach of such a decision coming from the G8, beyond the grand statements in the media and the triumphant tone of some African countries and civil society organizations. First of all, as you well know, not all African countries have been exempted even though among the countries which have been excluded, many need the cancellation of their debt in order to satisfy their citizens’ basic needs. For example, in order to reach the MDGs it is estimated that not only must the debt be cancelled for all the countries in question, but they must also be allocated an additional aid of approximately 16.5 billions dollars.
Furthermore, even for the countries who benefit, in the end, this cancellation relates only to 10% of their debt since it only pertains to the debt owed to the WB, the IMF and the ADB (the African Development Bank). In comparison to Sub Saharan Africa’s $ 230 billion US in foreign debt, the $40 billion US fixed ceiling the G8 has agreed upon in terms of the debt cancellation is a far cry from their existing needs. Although we can not deny that such a cancellation is a positive step forward as it does represent a breath of fresh air for those countries in question, they would have to be subject to the qualifying conditions imposed by the WB and the IMF. Those conditions usually mean trade liberalization measures which often put women at a disadvantage given gender inequalities in terms of access to and control over resources. There are also privatization measures of basic public services such as water which constitutes a common good to which all citizens should benefit and whose value to women is widely recognized, especially in Africa where they usually are responsible for insuring the family’s water supply. New conditions pertaining to good governance, the fight against corruption could be added to the G8 conditions at will.
As for its potential impacts on women, if the resources freed from the cancellation of debt are efficiently allocated to sectors which are important to women, especially basic social services (such as education, health, water, energy and transportation), and if the mechanisms to insure their access to those services are in place, then it could have positive impacts on women’s lives. We are therefore facing a major obstacle which is the absence of such mechanisms as far as the existing resource allocating and managing system pertaining to the debt cancellation. That is why gender mainstreaming this system (which is essentially comprised of PRSPs and national budgets) is of paramount importance if women’s needs and those of other marginalized groups are to be taken efficiently into account in all concerned sectors.
Also, the impacts on women are not limited only to the level of resources being freed by the cancellation of the debt; they are also tied to the conditionality that comes with canceling the debt. Those conditions are generally similar to those who come with the SAPs and whose enormous social costs mainly to women, are now well known. Many analysts are even wondering rather the conditions tied to the cancellation of the debt would not in the end increase, or at least perpetuate the indebtedness of those countries that benefit from the cancellation of their debt given that they entail drastic economic reform measures. And we know that they are likely to maintain those conditions which favor indebtedness, such as the deterioration of the terms of trade due to an accelerated liberalization of trade and investments.
AWID: What did the G8 decide not to cancel the debt for all the countries? What are the reasons for this selection? Do they seem fair and equitable to you?
ZR: Despite the official speech which placed a concern for justice and equity in the forefront of the G8’s preoccupations, I do not think that justice and equity played a significant role in the G8’s decision which is essentially the result of a technical assessment process based on criteria such as the completion point in the HIPC Initiative’s framework. Therefore, only those countries who have reached this completion point were granted the cancellation and the other 20 countries that could be eligible in the future will also have to reach that completion point.
The political negotiation process among the members of the G8 also played a role in that decision. There was a power play between those who favored a greater debt relief and those who were strongly opposed to it. The power play has undoubtedly been in favor of those who were opposed to it. And when we also know that the United Stated who has strong hold on the WB was the main opposition, we are not at all surprised by the G8’s decision.
This decision is even more unfair and inequitable when one is to examine closely a critical aspect of this cancellation which seems to have evaded many commentators and which has to do with the links between debt and development aid. In fact, those twenty countries that have been privy to that cancellation will probably see the equivalent of that amount deducted from the aid they will receive. We are therefore faced with the notion that the will to confront the debt problem is reduced to a sort of accounting maneuvering which allows the creditors to give the impression that they are making a great effort in favor of those debtor nations while maintain the status quo in their relations with these countries.
AWID: What can you add in conclusion?
ZR: To conclude, I would say that the cancellation of the entire debt is a crucial issue for women, since this is the only way to guarantee that they will not continue to carry the burden of their impoverished families and communities and to pay with their time, their labor and their dignity for the failures of the Nation-states and the injustices of the international economic order.
---------------------
RESOURCE NET is brought to you by The Association for Women's Rights in Development (AWID). Announcements posted on this discussion list do not necessarily reflect the opinion of AWID, but are meant to provoke thought, generate solutions and inspire action. AWID is an international membership organization committed to gender equality and a just and sustainable development process. AWID facilitates an open exchange among researchers, practitioners, policymakers and others in order to develop effective and transformative approaches for improving the lives of women and girls worldwide. If you are not already a member of AWID, please visit our web site at www.awid.org to find out more.
The Association for Women's Rights in Development
215 Spadina Avenue, Suite 150
Toronto, ON M5T 2C7
CANADA Tel: 416-594-3773
Fax: 416-594-0330
Email: awid@awid.org
Web: www.awid.org
