Money to help poor countries adapt to climate change, once again, postponed. But Oxfam’s Jon Slater reports some progress in last week’s G20 summit in Pittsburg.
If a week is a long time in politics then 6 months is an age in the world of international summits. April’s G20 summit in London, for all its faults, felt like an event where world leaders were making a genuine attempt to get to grip with the economic crisis.
Previously neglected or off-limit subjects such as tax havens, financial reform and global governance were suddenly up for grabs. Leaders agreed a $1.1 trillion bailout - including $50 billion for poor countries - to help put the world on track for recovery.
By contrast, those in the media centre in downturn Pittsburgh were decidedly downbeat. Expectations were low and not just among the handful of NGOs that had gained admittance.
Maybe it was paying for their own food (it was free in London), the Byzantine security just or summit fatigue (this G20 followed on from UNGA and came just a couple of months after July’s G8) but the London buzz was sadly lacking.
Most of the communiqué lived down to Oxfam’s expectations. “Cake for the rich but crumbs for the poor” was our verdict. The vital issue of money to help poor countries adapt to climate change, once billed as central to the summit was, once again, postponed to a future date.
But at the last there was a silver lining. Oxfam is pushing for currency transactions to be taxed and the money diverted to help protect poor people from an economic crisis they did nothing to cause. The G20 did not promise one but under pressure from France and Germany and despite opposition from the UK Treasury they did open the door to future discussions. With 100 people a minute falling into poverty, they need to act quickly.
More on this: G20 Summit 2009 - Pittsburgh
Tags: g20
It is not always easy in poor countires to get the money to the poor and leave the governmnent which is mainly corrupt out. I plant trees for lumber in the Philippines and instead of using goverment land I use small farmers land. I have signed partnering contracts for the next 12 years with them, I pay for the trees, pay them to plant it and to maintaine it. In addition I plant fruit trees between the lumber trees to provide a steady income, They own 2/3 of the fruits which I buy at market value. When cutting the lumber trees, which are re-planted, they get 1/3 of the profits after selling the trees. The second set of new planted trees belongs to them so do the fruit trees. So far I have planted and financed 500.000 trees since 2007.
September 30th, 2009 at 4:25 am