Make Poverty History, and G8 promises - was it all really worth it?

30th May 2013

Executive summary


In 2005, the largest ever anti-poverty movement came together here in the UK, under the banner of the Make Poverty History campaign. The campaign called for urgent action to deliver more and better aid, debt cancellation and trade justice. Millions of UK citizens supported the call to action; demonstrating wide-spread solidarity with the world's poorest, and millions more around the world joined them in their calls for justice.

 

This display of people-power, led to unparalleled pressure on G8 leaders to take action at the Gleneagles Summit. G8 leaders responded by committing to cancel debts owed to the World Bank, IMF, and African Development Bank and to increase annual aid to poor countries by US$50 billion by 2010. The Make Poverty History campaign demonstrated that ordinary people can push leaders to show ambition to address extreme poverty when they come together to demand action.



Since 2005, the promises made in Gleneagles have helped to transform millions of lives in some of the world's poorest countries. The G8 debt relief deal has freed-up significant resources to be injected into health and education and other poverty-reducing programmes by developing countries. As a result of the debt-deal, Zambia was able to make healthcare free for everyone. Before that, Zambia had been paying twice as much in debt cancellation as they spent on healthcare. It has also given millions of children - especially girls - the chance to learn to read and write; with Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia using debt cancellation to abolish fees for primary school. When primary school fees in Uganda were cancelled due to debt relief, the number of children enrolled in primary schools more than doubled - to more than 5 million - over the following four years.[1]   In fact, in a survey of ten African countries that have had debts cancelled, an astonishing increase of around 40% on education spending and 70% in healthcare was recorded.[2]



The G8's $50 billion aid promise acted as a catalyst to significantly boost total aid levels over the 8 years since Gleneagles, with total aid levels rising by around 35% from 2004 to 2010. Africa received around US$11 billion more aid in 2010 than in 2004.[3]  This has supported some life-changing, and in many cases life-saving, advances: expanding funding to major targeted programmes against AIDS, TB, and malaria; a major scaling-up of safe childbirth; increased vaccine coverage; and has supported millions of children go to school. Malaria deaths in children in Africa have been cut from a peak of around 1 million in 2004 to around 700,000 by 2010.[4]

 

This year has delivered a momentous reminder of the great legacy of Make Poverty History campaigning on aid. In March, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that the UK would meet its 40 year old promise to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid. Without campaigning in 2005, when a broad base of the UK public created momentous pressure on the UK government to set ambitious plans to scale up to 0.7, this would not have been possible. And this year's increase in the UK's aid could save at least 3.3 million lives annually, according to Oxfam's estimates. 

 

While these G8 successes give cause for celebration, it is true that it's not all been good news.  The G8's collective $50 billion promise was missed by around US$20 billion at the 2010 deadline, and European countries remain remarkably off-track for meeting their collective promise to the 0.7% GNI target by 2015. The remarkable stories of the life-saving impacts of aid make these broken promises even more tragic.

 

But without the promises that were made back in 2005 due to public pressure, there is no doubt that far less progress would have been made. Make Poverty History showed people power can make all the difference when the G8 knows that the eyes of the world are bearing down on them, and that pushing for ambitious action on poverty is worth it.



This year hundreds of organisations are working together as part of the IF campaign,  is working together calling for the G8 to take action on poverty and hunger by tackling tax havens, and stopping land grabbing. If we can achieve the same levels of ambition raised during 2005 at this year's G8, and begin to see action on this transformative agenda, we could get one step closer to eradicating extreme hunger forever - and one giant leap further along the global journey to justice.

 

People power


In 2005, the largest ever anti-poverty movement in the UK came together under the banner of the Make Poverty History campaign. The campaign called for urgent action by the G8 on more and better aid, debt cancellation and trade justice.



What were the demands of the Make Poverty History campaign?


  • Double the aid budget - creating more and better aid.  Increase the aid budget from all G8 countries to $50 billion per year and enable them to reach the target of 0.7%.
  • Deliver trade justice - bring about fundamental changes to global trade rules and institutions to make them more just.
  • Drop the debt - deliver a comprehensive cancellation of outstanding third world debt.



The public responded to the call to Make Poverty History in unprecedented numbers. The sheer scale of actions taken by UK citizens demonstrated wide-spread support for the call. Over 2005, an estimated 8 million people wore a white band, the symbol of the campaign, and 444,000 people emailed the Prime Minister.

 

As G8 leaders arrived in Scotland, a quarter of a million people marched across Edinburgh to demand the G8 take action on global poverty.  The march, the largest ever to take place on Scottish soil, was a breath-taking display of solidarity by the UK public with the world's poorest.

 

In the final hours before the summit, around the globe, an estimated 2 billion people tuned-in to watch the 'Live 8' concerts in key G8 countries, applying a final high-profile pressure point on G8 leaders as they arrived for the Summit.

 

The UK was not alone in its efforts, with the Make Poverty History campaign forming a worldwide alliance of anti-poverty organisations and individuals from over 70 countries organised under the umbrella of the 'Global Call to Action against Poverty'. Over 2005, 38 million campaigners from countries as diverse as Japan, Nigeria, Zambia and India called on the G8 - and their own leaders - to take action.  

 

The Gleneagles G8 promise to the world's poor


This display of people power led to unprecedented pressure on G8 leaders to take action at the Gleneagles Summit. G8 leaders responded by committing to increase annual aid to poor countries by $50 billion by 2010, compared to 2004 levels.   The G8 also agreed as part of that, to increase aid to Africa by $25 billion per year by 2010.

 

The impact of global anti-poverty campaigning went beyond pushing just the G8 to take action. The EU went a step further than the G8, and committed to meet the target of spending 0.7% of GNI on aid by 2015, with an interim target of 0.56% by 2010.  In so doing, they established concrete pledges for meeting the long-standing obligation by developed countries to the 0.7%-GNI aid target.[5] Each country also set country-specific targets to reach. The UK, for example, committed to increase ODA to 0.7% by 2013.  This commitment from European states made a massive contribution to the G8's overall aid promise.

 

On debt, the G8 leaders agreed to 100% cancellation of debts to the World Bank, International Monetary Fund (IMF) and African Development Fund, for those countries that complete the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) initiative.

 

The Gleneagles summit was a watershed moment in the G8's record of making commitments to tackling on global poverty. The ambition to address extreme poverty was ratcheted-up by the Make Poverty History campaign; creating unparalleled pressure for action by the G8. In so doing, it demonstrated that ordinary people can create an extraordinary moment when they come together to demand action from their leaders. While the record of the G8 has been mixed in meeting these objectives, the promises have given campaigners a way to hold leaders feet to the fire for delivery. And even when all the promises have not been delivered, they have been responsible for some remarkable changes to the lives of millions of the worlds' poorest. 



The G8 debt deal: delivering essential services



The G8 debt relief deal struck in Gleneagles has significantly increased resources in some of the world's poorest countries; freeing-up additional funds to support struggling budgets, so that spending on health, education and other development priorities could be increased.

 

To be eligible to receive debt-relief under the G8 debt-deal, countries had to pass through the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative (HIPC). Once completed, countries became eligible for 100% cancellation of debts to the World Bank, IMF and African Development Bank.[6] The deal later became known as the 'Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative' (MDRI).

 

In some countries - with large amounts of multilateral debt - the amount cancelled substantially reduced their total debt burden. Uganda, for instance, had around 80% of its debt cancelled. Whilst Ghana, Tanzania and Zambia saw around 75% of their debts wiped out.[7]  

 

39 countries in total were scheduled to get debt-relief as part of HIPC process; 35 countries are now at 'completion point' - when debt relief is irrevocable - and another 4 countries are in varying stages of the process.[8] Of these 39 countries, the total debt relief received from the MDRI will eventually amount to US$36.9 billion[9]. Imagine how much good this money can do in the poorest countries.    

 

Countries that have received debt-relief and have seen large decreases in debt-servicing, perhaps unsurprisingly are able to increase spending on poverty-reduction. The World Bank estimates that these countries have seen a 2% decrease in debt-service payments relative to GDP.[10]  And through a combination of debt-relief and increased domestic spending, countries have been able to increase their public expenditure on development programmes by at least 2%.[11]

 

Countries have also been able to spend more on healthcare and education, because they could spend less on crippling debt payments.  When Zambia's debt was cancelled as a result of the G8 debt-deal, the government abolished user fees in rural healthcare clinics, allowing millions to be able to access healthcare facilities which were once priced out of their reach. Before that, Zambia had been paying twice as much in debt cancellation as they spent on healthcare. In Mozambique a free childhood immunisation programme saw almost a million children vaccinated, as a result of debt-relief.[12] While in Ghana, Malawi, Tanzania, Uganda and Zambia, debt cancellation enabled their governments to abolish fees for primary school. When primary school fees in Uganda were cancelled due to debt relief, the number of children enrolled in primary schools more than doubled - to more than 5 million - over the following four years.[13]   In fact, in a survey of ten African countries that have had debts cancelled, an astonishing increase of around 40% on education spending and 70% in healthcare was recorded.[14]

 

G8 aid deal: helping to boost aid by 35%


While the total G8 aid promise has not been met, the aid package has acted as a catalyst to significantly boost aid levels over the 8 years since Gleneagles.[15] Between 2004 and 2010 there was a huge increase in overall aid commitments, with total levels rising by 35%, as a result of the G8 and related commitments.[16]   While Africa received around US$11 billion more aid in 2010 than in 2004.[17]


This boost to aid has been playing a vital role in supporting some life-changing advances in the world's poorest countries. The expanded funding has allowed major targeted programmes against AIDS, TB, and malaria; a major scaling up of safe childbirth; and increased vaccine coverage.  Malaria deaths in children in Africa have been cut from a peak of around 1 million in 2004 to around 700,000 by 2010.[18] One study found the significant and rapid decline in malaria-caused deaths after 2004 in sub-Saharan Africa was the result of aid-supported malaria-control measures.[19] While UNICEF now estimates that fewer than seven million children under the age of five died last year, compared with nearly 12 million in 1990, with data on child mortality demonstrating the powerful impact that aid has had in supporting this reduction.[20]

 

It has also supported countries to scale up access for millions of children to basic education. In the past 10 years more than 50 million children have started going to school in sub-Saharan Africa, with aid playing a vital role in ensuring that children can go to school in many Africa countries, supporting more than 40% of education budgets across Africa.[21]  

 

And finally, aid has supported over 8 million people in the world to now receive lifesaving AIDS treatment, compared with just 300,000 in 2002. Aid has played a significant part in enabling people to access HIV drugs, with the Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB and Malaria providing AIDS treatment for 4.2 million people.[22]

                                                                                             

Promises made, promises kept, and promises broken


The gap between promises and eventual delivery has been markedly different across the G7 countries (for a full breakdown of promises and delivery see Annex 1).  With some countries delivering on their pledges and others spectacularly failing.  While the specific targets on aid across each of the G7 countries might not always have been met they have given campaigners a yardstick to continue to measure progress against, and to mobilise around to try and keep their government on track.  And in some countries, sustained campaigning has achieved real results.



Perhaps in the UK, more than any other country, the legacy of this campaigning on aid is most visible. In March this year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer confirmed that the UK would meet its 40 year old promise to spend 0.7% of GNI. This is an achievement that millions battled for in 2005, when a broad base of public pressure pushed for the 2013 0.7% aid target to be set. Without the campaigning by millions of ordinary UK citizens in 2005, as well as continued pressure over the following years when the target has looked under threat, it seems inconceivable this would have been achievable in these tough economic times and with austerity biting.   

 

For such a little investment - the actual cost of UK spending on aid with the 0.7% target met is just 7 pence in every ten pounds - the UK aid money is transforming and saving lives.  Oxfam estimates that the increase in UK aid as a result of meeting the 0.7% target could provide 188 million life-saving mosquito nets[23] which could save the lives of 1.3 million children[24], and could provide life-saving treatment for 2 million people living with HIV/AIDS.[25]  

This year's increase in UK aid could provide 188 million life-saving mosquito nets[26] which could save the lives of 1.3 million children[27], and could provide life-saving treatment for 2 million people living with HIV/AIDS[28].  So this increase could save at least 3.3 million lives annually.

.

Promises un-kept


In spite of the bold promises made in 2005, because of the failure of some countries to meet their commitments, as the 2010 deadline passed for the G8 to increase aid by US$50 billion, only US$30 billion had been delivered in total.  While the increase of US$11 billion in aid to Africa, was still way under half of the $25 billion increase promised.[29]

 

In addition to the total shortfalls in the US$50 billion promise, the EU also made the promise to collectively meet the 0.7% GNI target by 2015. Overall, Europe continues to remain markedly off-track on their promises: with many countries sliding backwards in their efforts.  With recession and austerity measures in many European countries leading to domestic anxieties obliterating global concerns, aid budgets have been massively reduced or frozen. However, the aid cuts are actually such small figures comparative to overall deficits, that these reductions will make little impact in budgetary reductions at home: yet the funds could make all the difference to the worlds' poor.  The remarkable stories of the life-saving impacts of aid makes the price of these broken promises even more tragic.

 

A call to action for the 2013 G8 Summit


Great strides forward have been made in tackling some of the most extreme impacts of poverty since 2005.  The G8 deal on aid and debt has played a significant role in supporting this progress - and could have done even more if all G8 countries has delivered on their aid promises.



Eight years have passed since the Gleneagles summit and the UK is now set to host the G8 again.  With the world's attention turning back towards the UK Presidency of the G8, this offers a chance to set out a new vision for G8 action in 2013.  Oxfam knows from experience that campaigning works and that when the world's eyes are bearing down on them, the G8 feels compelled to act. It is for this reason that in 2013 we've joined others to launch a new campaign which also brings together hundreds of organisations from across the UK to pose a new challenge for G8 action. A challenge to address one of the most intractable development issues of our day - hunger and malnutrition.  With 1 in 8 people going hungry every single day, we are calling on the G8 to take action on extreme hunger and in tackling keys issues - such as tax avoidance and land grabbing - which could hinder further development progress.  Tackling these problems is not only about saving lives in the developing world, it's also about promoting global growth. It is estimated that some countries lose 2-3% of their potential GDP because of under-nutrition.[30]  



The 'IF campaign' sets out a number of actions for the G8 to take.



Firstly, the G8 needs to finish the job on aid.  The UK government must solidify their 0.7% pledge by bringing forward legislation to enshrine the commitment. They must then use the moral weight they have gained from meeting their target to show leadership in pressing other G8 countries to deliver on aid promises. The G8 must then invest more aid in agriculture programmes to give the world a chance to end the scandal of hunger.



Next, the G8 must act on land grabbing. Some of the world's poorest farmers are losing their land to giant corporations who are grabbing land, many of which are based in G8 countries. Foreign investors are doing deals on large amounts of land in poor countries, often pushing the poor off their land in the process. Land deals have boomed since 2008, after the global commodity price rises made land more profitable. With an area the size of London being sold or leased every six days, the scale of the problem is huge. An astonishing amount of land has already been sold off or leased, with a fifth of farmland in Senegal and Sierra Leone, and over half in Cambodia, being acquired by companies.[31] The speed and scale of growth in large-scale land acquisitions is outpacing the ability of governments to oversee this adequately, leading to poor people losing out in far too many cases. Land grabbing requires action from all countries , but it also needs to be tackled by global players. The UK can use its presidency of the G8 to make progress on supporting efforts on a country-level to improve land governance, as well as 'getting its own house in order' by ensuring G8 companies investing in land are disclosing this appropriately, as well as guaranteeing community consultation, participation and consent in any land deals.

 


A call to action for the 2013 G8


On aid, the UK government should:

  • Bring forward legislation which enshrines the 0.7% commitment
  • Show leadership in pushing other governments to fulfil the 0.7% commitment
  • Scale-up aid towards small scale farmers and for nutrition programming


On tax justice, the UK government should:

  • Change UK rules to help ensure developing countries receive the taxes they are due
  • Take a lead on improving global tax transparency


On land grabbing, the UK government should:

  • Support country-led efforts to improve land governance and protect poor people's land rights, including through the full implementation of the UN Voluntary Guidelines on land tenure
  • Provide regulatory guidance to G8 companies on the information they are required to disclose on land deals - including levels of community consultation, participation and consent.


 On corporate accountability the UK government should:

  • Strengthen the reporting requirements in the UK companies act to include a specific requirement for companies to report on the full range of their social and environmental impact,
  • Use its G8 presidency to improve transparency in the use of land and other resources to benefit poor people and support sustainable, equitable growth

The G8 must also act on tax justice. Too many big companies and individuals are able to avoid paying their fair share of tax by using tax havens and exploiting loopholes in the tax system.  Corporate giants can create artificial corporate structures through subsidiaries to shift profits into tax havens with very low tax, and get away with paying little to no tax. These practices suck hundreds of billions out of public budgets here and in the poorest countries.  This is money that could help millions of people to escape from hunger - forever. And money that could help people on the breadline here in the UK. The G8 must pressure all G8 linked tax havens to join a global deal to share tax information, so that all countries - especially the poorest - can tax companies and individuals fairly. And all G8 countries must commit to making ownership of companies and other assets public, so that nobody can avoid paying tax by hiding their money or setting up phantom firms. Most importantly, any new tax deal done, must help the world's poorest countries.  Another tax deal that helps us and leaves them out in the cold would be a failure.

 

If we can achieve the same levels ambition raised during 2005 at this year's G8, and begin to see action on this transformative agenda, we could get one step closer to eradicating extreme hunger forever - and one giant leap further along the global journey to justice.




NOTES

[1] Jubilee debt campaign, 2006: 'The multilateral debt relief initiative: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly' . available here http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/What3727s3720been3720done3720with3720the3720money373F+3410.twl

[2] Note these are estimates for all countries which have received debt relief under the HIPC Initiative and not only from the MDRI. Source: Jubilee campaign 2008: 'Unfinished business: Ten years of dropping the Debt'

[3] Oxfam, 2010: 'Cooking the Books Won't Feed Anyone: The G8 Shamefully Try to Cover Their Tracks on Broken Promises'. Within this report, Oxfam estimated that aid had that the G8 had fallen $19 billion short of their target. Out of the $25 billion promised for Africa, only $11 billion has been delivered. 2010 aid had risen by 37% in real terms since 2004 - USD 128.7 billion. This is between 2004 and 2010.

[4] UNICEF, press release, UNICEF marks World Malaria day released April 2012, available here www.unicef.org/media/media_62293.html  

 

[5] The original commitment was made as far back as 1970 when 22 developed nations committed to the 0.7% target at the UN.

[6] The Heavily Indebted Poor Country Initiative was initiated by the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in 1996, following extensive lobbying by NGOs. It provides debt relief and low-interest loans to cancel or reduce external debt repayments to sustainable levels. To be considered for the initiative, countries must face an unsustainable debt burden which cannot be managed with traditional means. Assistance is conditional on the national governments of these countries meeting a range of economic management and performance targets.

[7] Jubilee 2000 campaign, 2006: 'The Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly'

[8] The 35 countries that have reached completion point are: Afghanistan, Benin, Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Comoros, Cote d'Ivoire, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, the Gambia, Ghana, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Liberia, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Nicaragua, Niger, Republic of Congo, Rwanda, Sao Tome and Principe, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Tanzania, Togo, Uganda, and Zambia. The remaining country at the decision point is Chad. Three countries potentially eligible for HIPC debt relief are: Eritrea, Somalia, and Sudan. For more information see: http://go.worldbank.org/LG6DPCAI60 

[9]  The total cost of the MDRI for the four participating multilateral creditors is estimated at US$36.9 billion. This is calculated in end-2011 Present Value (PV) terms.    Source. IMF: Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HIPC) Initiative and  Multi-lateral Debt Relief Fund Initiative: Statistical update  - IMF, March 2013,  available here:

[10] Note this calculation is for all HIPC countries and not only the MDRI. The decrease measured was from 2.9% of GDP in 2001 to 0.9% of GDP in 2011. Source: The World Bank: 'Debt Relief and Development Brief', April 2013, available here: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20040942~menuPK:34480~pagePK:36694~piPK:116742~theSitePK:4607,00.html

[11] Source: World Bank, Ibid.  The world bank estimates that spending on social services and infrastructure development projects have risen from 6.3 per cent of GDP in 2001 to 8.8 per cent in 2011 (calculated in 2004 prices), thus leading to around a 2% rise.

[12] Oxfam 2006: 'The View from the Summit: One Year on from Gleneagles'. available here:

[13] Jubilee debt campaign, 2006: 'The multilateral debt relief initiative: the Good, the Bad and the Ugly' . available here http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/What3727s3720been3720done3720with3720the3720money373F+3410.twl

[14] Note these are estimates for all countries which have received debt relief under the HIPC Initiative and not only from the MDRI. Source: Jubilee campaign 2008: 'Unfinished business: Ten years of dropping the Debt'

[15] Note, only the G7 reports to the OECD on ODA, as Russia is discounted, having not been part of the pledge or reporting on donor activity to the OECD until very recently.

[16] 2010: OECD statistics, available here http://www.oecd.org/dac/stats/developmentaidreachesanhistorichighin2010.htm

In 2005, at the Gleneagles (G8) Summit and other fora , donors made specific commitments to increase their ODA.  When quantified by the OECD Secretariat, the pledges implied raising DAC ODA from about USD 80 billion to nearly USD 130 billion (in 2004 prices).   Along with other donors commitments which were made during 2005, the OECD reported that the combined effect of the increases has been to raise ODA by 37 per cent in real terms since 2004, or about USD 30 billion (in 2004 dollars).  However, when comparing the 2010 ODA outcome with the promises made in 2005, this still represented a shortfall of about USD 19 billion.  

[17] Oxfam, 2010: 'Cooking the Books Won't Feed Anyone: The G8 Shamefully Try to Cover Their Tracks on Broken Promises'. Within this report, Oxfam estimated that aid had that the G8 had fallen $19 billion short of their target. Out of the $25 billion promised for Africa, only $11 billion has been delivered. 2010 aid had risen by 37% in real terms since 2004 - USD 128.7 billion. This is between 2004 and 2010.

[18] UNICEF, press release, UNICEF marks World Malaria day released April 2012, available here www.unicef.org/media/media_62293.html  

[19] The Global Burden of Disease 2010: 'Generating Evidence, Guiding Policy'. Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation, University of Washington.

[21] UNESCO, 2012: 'Global Monitoring Report, Chapter 2, Meeting our Financing Commitments'.

[22] Take from the' Global Fund website accessed May 2013, www.global fund.org

[23] £500m could pay for188 million nets based on the average unit price of a 190x180x150 long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) (excluding shipping) at US$4 per net using Global Fund PQR database accessed Nov 2011. http://www.who.int/malaria/world_malaria_report_2011/WMR2011_chapter3.pdf

[24]  Calculating the 3.3 million lives potentially saved: Calculating "Lives Saved" by Long Life Insecticide Nets: 5.5 lives saved for every 1,000 nets used by children.  WHO LLIN position paper 2007: "Cochrane review concluded that, when full coverage is achieved, ITNs reduce all-cause child mortality by an average 18% (range 14-29%) in sub-Saharan Africa (5). The general implication of this is that 5.5 lives could be saved per year for every 1000 children under 5 years of age protected. It was also concluded that ITNs reduce clinical episodes of malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax infections by 50% on average (range 39-62%), as well as reducing the prevalence of high-density parasitaemia."

Of the £840 million pounds Oxfam is recommending the UK give to the Global Fund to fight HIV, TB and Malaria, we calculate £500 million pounds would pay for 118 million bed nets for children. Our calculation is that 118 million bed nets for children, assuming 2 children sleep under each net, which is the common assumption, is that 336 million children would be protected.  Using the WHO calculation above, this means 1,298,000 children's lives would be saved.

Of the remainder, £340 million pounds would pay for life-saving Anti-Retroviral drugs for 2 million people living with HIV/AIDS- otherwise a certain death sentence.  This means 2 million lives would be saved.

So by contributing £840 million pounds of the UK aid increase to the Global Fund, we estimate 3.3 million lives could be saved.

[25] £340m could pay for treatment for over 2 million based on Global Fund figures for a year's supply of first-line antiretroviral drugs, it costs less than $100 for the least expensive regimen recommended by the WHO: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/mediacenter/newsreleases/2012-11-29avaiolable  

[26] £500m could pay for188 million nets based on the average unit price of a 190x180x150 long-lasting insecticidal net (LLIN) (excluding shipping) at US$4 per net using Global Fund PQR database accessed Nov 2011. http://www.who.int/malaria/world_malaria_report_2011/WMR2011_chapter3.pdf 

[27]  Calculating the 3.3 million lives potentially saved:

Calculating "Lives Saved" by Long Life Insecticide Nets: 5.5 lives saved for every 1,000 nets used by children.  WHO LLIN position paper 2007: "Cochrane review concluded that, when full coverage is achieved, ITNs reduce all-cause child mortality by an average 18% (range 14-29%) in sub-Saharan Africa (5). The general implication of this is that 5.5 lives could be saved per year for every 1000 children under 5 years of age protected. It was also concluded that ITNs reduce clinical episodes of malaria caused by Plasmodium falciparum and P. vivax infections by 50% on average (range 39-62%), as well as reducing the prevalence of high-density parasitaemia."

Of the £840 million pounds Oxfam is recommending the UK give to the Global Fund to fight HIV, TB and Malaria, we calculate £500 million pounds would pay for 118 million bed nets for children. Our calculation is that 118 million bed nets for children, assuming 2 children sleep under each net, which is the common assumption, is that 336 million children would be protected.  Using the WHO calculation above, this means 1,298,000 children's lives would be saved.

Of the remainder, £340 million pounds would pay for life-saving Anti-Retroviral drugs for 2 million people living with HIV/AIDS- otherwise a certain death sentence.  This means 2 million lives would be saved.

So by contributing £840 million pounds of the UK aid increase to the Global Fund, we estimate 3.3 million lives could be saved.

[28] £340m could pay for treatment for over 2 million based on Global Fund figures for a year's supply of first-line antiretroviral drugs, it costs less than $100 for the least expensive regimen recommended by the WHO: http://www.theglobalfund.org/en/mediacenter/newsreleases/2012-11-29_Global_Fund_support_extends_antiretroviral_treatment_to_4,2_million_people/



[29] For more information on Oxfam's verdict, see the report 'Cooking the Books' published in 2010. The G8 did report higher figures but as Oxfam's analysis showed the figures they reported on at the 2010 G8 in Deauville were inflated. This was backed by OECD analysis of aid reporting also. http://www.oxfam.org/sites/www.oxfam.org/files/g8-cooking-the-books-briefing-180511.pdf





[30] IF Campaign report, January 2013: 'Enough Food for Everyone: The Need for Global Action on Hunger'



[31] IF Campaign report, January 2013: 'Enough Food for Everyone: The Need for Global Action on Hunger'