According to this study, Malawi’s anti-money laundering (AML) framework has revealed that the main sources of ill-gotten money in the country are corruption and tax evasion, including trade mispricing. Other prevalent forms of crime for profit in Malawi are smuggling of (counterfeit) goods, the production and export of cannabis, organised motor vehicle theft, violent housebreakings, human trafficking and labour exploitation. According to World Bank estimates, income derived from corruption amounts to about 5% of gross domestic product (GDP) in Malawi, while tax evasion constitutes about 8-12% percent of GDP. However, the authors of the study note that these estimates should be treated with caution, as they are not conclusive. The Malawi Revenue Authority is reported to have recovered millions of Kwacha by using the AML tools available to it. Namibia is also reported to be implementing its AML system since May 2009. Further in that country tax evasion stands at an estimated 9% of GDP.
Health equity in economic and trade policies
The international trade union movement has warned of growing social unrest and increased social hardship if trade liberalisation continues against the backdrop of harsh unemployment and austerity measures. Sharan Burrow, General Secretary International Trade Union Confederation (ITUC), said that the World Trade Organisation (WTO) has done nothing to prevent trade imbalances growing to unsustainable levels accompanied by dangerously widening income inequality. Burrow expects that the deal emerging from the eighth meeting of Trade Ministers in Geneva 15 -17 December 2011 will not help trade to drive economic recovery, employment creation and genuine economic development, and ultimately puts the multilateral trading system at risk. The ITUC is calling for an evaluation of the Doha round outcomes to assess its impact on providing decent work, improved living standards and diversifying the economies of developing countries. It argues that, without measuring the impact on developing countries and workers, it makes little sense to move forward with trade liberalisation.
On 15 November 2011, least-developed countries (LDCs) tabled a proposal on extending the current deadline of 1 July 2013 for them to implement the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) TRIPS Agreement, which affects patents on medicines and access to medicines in their countries. The proposal has been submitted for the upcoming eighth WTO Ministerial Conference (MC8) taking place in Geneva from 15-17 December 2011. The proposal recognises that LDCs continue to face serious economic, financial and administrative constraints in their efforts to bring their domestic legal system into conformity with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. It also takes note of the challenges faced by most LDCs to submit their priority needs for technical and financial co-operation under the Decision of 29 November 2005 and the lack of resource mobilisation to support their individual priority needs. The proposal recalls the commitment by Developed Country Members to provide enhanced technical and financial co-operation in favour of LDCs to assist them in implementing the TRIPS Agreement and develop a viable technological base in line with their special needs and requirements.
The author of this book argues that natural resources in Africa are a blessing, but the way they are plundered and used has turned them into a curse. Rich in natural resources, Africa has for a long time been a net supplier of energy and raw materials to the North. The current global climate crisis is rooted mainly in the wealthy economies' abuse of fossil fuels, indigenous forests and global commercial agriculture. But, without agreement about how to tackle this reality, the question often simply becomes ‘What can be done about Africa?’ rather than ‘What can we do together?’ Bassey examines the oil industry in Africa, probes the roots of global warming, warns of its insidious impacts and explores false 'solutions'. He demonstrates that the issues around natural resource exploitation, corporate profiteering and climate change must be considered together if Africa and the rest of the world are to save ourselves.
Paragraph 6 – the first and only amendment to the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) – allows Ministers to alter the TRIPS agreement so that developing countries can use compulsory licences to manufacture generic medicines exclusively for export to countries unable to make them themselves. Countries have not all ratified the amendment. On 30 November 2011, the World Trade Organisation (WTO) General Council agreed to extend the deadline for countries to adopt the amendment at national level from December 2011 to 31 December 2013. Two-thirds of the WTO membership (i.e. 102) must ratify the change for it to go into effect. By November 2011 only 39 countries had done so. There has been much discussion about whether the ‘Paragraph 6 solution’ has been effective, as after eight years it has only been used by Canada and Rwanda. Countries have raised that the process is too cumbersome.
In this final output document from the G20 Summit, held from 3-4 November in Cannes, France, the G20 outlines its decisions to ‘re-invigorate economic growth, create jobs, ensure financial stability, promote social inclusion and make globalisation serve the needs of the people’. Members at the Summit agreed on an Action plan for Growth and Jobs to address short-term vulnerabilities and strengthen medium-term foundations for growth, and promised to reform the international monetary system to make it more representative, stable and resilient. They agreed on actions and principles that are intended to help reap the benefits from financial integration and increase the resilience against volatile capital flows. This includes coherent conclusions to guide the G20 in the management of capital flows, common principles for co-operation between the International Monetary Fund and regional financial arrangements, and an action plan for local currency bond markets. Other areas in which members agreed to co-operate include: reforming the financial sector and enhancing market integrity; addressing commodity price volatility and promoting agriculture; improving energy markets and pursuing the fight against climate change; avoiding protectionism and strengthening the multilateral trading system; addressing the challenges of development by committing to ensure a more inclusive and resilient growth; fighting against corruption and reforming global governance.
In the run-up to the United Nations (UN) Climate Change Conference, hosted in South Africa from 28 November-9 December 2011, the author of this article points to the ‘David and Goliath’ nature of the Conference as civil society faces the industrial giants of the first world, with the poor of the developing world on the sidelines. The failure of Durban’s COP17 is certain, the author agues. Binding emissions-cutting commitments under the Kyoto Protocol are impossible, given Washington’s push for an alternative global architecture that is inequitable to developing countries. The author expressed concern about plans for climate finance and technology, which include an extension of private-sector profit-making opportunities at public expense. Politically, the author argues that global climate policy makers, especially from the United States State Department and the World Bank, will aim to distract global attention from any potential overall UN solution to the climate crisis, from the severe global power imbalance between nations and from the progressive demands and solutions by civil society, which include demands for a better environment in townships, including increased housing, electricity, water and sanitation, and improved waste removal, healthcare and education. ‘Connecting the dots’ to climate will be the primary challenge for all attendees at the Conference, the author notes.
According to the CIDSE, a coalition of Catholic welfare organisations in the North, the much-anticipated G20 London Summit has ended in an anti-climax. CIDSE’s presents four main criticisms of the G20 outcomes. First, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) will continue to regulate global finance and has been given a US$500 billion boost to continue to be the guardian of the global financial system, a role it has failed at so far. Although the G20 outcome acknowledges the need to reform global financial institutions, to take steps (unspecified though they be) to make these institutions more accountable and credible and to appoint the heads and senior management on merit through open and transparent process, CIDSE argues this is unlikely to have much impact on low-income countries. Second, tax havens will continue to flourish so long as they sign bilateral agreements that have proven not to be effective. The black-listing measures that the G20 has announced will do little to return the millions of euros that have been illegally taken out of developing countries and deposited in secret European bank accounts. Third, the announced US$50 billion in aid for low-income countries is little more than a repackaging of existing resources, as many countries in the European Union – the largest external funder in the world – are set to default on their aid commitments, having not yet made concrete allocations to their development budgets. The G20 communiqué is also vague regarding the modalities and the timeline for the disbursement of these funds. Fourth, a balanced and development-friendly system for international monetary stability remains elusive. The call by China to review the current monetary system based on a single reserve currency is not reflected in the communiqué. The adverse impacts of currency exchange rate instability on developing countries’ terms of trade also remain unaddressed, while the recommendation of the Expert Commission of the United Nations General Assembly President to adopt a new Global Reserve System does not appear on the agenda of the G20.
This document provides responses to the concerns expressed by the International Treatment Preparedness Coalition (ITPC) regarding the Gilead-Pool licences issued by the Pool in October 2011. The ITCP was concerned that the licences might undermine TRIPS flexibilities that would allow developing countries to manufacture and purchase cheaper generic medicines, but the Pool refutes this, arguing that one of the core principles of the Pool is to ensure that the terms and conditions it negotiates do not undermine the use of other mechanisms that can improve access to affordable medicines. Least-developed countries (LDCs) still have the option of not introducing patent protection for pharmaceuticals until 2016, the Pool notes. The licences do not require countries to apply to Gilead for ‘prior permission’ for use of a compulsory licence (CL), as countries retain their sovereign rights under the TRIPS Agreement to issue CLs for any reason, and licensees are expressly required to supply countries that do so. Further, the Pool argues that the licences do not block the ability of excluded countries to parallel import generic medicines – countries that have adopted appropriate provisions in their national laws may still be able to purchase the patented product at a lower price in a different country. In addition, the Gilead-Pool licences do not prevent licensees from challenging the validity of any of the licensed patents. Generic companies and civil society groups are free to oppose the grant of any patents they feel do not meet the requirements of patentability. Although the Pool does not have the authority to set patentability criteria or to grant patents (this rests with national governments), it can play a role in ensuring they do not block access to medicines.
According to this article, economic growth is not constitutively the same thing as development, in the sense of a general improvement in living standards and enhancement of people’s well-being and freedom. Growth, of course, can be very helpful in achieving development, but the authors argue that this requires active public policies to ensure that the fruits of economic growth are widely shared, as well as making good use of the public revenue generated by fast economic growth for social services, especially for public healthcare and public education. Yet it is also important to recognise that the impact of economic growth on living standards is crucially dependent on the nature of the growth process (for instance, its sectoral composition and employment intensity) as well as of the public policies - particularly relating to basic education and healthcare - that are used to enable common people to share in the process of growth. There is also an urgent need for greater attention to the destructive aspects of growth, such as environmental degradation and involuntary displacement of communities that have strong roots in a particular ecosystem.