Latest updates

»Planning needs to be transparent and accountable«

kalika.bro — Thu, 09 May 2013 12:36:57 +0000

On May 9, after two days introduction and international inspiration, the third and last day of the participatory bottom-up planning workshop was all about taking action. The workshop was organised by ActionAid Myanmar and the Union Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development in Nay Pyi Taw.

According to the new Framework for Economic and Social Reforms, Myanmar will complete a National Comprehensive Development Plan in 2013, which will set the direction for the coming 20 years. This will be the first comprehensive plan since 1959, and the first ever to employ a participatory bottom-up approach.

The first step is to develop five-year local and regional/state comprehensive development plans, which are due to be submitted to Parliament in June. The participatory bottom-up workshop is intended to kick-start the finalisation process of the five-year plans and feed into the National Comprehensive Development Plan as well.

U Thang Do Cin, Deputy Director General of the Planning Department delivered an in-depth introduction to the rules, regulations and responsibilities of the Planning Committees at all levels:

»When president Thein Sein established the Plan Formation and Implementation Commission he instructed that the economic system should be people centred and in accord with the four economic policy objectives of Myanmar. It is your responsibility to ensure this.«

U Thang Do Cin further stated that: »The current planning needs to be transparent and accountable. In previous times we used a centralised top-down system, but now we have to decentralise and use a bottom-up approach to planning.«

The following hours were devoted to group work, during which the participants discussed the practical issues and challenges in participatory bottom-up planning as well as innovative local solutions to these. This exercise was intended to provide the participants with insights that will support them in adjusting their five-year plans. The results will be presented to their superiors at a follow-up workshop next month.

The Union Minister of National Planning and Economic Development, Dr. Kan Zaw, preceded the closing ceremony: »We have got a taste of important issues related to planning during these three days. Now you all need to practice this hands-on when you return to your regional offices. India and Bangladesh has shared their experiences with us, and we need to learn from them to make change happen.«

The Head of Programme for ActionAid Myanmar, Mr Tauhid Ibne Farid expressed that: »The workshop has been a great success. Not only have the participants acquired new tools and techniques, they have also absorbed international achievements and challenges with participatory bottom-up planning. Equally important they have participated interactively across hierarchy, which made them realise that a change of culture is needed – that is closer collaboration with their superiors, which is an essential part of the bottom-up approach.«

ActionAid Myanmar thanked all participants for their active participation, and requested the Union Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development to take this process forward together to set an example, which could become a model for the rest of the country.

Consulting local communities - the core of participatory bottom-up planning

kalika.bro — Wed, 08 May 2013 13:06:18 +0000

Inspiration was a key word on May 8, the second day of the participatory bottom-up planning workshop organised by ActionAid Myanmar and the Union Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development in Nay Pyi Taw.

Renowned economic experts – Senior economist U Kyaw Myint from Myanmar, Independent development consultant Mr T.R. Raghunandan from India, and think tank executive chairman Mr Hossain Zillur Rahman from Bangladesh – shared insights from decades in the development sector; all emphasising the need to consult with the communities throughout the process.

Over the past decades Bangladesh’ approach to planning have moved through several phases, explained Hossain Zillur Rahman:

»In the 1970s there was vision but not much strategy, the 1980s were dominated by narrow bureaucratic planning, the 1990s followed with a focus on reforms. Finally, in 2000s we reached strategic planning with a focus on consultation with the people.«

But why should we do participatory planning? »It is not just for setting some targets, it is also important for raising issues that would not be raised otherwise. For example, whether agriculture should be approached only for food security or also as a growth driver? Solution ideas from citizens are a key intangible goal.«

Dr. T.R. Raghunandan said, that one problem with participatory bottom-up planning is bureaucrats: »They often think local people do not have the capacity to engage with planning. But the government of Kerala has challenged this and implemented learning-by-doing to a wide degree, funding basic capacity building. The local communities get money and are allowed to experiment.

Another challenge is, that expectations are often higher, than the budget: » Kerala is trying to solve this problem by giving every community a universal grant for development – but topping this up considerably if the community is willing to contribute.«

Senior Economist U Kyaw Myint warned the participants not to become over-confident about the international financial institutions: »Massive injections of aid from the World Bank and International Monetary Fund have been made into third world countries, but all these turned out to be inadequate or even counterproductive.«

After the presentations followed group work and a question-and-answer session, during which ActionAid Myanmar’s Regional Coordinator for the Dry Zone, Aung Min Naing, observed that one important question was not raised:

»I have spent a lot of time discussing participatory bottom-up planning with officials from the Planning Department as well as with the GAD on Township-level. They all ask me how they can consult the local communities when they lack local staff as well as budget to travel to the villages. It is interesting that no one asked how to handle this.«

The last session of the day was a presentation of one of ActionAid Myanmar’s innovative concepts for community-led development: The Village Book. The local communities are encouraged to use participatory tools to assess and analyse their current needs, agree on future priorities and make concrete action plans. This results in a Village Book, which also serves as ActionAid Myanmar’s baseline document and an advocacy tool.

You can watch ActionAid Myanmar’s new documentary film about the Village Book here: www.actionaid.org/where-we-work/asia-australia/myanmar, www.facebook.com/actionaidmyanmar)

»We need to dream about our future, and realise that dream«

kalika.bro — Tue, 07 May 2013 13:15:10 +0000

On 7 May 2013, more than 250 senior government officials from 30 out of Myanmar’s 32 Ministries congregated in the capital city of Nay Pyi Taw to embark on a three days workshop about participatory bottom-up planning; a concept that is still rather new to the average public servant in this fledgling democracy, where a half-century long military dictatorship has been abolished following the general elections in 2010.

The training, which will contribute to the development of Myanmar’s third five-year plan, was organised jointly by ActionAid Myanmar and the Union Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, which in itself represents a landmark in a country where the government has only recently begun to invite the advise of NGOs.

Dr. Kan Zaw, the Union Minister of National Planning and Economic Development, opened the workshop by declaring that the level of public participation in the planning process has been weak till now: »The top-down system is not effective; that is why we need to learn about bottom-up planning and why this workshop is very important. What you learn here you have to bring back to office with you and use in your daily work.«

The Minister stressed that: »The participatory bottom-up planning process has to be linked with the National Comprehensive Development Plan, for which a people centered development approach is crucial.«

He further pointed out that: »When the government says we want reforms, we really mean it. But to bring about change we need to plan, and you in this meeting hall are the planners who can bring about the change. In every society there are change agents; and you are the change agents, who can envisage this country’s future development.”

He ended his speech with a thorough encouragement to the senior officials: »ActionAid Myanmar’s documentary film ‘realising our dream’ truly reflects what is happening at ground level – pay attention to that. You all need to dream – not only by night but also by day – and to make your dream come true.« (The documentary film can be viewed here: www.actionaid.org/where-we-work/asia-australia/myanmar or www.facebook.com/actionaidmyanmar)

During the Minister’s speech the participants were eagerly taking note of what he said. U Aung Naing Oo, Director General of Investment & Company Administration offered his explanation why:

»This training comes at exactly the right time for us. We already submitted our five-plan to the parliament but it was not satisfactory, so we need to submit a new one in June. There will be a lot of changes.«

Adjusting to changing the country around from dictatorship to democracy and opening up for international investments and development agencies has been an enormous task for the civil servants. New legislation, new approaches and new visions can be difficult to digest in just a couple of years, says U Aung Naing Oo:

»We need a lot of capacity building for staff to handle the changes happening at the moment. We cannot expect to learn everything in three days. But something is better than nothing.«

The first day of the conference was devoted to updating the participants on the planning process and improving their conceptual understanding of regional planning and bottom-up approach in the Myanmar context.

The Country Director of ActionAid Myanmar, Mr Shihab Uddin Ahamad, said: »Participatory planning is not just a process, it is a culture of listening to all voices from the grassroots to the top; from the hopes of the villagers to the vision of the president – we need to synchronise that into the national plan.«

Mr Shihab Uddin Ahamad further expressed the commitment of ActionAid Myanmar to support this process: »We will be with you on this journey – we want to establish this new culture together.«

Training on Participatory Bottom-up Planning Process

kalika.bro — Mon, 06 May 2013 06:39:21 +0000

More than 200 senior government officials from the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development as well as other relevant line departments across the country will attend a workshop on Bottom-up Participatory Planning Process on May 7-9 in Nay Pyi Taw, jointly organised by Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development and ActionAid Myanmar. Dr Kan Zaw, Union Minister of the Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development will open the workshop on May 7 at Planning Department Meeting hall.

The aim is to support Myanmar’s development process by deepening the decentralisation and advancing transparent, participatory and inclusive governance in Myanmar, a country that has been undergoing an extensive transformation since the 2010 general election. The workshop is designed to build the capacity of the participants on bottom-up participatory planning processes. It will also help raise awareness of alternative development approaches and good practices of other countries on people participation, and micro-macro linkages to ensure pro-poor development.

During three days the participants will gain a strong foundation for analysing the current context of development in Myanmar and be inspired to use a participatory, bottom-up approach to national planning and development.

This event is one of several ActionAid Myanmar initiatives to support the Myanmar National Comprehensive Development Plan (MNCDP), which is an integral part of the current reform process.

ActionAid Myanmar covers more than 500 communities in 9 states/regions and supports around 180,000 people in partnership with 17 local organisations in Myanmar. Along with community-led self-reliance work, AAM is heavily involved with national policy advocacy and strengthening local governance in Myanmar. All our work is based on our Human Rights Based Approach.

Venue: Meeting Hall, Planning Department, Ministry of National Planning and Economic Development, Nay Pyi Taw

For more information about the event please contact: Tauhid Ibne Farid, AAM Programme Manager: Tauhid.Farid@actionaid.org Kalika Bro-Jørgensen, AAM Communication Advisor: Kalika.Bro-Jorgensen@actionaid.org

Tax Justice is our responsibility

Pascaline.Kangethe — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 11:50:34 +0000

The Tax dialogue in many African countries has for a long time been left either to the tax collectors trying to reach their annual almost always 'bursting targets' or to the government technocrats. When it comes to tax, many people pay taxes but never question how the revenue is spent. The truth of the matter is, that growing the tax base for any country and ensuring that it is used for development is actually a nugget of Good Governance.

Recently, ActionAid International organized a Tax Justice Information and Planning seminar at the TCDC training center for ActionAid staff across the federation and its partner organizations. I went to the retreat expectant with one objective: to better understand tax justice. In Kenya annual expenditure is always way above revenue raised and has been like this for a couple of years. This means borrowing more and more - the country loses millions of shillings in tax incentives and tax loopholes.

Kenya loses over KShs.100 billion a year from tax incentives and exemptions when over ten million people in Kenya are hungry and about 46% of Kenyans lives in poverty! These are seriously needed resources to improve livelihoods, avail quality health services, avail quality education for all children, and more economic growth that means more jobs for the youth.Activista for ChangeActionAid’s youth network, Activista was another reason I wanted to participate in the forum. I wanted to explore creative ways of working with the youth and Activista on tax justice. Together with all other Activista coordinators, we engaged in a discussion of how to engage the Youth in the tax justice debate. Kenya has an unemployment rate of up to 70% so we cannot for afford the loss of tax revenue.

As I leave the seminar, one thing is clear in my mind: I have to do something; together with you we can stamp our constitutional authority so that our government does not continue to waste more resources through tax incentives and exemptions. These huge resources can help eradicate poverty! What must you, must I do? Ensure that you join ActionAid Kenya and join the call for an end to unnecessary tax incentives and exemptions and the progressive spending of this hard-earned revenue. Talk to someone and let them know how much we are losing each year. We need a loud public debate; it is your responsibility, my responsibility, our responsibility to ensure that we do not lose more revenue!

4 signs Neoliberalism is (almost) dead

Sameer.dossani — Tue, 23 Apr 2013 14:00:01 +0000

Though Margaret Thatcher is no longer among the living, her ideology lives on. That ideology – known today as neoliberalism, or “free market fundamentalism” in a phrase coined by George Soros – is strikingly unique.

Apart from religious beliefs, is there any example of an ideology that has been so thoroughly disproven yet maintains an aura of respectability?

The basic premise of neoliberalism – that “free markets” lead to better growth, higher prosperity and even more equality – was always fiction. As Cambridge economist Ha-Joon Chang has repeatedly pointed out, there is no such thing as a free market. Nor is there any example of a country that has developed by following the neoliberal tenets of privatisation, liberalisation and budget cuts. Instead countries have traditionally used some mix of subsidies, tariffs, and debt-financed investment to prop up industries and shift comparative advantage to higher-end goods.

Despite the history, neoliberals argue that markets alone should determine things like wages, and that corporations and their owners should be able to operate however they like. Developed countries that adopted neoliberal tenets post-1980 saw wages stagnate almost as quickly as corporate profits skyrocketed.

In the developing world it was much worse. Africa suffered two decades of economic stagnation as a direct result of being forced to follow these policies, with Latin America and Asia not doing much better. The past decade has seen some improvement, but the global community is still well behind where it should be in terms of eradicating things like hunger and preventable disease.

But the neoliberal era may finally be nearing its long-awaited end. Here’s why.

1) The IMF has admitted that budget cuts are not always the answer

The IMF has for over three decades forced countries to restructure their economies to be in line with neoliberal tenets. In particular, they have forced indebted countries to cut budgets before they can borrow from capital markets to pay off creditors. The phrases bureaucrats and politicians invented to sell this ideology are by now clichés. “Governments can’t spend more than they earn,” “We all need to tighten our belts,” etc. etc. By cutting government spending, the story goes, countries make room for increased private sector spending, and the economy grows.

Though earlier IMF studies had come to similar conclusions, it wasn’t until January 2013 that the IMF’s chief economist published what amounts to a “mea culpa”. Turns out that decreasing public investment is actually a pretty good way to hurt prospects for economic growth rather than increase them. Oops.

And there’s another twist in the story. For the last few years, decision makers have been citing a paper by Harvard economists that ostensibly highlights the dangers of countries borrowing too much in order to finance public expenditures. The paper specifically suggested a cut-off – when the debt hits 90% of GDP – beyond which economies would suffer for their overspending ways. The paper has been cited by public officials around the globe to justify budget cuts. But it turns out that the paper’s conclusions were a result of a series of errors, one of which was forgetting to update a calculation on an Excel spreadsheet. When the correct data is put in place, the conclusions more or less disappear.

Double oops.

2) The Doha development round is dead

In November, 2001 the World Trade Organization launched its “Doha development round”. Despite its name, the Doha round was about anything but development. High on the agenda were things like removing social and environmental protections, eliminating subsidies for poor farmers, and ensuring that big pharmaceutical companies could maintain patents on (and greatly increase the cost of) life-saving medicines.

With the help of progressive activists from Seattle to Hong Kong, and due to the huge uprising of developing countries in the WTO’s Cancun ministerial, Doha is more-or-less dead and the WTO is at a standstill. That’s great news for those who want to see fair trade as opposed to “free trade” and trade deals that put development and human rights first. The challenge now is to come up with a framework (and maybe even a mechanism) for multilateral regulation of global trade that prioritizes human rights over corporate profits.

3) Countries are increasingly trading in local currencies

Apart from the IMF, one way for the U.S. to maintain its control over the global economic system is the supremacy of the U.S. dollar. Certain transactions must be done in U.S. dollars – buying petroleum for example – and the U.S. dollar is still seen as the safest global currency. The result is that the dollar’s value remains artificially high, increasing the purchasing power of U.S. consumers and the desire of everyone else to sell to the U.S.

This deal benefits almost no-one (not even U.S. consumers) and some governments have begun to look for alternatives. Agreements to begin to trade in local currencies have been negotiated between Brazil and China, Turkey and Iran, China and Japan, and the BRICS countries. Though some of these agreements are just taking off, if implemented they represent a significant challenge to the status quo.

4) 2007-08 proved beyond a doubt that markets don’t regulate themselves. And Iceland proved that there is another way

The financial crisis of 2007-08 is far from the first financial crisis of the neoliberal era; in fact it would also be accurate to call the neoliberal era the “era of financial crisis”.

From Mexico in 1982, to other countries in Latin America soon after that, to the U.S. stock market collapse in 1987, to Japan in 1990, to the Asian financial crisis of 1997, to Russia and Brazil in 1998-99, to Turkey and Argentina in 2000-2002, to the collapse of the dot com bubble, there has hardly been a moment since 1980 when there is not a financial crisis happening somewhere. What usually happens in such times is that governments take measures to protect the elites (usually the bankers who actually caused the crisis) and shift the burden of paying for the costs to the general public. The current crisis is a good case in point.

But unlike previous crises there are indications that this time we might be looking at a system change. The first of these is just the scale of the crisis. The collapsed U.S. housing bubble represented about $8 trillion USD in artificial wealth. That’s more than 11% of global GDP, and that’s not counting the housing bubbles that collapsed in Europe and elsewhere. This is market failure on a massive scale.

This time there’s also an example of a country that protected its citizens, jailed its bankers and is doing much better as a result. The country, Iceland, joins Argentina as one of the only countries to default on debts as a result of financial crisis. The disasters that “everyone” was expecting (no access to currency markets, investors blacklisting Iceland, etc) never materialised, showing that even small countries can stand up to the international creditor cartel and live to tell the tale.

Iceland demonstrates that there’s nothing natural about neoliberalism.

The decision to protect elites from the effects of markets while using those same markets to punish everyone else is a political injustice, not a natural law

And it is this injustice which ensures that neoliberalism will go the way of the dodo. Ultimately markets are just a social construct, like marriage. And just as many countries are redefining marriage to include same sex relationships, dramatic reform of the way we relate to markets is on the way.

A version of this article was published by Counterpunch on April 22nd 2013

China and BRICS: the missing links

tariqul.islam — Thu, 04 Apr 2013 11:06:06 +0000

‘Mutual benefit’ is one of the key points in China’s 8 principles international cooperation which set out the country’s international development policy..

China hopes that the formation of the BRICS group will strengthen the economies of the world’s emerging powers. But with this hope comes concerns from developing and rich countries – particularly those that see international cooperation as a means to promote a better and more just world for everyone.

China’s new President Xi Jinping was quoted in the China Daily as say that “the global economic governance system must reflect the profound changes in the world economy and the representation of emerging economies and developing countries”. .

A view echoed by Said Li Feng from the Chinese People’s Institute of Foreign Affairs who says that “BRICS is clearly not just an economic grouping; it is a united attempt by five leading developing nations to promote an economic governing structure that reflects the changed realities of the global economy in the 21st century.” Despite all the expectation attached to this group, there are concerns about what the future journey of the BRICS will be.

Defining Development: By being grouped with developing countries, China sees its cooperation in terms of mutual benefit and solidarity. The outcome of China’s cooperation with other countries will mutually benefit China and other countries’ development. But how will this development be defined? China still needs to improve the standard of living of poor people domestically and it strongly follows a national development strategy that focuses on the inequality and capacity development of poor people by investing on stronger public education, rural public health system, progressive labour laws etc. Will China promote these practices from its own experience as part of development approaches through the BRICS forum or the BRICS development bank? If so, recipient countries may experience a different international cooperation based on the principle of solidarity to overcome poverty through development processes that China and other BRICS countries have experienced recently.
China and Africa - compatibility and competitiveness: Growth prospects in Africa have improved dramatically through increased trade and investment from some of the BRICS countries particularly China and India. But the question still remains whether South Africa is still compatible and/or competitive with Chinese and Indian trade and business entities. Since China and other BRICS countries have developed good policies to strengthen state owned enterprises (SOEs), will African local franchises, services and supply chains be compatible or competitive with them as well as with other western countries? Will the investment from BRICS or BRICS bank help African businesses to grow in parallel? If BRICS can do it, the African continent may see the benefits and develop.
Contribution and resourcing: Different media sources indicate that the total investment from BRICS countries for the BRICS bank is expected to be US $240bn. From that each country will contribute $10bn as initial capital. In terms of GDP share China’s contribution will be 0.12% where South Africa’s will be about 2.5%. How will South Africa allocate this amount? Will BRICS support South Africa to plan for this resourcing without reducing public expenditure designed to improve poor people’s life and living standards? If so the BRICS will be a good alternative model for developing of the countries.
Existing International interdependency: BRICS countries are still members of international financial entities such as IMF, World Bank which are criticised by BRICS countries for their controversial development approaches. How will BRICS countries co-exist with these institutions while they aspire to a better development model? Will BRICS countries withdraw their memberships or influence them to reform?

If CSOs engage with BRICS, we can transform these hopes into reality. If we do and if leaders take their rhetoric seriously, I believe that BRICS countries will bring a new approach to development that will resonate with the global poor, developing countries and those struggling for a better world.

What next for the BRICS?

Sameer.dossani — Thu, 28 Mar 2013 17:07:43 +0000

This week leaders from the five BRICS nations – Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa – have been meeting in Durban to discuss what is next for this group of new global powers.

Compared with previous summits, this meeting was met with a greater fanfare –partly because of the much anticipated announcement of the BRICS bank, an initiative first announced in last year’s BRICS summit in India.

But perhaps expectations were too high. The BRICS did release a statement – separate from the official communiqué – launching the bank, but the detail was missing..

They announced that the “New Development Bank (NDB)” – as the BRICS bank is now being called – will be launched, and it will focus on infrastructure and sustainable development. But there are more questions than answers. When will the NDB be launched? How much money will countries contribute? What will the governance structure look like? What kind of social and environmental safeguards will there be? What will be the level of transparency?

We were told that some of these questions would be answered in the formal announcement of the NDB – they haven’t been. And perhaps this tells us more about the BRICS group than we knew before.

An alliance of very different countries

For all the hype, BRICS is still an alliance of very different countries, in very different points in their development, and with very different ideas of what they would like to contribute to the world. The fact that they can even agree on this little step might in fact be reason to celebrate.

Buried in the statement announcing the NDB is a $100 billion Contingency Reserve Agreement (CRA), a fund that would be accessible to BRICS countries in the event of financial crisis. Though it might sound rather technical, this is an important development. It means, for the BRICS countries at least, they may no longer be at the mercy of the IMF and its misguided structural adjustment programmes in the event of crisis.

If the CRA does not include harmful economic conditions, is expanded to more countries, and if it can play more than a symbolic role in terms of stabilising international financial flows, it may mark a new era in global development, one in which workers and poor communities are not made to suffer for the excesses of international bankers.

As with all such proposals, the devil is in the details. The BRICS bank may talk of sustainable development, but this term has been so overused in recent years that it has lost meaning. Will it be a genuinely pro-poor, environmentally friendly model or will it be a cover for a corporate-driven exploitative model, based on the policies of Europe and the United States for the past 60 years?

The CRA sounds more radical, but it will only challenge the status quo if it challenges the model. Developing countries especially on the African continent have for too long been dependent on the export of raw commodities to maximise profit for local and global elites.

New development strategies have to focus on the need for economic transformation to ensure full employment, the creation of better jobs and human rights for all so that the cycle of poverty can at last be broken.

The BRICS countries can be a powerful force pushing for change in their own economies and internationally; or they can be another powerful force pushing for the more of the same – this time with companies from their countries instead of just from Europe and the U.S.

It’s too early to know which of these will happen, but poor communities and their allies in civil society must push for the former. There’s too much at stake to sit on the sidelines.

Something's cooking in Myanmar!

Soren.Warburg — Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:39:38 +0000

It's not just the immense pre-monsoon humidity that strikes me sitting in the back of this huge open-space conference hall in the capital of Myanmar, it is also the feeling that a strong movement is under development - and the youth are leading it.

I'm attending the 4th fellows' conference in Myanmar. Under the conference headline "Unity in Diversity for Justice" I am trying to get a sense of a country in transition.

I am trying to grasp how the youth in Myanmar are driving development and seek out the opportunity to get a real life picture of the fellowship programme.

Around 400 fellows are gathered to share their past experiences and seek future opportunities, not just for themselves or the fellowship programme, but also for youth of Myanmar in general. In a country in transition you should choose your words carefully, so it strikes me that one of the opening speeches boldly address that "building on the process of democracy that we have experienced in previous years - this conference is a very important step". That "capacity building of youth is our future promise for peace and justice - youth will rebuild the bridges once broken by war and conflict".

It captures the trauma of many years with internal armed conflict in a country divided by tribes, but it also address the future pass for a democratic transition - a pass that could (or should) be led by a non-violent peaceful youth movement. And the will to take this chance is evident. The Activista Coordinator of Myanmar, That Zin Oo, is humble in his remarks:

"There lies a great responsibility on our shoulders and a lot is expected from us, but ActionAid Myanmar has always supported us and believes in our capabilities - with that comes a great responsibility to take action".

The vision is clear. The 4th fellows' conference is the first time this event has been held officially, and representatives from the government are attending making the process transparent, but also with a clear agenda of testing the waters.

"Our idea is that combining the community development work and connection to the rural districts that the fellows hold with the experience and tools of advocacy and campaigning that Activista is promoting, we have the first building stones for a wide and effective non violent youth movement."

I cannot but share his enthusiasm - indeed there is something cooking in Myanmar and it already smells good!

Tax dodging back in the headlines

chris.coxon — Fri, 15 Feb 2013 13:46:19 +0000

Wow, what a week! The launch of our new report ‘sweet nothings’, exposing tax dodging by the Associated British Food Group, has created a media frenzy. Here’s a round-up of what’s been going on this last week (now I’ve had a minute to pause and take a breath!)

Following reports in November of last year of tax dodging in the UK by Starbucks, Amazon and Google, tax dodging was back in the headlines this week. Revelations in a new ActionAid report published on Sunday, revealed massive tax avoidance by one of Britain’s biggest multinationals, Associated British Foods.

The front page of Sunday’s UK Observer carried the headline ‘British sugar giant caught in global tax scandal’, noting how the owners of popular UK brands Silver Spoon sugar, Twinings Tea and Kingsmill bread had “deprived Zambia of a sum 14 times larger than the UK aid provided to the country to combat hunger and food security”.

Pamela Chisanga, ActionAid’s Country Director in Zambia joined BBC World Service Radio to discuss the report, revealing that tax avoidance and special tax breaks by a company called Zambia Sugar – owned by Associated British Foods – has cost Zambian public services an estimated US$27 million.

She revealed how the losses from this single company could have put an extra 48,000 Zambian children in school every year.

This, in a country where tax-funded education, health and nutrition services are suffering from a crippling lack of revenue.

In an interview with Al Jazeera television, ActionAid tax expert and co-author of the report, Chris Jordan, explained that what Zambia Sugar is doing “is not illegal”. He explained how the company is “taking advantage of legal loopholes in Zambian and international laws”, using immoral behaviour to dodge corporate taxes.

Campaigning in Zambia

Zambia Sugar’s tax avoidance was also the centre of attention in Zambia, with national broadcasters and community radio covering the story.

In an article in leading daily newspaper, The Zambia Post, former Finance Minister Ng'andu Magande – Zambia’s longest serving Finance Minister – responded to the report saying that “tax avoidance by foreign multinationals operating in the country was widespread”.

In heavy criticism of the company, he went on to say how “local people needed to benefit from the incomes made from their resources”, which was clearly not the case in the way that Zambia Sugar had carried out its activities.

Further coverage in Ireland by the Irish Times and in the Netherlands by De Volkskrant newspaper showed how the company had shuffled the ownership of Zambia Sugar between the tax havens of Ireland, the Netherlands and Mauritius to reduce the withholding tax its pays on dividends in Zambian by an estimated $7.4 million since 2007.

What can you do?

But it doesn’t stop there. In the UK, the British public are e-mailing the Chief Executive of Associated British Foods to tell the company to stop dodging taxes in Zambia.

While the Zambian public are texting in to tell Zambia Sugar to pay their fair taxes.

We’re not against big business. We want to see the Zambian government and the international community to review the tax codes and tax treaties that allow multinational companies to avoid paying their fair share of taxes in Zambia and other countries.

That’s why we’re calling on governments around the world to put an end to the tax dodging by multinational companies, which costs developing countries more than they receive in aid each year.

ActionAid’s campaign to stop companies tax dodging has created ripples of influence. Today, G20 Finance Ministers are in Moscow for a two day meeting, ahead of a leader’s summit later in the year. Whilst most of the attention in this morning’s press sees them set for a lively debate on ‘currency wars’, pressure is building for them to take action to end corporate tax dodging that’s happening on a massive scale.

In the run up to the G8 and G20 summits later in the year, where leaders from the major economies will meet, public pressure on governments to close tax loopholes continues to grow.