With almost 70 million children of primary school age not in school, a figure set to rise by 2015 and not fall to zero as promised in the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), urgent action is required,Gordon Brown said this week.

In his new report, “Delivering on the promise, building opportunity: the case for a Global Fund for Education” (pdf), the former prime minister offers a blueprint for the reform of key international institutions so they deliver more effective support for education in developing countries.

Part of the solution is more money. Brown’s report draws on UNESCO research showing the annual financing gap for achieving universal basic education is $13 billion (£8.3bn), compared to current aid levels of just $3bn (£1.9bn).

Not all of this would come from governments, however, with the report highlighting the recent creation of a Global Business Coalition for Education, and notes that US corporations currently give $8bn (£5bn) a year to global health causes but only $500m (£320m) to global education.

But the flagship recommendation is the creation of a new, independent Global Fund for Education. While the current major education fund, housed within the World Bank, has presided over an impressive fall in out-of-school numbers of 40 million over the past decade, progress has now stagnated or even gone into reverse.

This fund, recently renamed the Global Partnership for Education, has been unable to attract significant support from donors and has been criticised in some quarters for being slow and inflexible – and what is more, many countries with the largest numbers of out-of-school kids, including Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and Bangladesh, are not eligible for grants.

A new Global Fund for Education would attract funding from non-traditional sources, make grants to NGOs and private companies working in remote areas (and not only governments or international agencies), and finally deliver resources commensurate with the size of the global education challenge.

The health sector again provides a template, following the huge successes of GAVI and the Global Fund for HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria.

This report sees Brown at his best: forensically focused on policy detail and driven by a deep passion for improving the lives of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, and with Australian foreign minister Kevin Rudd publicly backing the idea, the proposals contained in the report may soon become reality.

by Gareth Thomas MP (Labour, Harrow West), shadow universities minister and minister for international development until 2010

The millennium development goals have been remarkably successful in galvanising political leaders, civil society organisations, parts of the private sector, trade unions, and donors in the pursuit of tackling global poverty. Britain has undoubtedly played a vital role in the progress being made towards achieving the MDGs.

However, as we approach the 2015 deadline for the MDGs to be achieved, there has been remarkably little sign from the government that they are working towards an agreement on a new post-2015 development framework.

To date, a number of suggestions have been made about what a post-2015 development framework should look like.

In the UK, with CAFOD, the Overseas Development Institute, the Institute for Development Studies, Christian Aid, and the Beyond 2015 coalition of NGO’s, there has been real interest amongst civil society organisations in a new global development framework.

Furthermore, many have noted that the ‘how’, in reaching an agreement, will be as significant as the ‘what’, such an agreement should contain.

Civil society interest is key in framing the debate, in involving those in developing countries and developed countries alike, but ultimately, it is governments that have to reach an agreement.

In a Westminster Hall debate yesterday, I asked ministers to set out the government’s thinking on a post-2015 agenda, and to ask what action is being taken to drive forward the debate. The response was tellingly short on detail.

Active dialogue within governments, between governments and their civil society groups, and at intergovernmental level is crucial. This is where the British government could do more.

While the G20 has become more prominent in recent years, G8 leaders’ discussions still matter hugely. Britain chairs the G8 in 2013 in the run up to the UN MDG Review Summit in September 2013, so could put a post-MDG agreement at the centre of the debate amongst the richest nations in the world.

International negotiations take considerable time and effort to make progress, and do so only when leaders and national politicians are engaged and driving progress.

Clearly a G8 driven agenda to replace the millennium development goals is likely to stir up scepticism and concern – a post-millennium development goals agreement has to be and will be UN led.

But it would be a mistake to think agreement will be reached without the richest nations on board. Britain is uniquely placed among the G8 because of its record and its coming role to support the UN more visibly in working towards a post-MDG accord.

Under Labour, Britain took a leading role in driving forward action to agree and then achieve the MDGs. However, there have already been several worrying signs that Britain is less willing to show leadership on international development under the current Tory-led government.

The clock is ticking. A new post-MDG agreement would be a huge prize in the effort to tackle global poverty and improve sustainability. Britain is once again about to occupy a pivotal place in these debates, and the government urgently needs to step up engagement on this issue.

The Conservatives are to count the cancelling the debt of countries as part of the aid target to spend 0.7 per cent of national income on foreign aid by 2014, including countries such as Sudan, Somalia and Zimbabwe.

Although governments have previously counted such cancellations as aid spending, they have not used that spending to help hit internationally-set targets. The Financial Times and the Jubilee Debt Campaign have unearthed (£) this latest fiddling of the aid target.

By counting debt cancellation – money that was never expected to be repaid – as aid they are effectively cutting the aid budget again, following on the heels of Osborne’s decision to cut the aid budget by £1.2bn because their mismanagement of the economy has seen GDP decrease.

Tim Jones of the JDC told (£) the FT:

Any debt cancellation for Sudan is not aid.Most of the debt is made-up money based on ridiculously high interest rates. The debt should be cancelled because it is unjust and unpayable, not used to meet targets and massage figures.

JDC also said that the move legitimised debt that was of a highly questionable origin. In Sudan’s case, the government has admitted it does not even know what the original loans to dictator Gaafar Nimeiry were for.

The Liberal Democrats had a policy to to audit all debts, but once again they have gone AWOL on their development promises. Vince Cable has so far failed to do this.

The UK is expected to wipe £740 million off Sudan’s debt in the next few years. To put that figure into context, DFID is to spend £46 million per year in Sudan until 2015 – £230 million – that’s more than three times less than that debt.

When countries are servicing their debts by paying back the money, debt relief can make a big difference, freeing up money to be spent on public services. The debt relief achieved by Labour and the Jubilee and Make Poverty History campaigns did just that, allowing countries like Tanzania to make primary education free for all children.

But as Jonathan Glennie has pointed out for the Guardian, when the debt is not being serviced, as in the case of Sudan, cancelling it is just an accounting transaction.

The key questions development secretary Andrew Mitchell must now answer are:

1. How much money in total will be counted as debt relief and cut from the aid budget?

And, considering the decision to count Sudan’s debt alone is equivalent to a cut as much as seven per cent of the UK’s aid budget for 2013-2014, Osborne’s £1.2bn cut was disgraceful enough – the total figure for all countries’ debt could dwarf even that:

2. And – as with the £1.2bn cut – when this money is cut where the axe will fall?

3. How much more aid will be diverted?

Under Labour Britain’s overseas aid (ODA) had to be spent on poverty reduction, but as we have repeatedly reported this government has adopted the OECD’s broader and less rigorous definition of ODA – one that allows student costs refugee costs and – yes, you guessed it – debt relief to be counted as aid.

What next?

The government have still not outlined whether aid for climate change adaptation will be additional or sucked from the existing budget.

Towards a progressive foreign policy on LGBT rights

6.30pm to 8pm, Tuesday 17th January

The Thatcher Room, Portcullis House, Houses of Parliament

76 countries still prosecute people on the grounds of their sexual orientation.

In 10 of those nations, you can be sentenced to death or life behind bars.

38 of the 54 members of the Commonwealth criminalise homosexuality.

Join our panel of experts as we discuss the challenge to combat homophobic & transphobic discrimination across the world, and debate what a progressive foreign policy should look like.

Speakers:

Ivan Lewis MP, Shadow Secretary of State for International Development

Professor Robert Wintemute, Kings College London

Yemisi Ilesanmi, trade unionist and coordinator of the campaign: Nigerian LGBT in the Diaspora Against Anti Same Sex Laws

Louise Ashworth, LGBT Labour

Bisi Alimi, Trustee, The Kaleidoscope Trust

All are welcome to attend.

Please RSVP to jamie_th@yahoo.com

“The International Development Select Committee’s report highlights serious concerns regarding the Government’s approach to fragile and conflict states. It raises valid questions about the way in which aid is allocated between states, the rationale on which this is based and which activities are eligible for reporting as Official Development Assistance (ODA).

It is also important, particularly following the Independent Commission for Aid Impact 2011 report on DfID’s approach to Anti-Corruption, that DfID is upfront regarding the corruption risks involved when operating in fragile and conflict states. Specifically the Select Committee report also highlights the level of violence against women and girls in the DRC. Major-General Cammaert, former commander of UN peacekeeping forces in the eastern Congo, has previously said that “It has probably become more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in armed conflict.” This is a horrifying reflection on the situation for women and girls and any credible DfID results framework would specifically address this.”

“We fully support the decision to prioritise UK aid spending in fragile and conflict-affected states but with the UK spending 30% of its ODA in these states by 2015, it is crucial that this expenditure is delivered with a coordinated and strategic approach and maximum transparency.

I hope that Andrew Mitchell will use this opportunity to address the questions raised in the report and clarify his Department’s policy towards conflict and fragile states. It is important that UK aid is targeted towards those that need it the most and are the hardest to reach, but in these difficult financial times we also have a particular responsibility to strengthen public confidence and support.”

Over on Left Foot Forward, Marta Foresti from the ODI suggests that ‘In practice political aid conditionality often does not work‘ arguing that ‘there is simply no way to enforce a one-size-fits-all mechanism that establishes minimum standards or thresholds for acceptable human rights performance’.

Around $16bn in aid is needed each year to achieve universal basic education in the poorest countries. Unfortunately, development assistance flows have stagnated at around $3bn and several major donors – including the US, the Netherlands and Spain – are cutting back.

Some donors have responded to the crisis in education by advocating what they like to describe as “innovative” solutions. One of them, favoured by the British government, is the use of aid to expand choice and competition in education through vouchers and support for low-fee private providers. While popular with libertarian and right-wing thinktanks, this is an idea that combines an implausible and ideologically driven faith in markets with a failure to confront the real challenge – namely, building public education systems that offer decent quality, free education to all children.

What the world needs is a properly financed global fund for education like those that have delivered such striking results in the health sector. By creating a mechanism that brings together governments, donors, non governmental organisations and the private sector, such a fund could galvanise international action and deliver results.

In these financially constrained times, some donors will doubtless reject the idea. Yet the resources could be mobilised. How about using proceeds from a global financial transaction tax to pay for an initiative that could bring hope to millions of the world’s most disadvantaged children? Now that would be innovative financing.

You can read the full article here.

When David Cameron addressed the Conservative Party conference in September, he cited his party’s protection of the aid budget as an example of his government’s international leadership. That ring-fencing is welcome, especially when contrasted with the actions of other rich nations, but real leadership in fighting poverty is about more than just standing still while others reverse. Real leadership is about having the vision and ambition to move the agenda forward.

Read the article in full in the magazine out now or here online.

‘New online comedy series about George Osborne,’ a colleague of mine said to two briefcase-clutching gents last week as she handed them a flyer outside the Treasury. ‘Ha, yes, we need that at the moment,’ replied one. ‘Just watch parliament TV, that’s a comedy featuring George Osborne,’ said his friend ruefully as the pair hurried up the stone steps.

Quite. But perhaps these two civil servants took a little light relief in the online comedy series ‘The Real George Osborne’ (http://therealgeorgeosborne.com/). The series stars Rufus Jones, who recently played Monty Python’s Terry Jones in the BBC 4 film Holy Flying Circus. Each episode is only 2-3 minutes long and the 14 part series follows Jones’s Chancellor takes street-dancing lessons, struggles with fad diets, and broadcasts Westminster secrets on his webcam after over indulging at the Bankers’ Ball.

The three-week online mini-series, which airs its final episode on Friday, is the latest campaign tactic being used by anti-poverty campaigners at the World Development Movement to draw attention to the role of investment banks and hedge funds in driving up global food prices through financial speculation.

Research shows how a dramatic rise in speculation in commodity markets has driven food prices up, and increased volatility, resulting in sharp spikes in the cost of staple foods like wheat and maize. In the last six months of 2010 alone, rising food prices pushed an extra 44 million people into extreme poverty.

In the series, George, with the help of his long-suffering adviser, attempts to win popularity and usurp Boris Johnson as ‘the most recognised Tory’. He is torn between wanting to be seen by the public to ‘do good things’ such as regulating financial speculation on food prices, and wanting to appease his banker pal Nat by leaving the banks unregulated and free to carry on reaping billions of pounds from speculation

Nat is played by Will Smith from the BBC’s political comedy, The Thick of It and in episode 10 (http://therealgeorgeosborne.com/blog/71) Nat threatens to withdraw his support for George’s political career unless the Chancellor abandons the idea of curbing food speculation. The slightly sinister tone of this episode particularly highlights the power of the financial lobby. The European Commission announced its proposals for regulation in October, and the coming months will see a series of debates, votes and plenty of horse trading before the rules are put into force. But the Conservative-led government, with its ear to the City of London’s lobbyists, has so far trenchantly opposed effective regulation.

The US has already moved to regulate food speculation through the Dodd Frank Act, passed last year – though Wall Street, like the City, is doing all it can to prevent the rules coming into effect. Strong regulation in Europe is essential to winning the battle on both sides of the Atlantic, since the absence of controls in Europe could see speculation simply shifting into the least regulated market.

The opportunity to tackle food speculation is now. Without political and moral pressure from the public and the opposition, this Government will be allowed to stand in the way of this vital regulation.

We’ve been campaigning long enough to know that producing evidence of the problem isn’t enough to change policy in the face of heavy lobbying from the financial sector. But we hope that making a topical and humourous comedy will help us to spread the word, send a message that the UK public won’t tolerate the banks gambling on food at the expense of millions of hungry people and make it a bit more difficult for the government to block the regulation that’s desperately needed.

George, we’re watching you.

Catch up on the whole series here

Whilst the Conservatives’ misguided austerity drive is hurting hard working families up and down the country, this government has at least claimed that they would not be balancing the books on the back of the world’s poorest people.

Indeed, only on Monday did secretary of state Andrew Mitchell say in an interview with the Financial Times that;

“The prime minister, the chancellor and I have made it absolutely clear that we stand by this commitment and that we won’t balance the books on the backs of the poorest people in the world.”

LCID have already detailed in length how this government is failing to show the necessary ambition, vision and leadership on international development – most notably on their opposition to a Robin Hood Tax at either a global or an EU level – at the recent G20 Summit in Cannes there was categorical evidence they were lobbying hard against a global agreement being reached.

The key line of the defence of the Conservatives to this charge was that they were ring-fencing the aid budget – something we have praised. But on Tuesday even this was undermined.

For in the autumn statement not only did Osborne reaffirm his opposition to a Robin Hood Tax, not only did relax measures meant to tackle climate change – he actually cut the aid budget by nearly £1.2 billion.

Osborne said;

“the spending plans of the Department for International Development meant that the UK was on course to exceed 0.7 per cent of national income in 2013.

That I don’t think can be justified and so we are adjusting those plans so we don’t overshoot the target.”

Osborne is being incredibly disingenuous here. Let’s be clear – firstly, ‘adjusting’ DFID’s plans means a cut of £1.17bn to the amount they committed to spend in the 2010 spending review, as the box below illustrates;

Figures are for DFID expenditure

Secondly, DFID was not due to ‘overspend’ when the department’s spending plans were first set in 2010. The only reason they are now is because GNI projections are now in 2011 lower than they should have been – and that is because Osborne’s ruinous economic policies have flat-lined the economy.

And even if we were to admonish this government of blame for our perilous economic position, this government should have had the courage to resist wielding the axe – UK aid never reduced under Labour, even during the height of the recession.

When Alasdair Darling delivered his 2009 budget, the global recession had reduced the UK’s GNI – yet the then Labour government still kept to the higher figures we promised in the 2007 comprehensive spending review. And not only that, we actually spent more in 2009-10 than we committed to in the 2007 CSR; £1.8 billion more over the two years.

Figures are for total UK aid

The historic 0.7 per cent target was never meant to be a maximum limit. It was meant to be a minimum amount representing our minimum commitment to the world.

Relative to the UK’s total government expenditure of £170 billion, the amount cut is not a large amount – and it won’t make a dent on the deficit.

But the impact on some of the world’s poorest people could have been massive. The amount cut represents;

• Enough to vaccinate 5.3 billion people against polio (it costs £2.22 to pay for 10 vaccinations)

• More than DFID’s entire spend on health

• Two-thirds the amount DFID spends in the whole of Sub-Saharan Africa

• The same amount of aid the UK has pledged to Bangladesh over the next 4 years

The key questions that must now be asked are the following;

1. Where will money be cut from? On which DFID or multilateral programmes will not be either cut or left unrealised?

2. When will they bring forward the legislation they promised and enshrine in law the requirement to meet the 0.7% target from 2013? Labour drafted legislation that was ready go, so why the continued delay and equivocation over the date for tabling it in Parliament?

3. If the UK economy improves, will Osborne restore the amount he cut?

This government claim not to be balancing the books on the back of the world’s poorest people has been severely undermined. This £1.2 billion cut is a clever move by Osborne to appease the Tory right – who have been relentless in their opposition to UK aid – whilst remaining within the technicalities of their promises.

But as a result of their cut thousands of people who could have been helped by Britain – been immunised, gone to school or received treatment from HIV and AIDS – may now pay the price of this government’s failing economic policies.