G20

Budge up Bono and Bob – Bill’s the Big New Activist for This G20

Oct 25th, 2011 3:28 PM UTC
By Jamie Drummond

This blog  originally appeared on the Huffington Post.

While Bono and Bob Geldof have long been banging away, pressing world leaders for progress to help the poorest with debt cancellation, more money and better policies to fight hunger and disease, there is a tough new activist in town: Seattle’s finest, Bill Gates Jnr.

In a remarkable twist of political theatre, the billionaire philanthropist – who’s foundation gives away $2.5bn a year – has been asked by President Sarkozy to present his vision on how to finance the fight against poverty to the mixed bag of G20 leaders when they meet next week in Cannes.

To those who don’t know him, it will seem a surprisingly radical vision. Bill will call for a new partnership of revolutionary innovation between the developed world, the emerging powerhouses of the BRICS, the developing world and the private sector. Mr Gates has a devastating deadpan data-delivery style.

Bono calls it the “Kill Bill” manoeuvre. We trust it will go down well with world leaders.

It is essential we all pay serious attention to his proposals because they may shape the fight against extreme poverty for a generation to come. So if you don’t like his proposals, you should feel free to shout out. If you do like them – well, let’s shout even louder.

Even before the report has been published, much attention has been given to Gates’ support for a financial transaction tax. There are clearly huge opportunities here and those countries that are willing to do so should adopt such a levy, but with one key proviso: a significant portion of the proceeds must go towards fighting global inequalities and helping those in extreme poverty.

But this step alone is not enough. Not even its biggest supporters will argue that an FTT can singlehandedly finance the fight against extreme poverty. Fortunately there are many other big and wide-reaching proposals in his paper which also deserve urgent attention and action.

First up is Mr Gates’ push for legally binding measures to enforce transparency in the oil, gas and mining sector. Africa’s natural resources were worth $246 billion in exports in 2009. The proportion of this wealth that was spent on public services and helping people to pull themselves out of poverty should have been much larger than it was.

But without the transparency that shines a light on the contracts that governments sign with big business, money goes astray. He may not know it but in recommending this he has thrown his weight behind the “Publish What You Pay” coalition that ONE is part of, which has been campaigning on this issue for years.

The campaign helped push the USA to lead on this issue, and indeed just today the European Commission is presenting its proposals for legally binding rules to force companies extracting natural resources to make public their payments to governments. So just as Bill’s proposals on a financial transaction tax takes on the Big Banks, so his proposal on transparency takes on Big Oil.

This is why Bill is shaping up to be such a fascinating evidence-based activist. By just following the hard data his empirical process is leading to some very big ideas.

Gates’ proposals will get to the heart of the issue around the future financing of the fight against poverty. Ultimately the largest source of money for fighting poverty comes from within developing countries. The more our aid – resources given by European and American taxpayers – is used to leverage their aid – resources raised by African and other developing country taxpayers for their priorities – the smarter our aid will be and the sooner we can get out of the aid business altogether.

This is similar to the point Tony Blair made in his speech to the Overseas Development Institute last week. It’s not an argument for ending aid prematurely, rather it’s a case for scaling aid up smartly as promised until it is dwarfed entirely by the resources African citizens raise for themselves to fight poverty and promote growth. Then the aid industry exits stage left, job done.

And the job is already half done. Africa has come a long way in the last decade or so since debts were dropped and aid became bigger and smarter. Here are just some of the numbers.

46.5 million more kids started going to school in Africa between 1999 and 2008. In 2009, nearly 4 million Africans were receiving antiretroviral treatment for HIV/AIDS, up from only 50,000 in 2002. Measles deaths in Africa declined by 92% between 2000 and 2008. Remarkable stuff, but more to do.

That is why Bill is also eyeing the huge sums sitting in the coffers of the emerging powers. 1% of sovereign wealth funds may not seem like a lot, but when you realise they currently are currently worth just under $5 trillion, that’s a decent sum.

Applying that kind of money to investments in agriculture and infrastructure can quickly reduce the marginalisation that blights vast regions and put them in a position where they can function fully in the global economy. That is in the interests of all. Current global growth is just about creeping along only because of the arrival of the Chinas and Indias. Africa will be next and the sooner African growth surges even more to help prop up the global economy, the better for us all.

So the future of development finance is about unlocking the capital of emerging economies – but Bill argues it’s also about unlocking their creativity. Their recent experience with rapid development gives them a wealth not just of cash but of knowledge which, if used wisely and mixed with the dynamism of entrepreneurs in developing countries, will unleash job-generating growth not just for their economies but for the global economy.

There remains a real risk that the Cannes G20 summit will go down as the moment where we failed to not just get the Eurozone sorted, but also failed to spot the surging opportunities in this changing world. To world leaders I would say only this: pay heed to Bill Gates’ modest proposals – they could well be the best way to figure out the future not just of financing the fight against poverty, but also the fight for global growth.

G(irls)20 Summit: 3.3 billion ways to change the world

Oct 18th, 2011 11:15 PM UTC
By Sara Kianpour

Photo courtesy of GirlsandWomen.com.

The second edition of the G(irls)20 Summit opened today in Paris, and will run until October 21. Because girls and women are half of humanity and are always the first affected by the different global challenges, this international summit is dedicated to women and to solutions they can provide to major global economic issues. The G(irls)20 is an integral part of the international campaign “3.3 Billion Ways,” based on the assumption that the planet has 3.3 billion women and therefore, there are 3.3 billion ways to change the world!

The G(irls)20 brings together female citizens, aged 18 to 20, from each G20 country and a representative of the African Union, bringing the number of delegates to 21. Delegates will discuss, debate and design innovative solutions to global economic challenges. Representatives of civil society, the private sector and foundations are attending this 100% female summit and will share and discuss their ideas with each other for better integration of girls and women in the global economy.

According to Belinda Stronach, founder of the Belinda Stronach Foundation and summit organizer, “The G(irls)20 Summit is a unique platform for the girls to express their innovative ideas and to bring them to the G20 leaders.”

At ONE, we fully support this initiative and look forward to its conclusions!

For more information, please visit: www.girlsandwomen.com

Infrastructure – It’s not boring it’s essential!

Sep 14th, 2011 5:30 PM UTC
By Tom Wallace

Is ‘infrastructure’ a boring word to you? Because sometimes when I first mention it in conversations people don’t seem that interested.  Building a concrete road or putting up an electricity pylon doesn’t seem quite as exciting as giving a small child a lifesaving vaccine, does it?  However, in reality building that road could be just as lifesaving and transformative for the village at the end of it – it can allow villagers to reach hospital in lifesaving times, it can open the village up to new markets and opportunities to trade, and it can ensure the delivery of lifesaving healthcare and food in times of need.

In Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) a lack of physical infrastructure is not an inconvenience, it is a daily hardship stunting economic growth and poverty reduction.  Many regions of Sub-Saharan Africa are still missing the essential physical required for human development, market generation and poverty alleviation.  70% of the population has no access to electricity, 95% of agriculture is without irrigation and the majority of the rural population is not served by roads to market.  Rural women walk an average of 6miles a day to get firewood and water – water that may not even be safe to drink.  A lack of infrastructure in Africa means poor people too often pay heavily in time and money to access vital services such as sanitation, healthcare and education – binding achievement of the Millennium Development Goals closely to infrastructure access.

It is not all gloom though – more recently there have been huge infrastructure success stories in the region. Telecoms have boomed largely without state support and companies have made considerable profits in this and other sectors.  In addition there has been significant progress on infrastructure projects in some major cities, coastal regions and around natural resource extraction sites.  However, further infrastructure development in Sub-Saharan Africa is essential for human development, poverty reduction and for Africa to realise its economic potential.

The good news is the G20 countries, a collection of the most powerful economic countries and the European Union, have realised this fact!

Last year, as part of the G20 Seoul Development Consensus, these countries recognised the important role infrastructure plays in poverty alleviation and economic growth.  A High Level Panel was set up to look at infrastructure funding and how best to mobilise and scale up financing for this important underfunded sector.

Next month this panel will report back to the G20 with recommendations.  However it is important when this happens that they appreciate that some infrastructure is more effective at alleviating poverty than others.  To take an extreme example – a clean water delivery pipeline to isolated village where there is currently no safe freshwater will be much more beneficial than a broadband internet cable to the same village who don’t even own a computer.  Both are types of infrastructure but one is obviously more beneficial to the village people’s essential needs.  To be most effective at tackling poverty reduction the High Level Panel should be aware of how best infrastructure can help alleviate poverty and the ways to ensure infrastructure benefits for the poorest.  ONE has tried to ensure the panel considers this and recently sent a submission to them explaining the ways their recommendations and the G20 can ensure this.  You can find our submission online here.

ONE will be pushing to make sure governments appreciate these points and keep a strong focus on Africa’s infrastructure need in the coming years, because – frankly – infrastructure isn’t boring it’s essential.

Four recommendations for the G20′s agriculture ministers

Jun 29th, 2011 6:27 PM UTC
By Sara Kianpour

Sara Kianpour from our ONE France office reports on the G20 Agriculture meeting in Paris.

G20 ministers of agriculture are in Paris this week to decide the fate of the entire world’s small holder farmers. These small farmers spend between 50 and 80 percent of their income on food, and in the 21st century, this fact is alarming.

At ONE, we hope that this data will give the G20 ministers of agriculture a good reason to find sustainable solutions to stop excessive speculation on commodities that affects the poorest.

Therefore, we recommend some concrete measures for the G20 Agriculture to be a success:

Fulfill L’Aquila commitments: Almost two years after the G8 Summit of L’Aquila in 2009, donors still have yet to declare precise when and how they are going to deliver their promises. Donors must urgently and rapidly fulfill their L’Aquila commitments on aid quality and quantity for agricultural development and food security. G8 and other L’Aquila Food Security Initiative contributors, including G20 members that endorsed the statement on the AFSI and had pledged to provide technical assistance, must clarify and deliver on these commitments.

Finance the GAFSP: New and existing donors should finance the Global Agriculture and Food Security Program (GAFSP). In less than a year it has quickly disbursed grants to well-developed, results-oriented country-owned plans.

Increase transparency and regulation in food commodity futures markets: The G20 should make more information on grain stocks publicly available and refrain from imposing export bans. This will help prevent extreme food price spikes and temper price volatility. Specifically, the G20 should agree to create position limits on OTC derivatives and index-fund food commodity futures trading; require that all derivatives of food commodities are subject to notification, clearing and monitoring by making position information publicly available; and establish a regulatory body, similar to the US CFTC for European and other market future trading

Develop agricultural risk management tools and social safety-nets: Investments in agricultural risk management and social safety-net programs can ease the impacts of prices spikes and build the resilience of poor countries and farmers to withstand price shocks when they occur.

The G20 Agriculture meeting has, for the first time ever, made agriculture a global topic. At ONE, we just hope that this world first will go down in history. Because a failure will have an impact on the poorest people.

G8 countries show mixed results in efforts to meet aid targets

May 16th, 2011 1:59 PM UTC
By Katie Martin

New analysis published by ONE today has given the final verdict on the aid promises that were made by world leaders at the G8 summit in Gleneagles in 2005. The DATA Report 2011, also sets out the steps that need to be taken to make a renewed push towards meeting the Millennium Development Goals. It suggests new innovative finance schemes and identifies other measures to support proven smart aid programmes that help the poorest people in the poorest nations build a path out of poverty.

Key points from the report are:

• Collectively the G7 delivered 61% of the increased aid they promised in 2005 to sub-Saharan Africa by 2010.
• The increases were largely a result of the UK making commendable progress towards its very ambitious target, and the US, Japan and Canada surpassing their relatively modest targets.
• Yet again Italy’s performance is condemnable, falling far short of its promises to the world’s poorest people.
• France and Germany have also failed to meet their ambitious targets.
• The failure of the G8 to keep their promises deprived the world’s poorest people of $7bn in financing for effective and life-changing programmes in 2010 alone.
• Despite the overall shortfall, there have been historic increases in aid to sub-Saharan Africa since 2000, and especially since 2005 and the promises of the Gleneagles G8 Summit which was a response to the global Make Poverty History campaign.
• Much of this smart aid went towards programmes that are delivering real results in sub-Saharan Africa. Together with African efforts, aid has helped to avert the deaths of 750,000 children from malaria; allowed 46.5 million children to enrol in school for the first time; provided 4 million Africans with anti-AIDS drugs; and helped boost agricultural productivity by 50% in 17 African countries.
• Emerging economies such as Brazil, India, China and Russia have been steadily increasing their aid to sub-Saharan Africa in recent years, along with increased trade and investment with African countries. However, because most of these new donors do not report their development assistance data to the DAC, the DATA Report does not compare them with traditional donors.

Launching the report Jamie Drummond, Executive Director of ONE, said:

“Unfortunately it comes as no surprise that Prime Minister Berlusconi has yet again abjectly failed to deliver on his promises – and we continue to call for Italy to be at least temporarily removed from the G8 for this reason. But it’s worrying that President Sarkozy and France are so far behind in a year when so much is expected of them as hosts of the G8 and G20, and at a time when African development, peace and democracy is at the top of the global agenda. It is also hugely disappointing that Germany – which has weathered the economic storm so well – has performed so badly on its development promises. These three nations must urgently get back on track by setting out clear timetables to meet the promises they made to give 0.7% of their national incomes as overseas aid by 2015. At the same time, non-European G8 countries like the US, Canada and Japan should set new, ambitious commitments for aid to sub-Saharan Africa.”

However, it is clear that even if G8 donors meet all their existing and future promises on aid, much more money needs to be invested in developing countries if we are to reach the Millennium Development Goals and pull millions of people out of poverty.

That is why the DATA Report outlines 6 options for the G8 and G20 to generate innovative financing for development. These range from financial sector levies to African diaspora bonds, and could each help to raise billions of dollars to help fund smart aid programmes.

In this time of global austerity, the DATA Report also looks at how donors have performed against targets to improve the effectiveness of aid to ensure that their investments have the biggest possible impact, although a thorough analysis of progress was not possible due to a lack of available data. However the report did note that some donors, notably the UK, US and Canada, are increasingly emphasizing results by setting clear targets for the outcomes they intend to achieve with their aid. When countries meet for the High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in South Korea later this year they should set clear standards for monitoring these results. They should also renew their efforts to improve aid and budget transparency and meet their commitments from previous aid effectiveness forums in Paris and Accra.

Check out the report, including interactive datasets, at one.org/data

Bono meets President Calderón of Mexico

May 13th, 2011 3:52 PM UTC
By Oliver Buston

As the U2 360° Tour hits Mexico ONE’s co-founder Bono met with the Mexican President, Felipe Calderón, yesterday to ask him to take the lead in the fight against extreme poverty.

Next year is a huge opportunity for Mexico, with the country hosting the annual G20 summit, and ONE is asking for the fight against poverty to be central to the Mexican G20 agenda.

After the meeting with President Calderón Bono said:

“Next year Mexico will chair the G20, the annual get together of the most powerful leaders on the planet. Obama, Hu Jintao, Sarkozy, Merkel, Zuma, Dilma, they’ll all be flying in.  By the time they fly out, we want them to have agreed specific decisions which we know will save and transform lives in the poorest parts of the world.  As the host, President Calderón will set the agenda.  I asked him to persuade the G20 to take bold action on the fight against corruption globally, on improving healthcare, and on boosting agriculture around the world.”

It’s a big ask and Mexico has terrible problems of its own particularly the violence that is ravaging parts of the country. But my experience here in Mexico is that people stand up for what they believe in and can’t stand things they don’t – such as children dying for lack of basic medications, or for lack of food, or from corruption, which is perhaps the biggest killer of all.

So when the world comes to Mexico next year, we’re asking Mexico to change the world.

Can France lead where others failed?

Mar 8th, 2011 5:32 PM UTC
By Jessica Gomez-Duran

Earlier this month Bob Geldof, ONE advisor and advocate, wrote the following article for the French newspaper Libération, which is well worth reading:

On Tuesday, my fellow members of the Africa Progress Panel and I met with President Sarkozy to urge him to put Africa’s development at the centre of his G8 and G20 presidencies. The need for doing so is still as compelling as it was six years ago when, prompted by the massed global ranks of the Make Poverty History movement, the G8 signed up to a series of historic commitments to tackle poverty in Africa.

In the full glare of the world’s media, the eight most powerful men on the planet made a solemn pledge to the weakest. The resultant debt cancellation and additional aid resources have contributed to five solid years of progress in Africa. Across the continent, we can see the living proof of this progress. Millions vaccinated, millions receiving access to life-saving AIDS treatment, millions protected from malaria and millions more in school. There has also been strong economic growth across Africa. Arguably, debt cancellation has allowed African countries some of the fiscal space needed to ride the storm of the economic crisis better than was feared. Thanks to the entrepreneurialism of African citizens and the generosity of the G8, the continent is on the move.

However, not all is rosy. It is a sad fact that the G8 is nowhere near fulfilling the majority of its commitments. Last year, its members did not even deliver one third of the promised increase in aid. Reasons range from the lack of political leadership and a credible and effective accountability mechanism, to the global economic crisis and the diminishing importance of the G8 and corresponding rise of the G20. The big question is now whether the latter will be a more effective body.

This year’s G20 meeting in Cannes is President Sarkozy’s opportunity to rehabilitate some of France’s lost reputation on Africa, and to show the kind of leadership the UK demonstrated in 2005. Indeed, will this be when France takes the lead where others have failed? Two topics deserve particular attention, and the first of these is governance. Africa has vast mineral wealth, much of it undiscovered, but little of the revenues generated are shared with the people of the continent. Instead, as so often in the past, profits are siphoned off by discreet and illegal partnerships with foreign companies in opaque and secret deals. The G20 must move the odds in the citizen’s favour by insisting on transparency in deal-making, and adopting legally binding measures at least as good as the legislation recently agreed in the US at the behest of senators Cardin and Lugar. As chair of the G20 anti-corruption working group, France can lead on this issue as well as in the fight against kleptocracy and in work to repatriate assets looted from African state banks by corrupt officials.

The second issue the G20 needs to address is the challenge of supporting sustainable and equitable growth in Africa. A package of trade support and investment can build on the continent’s great potential and give some rocket fuel to its legion of skilled managers and entrepreneurs. It should focus on regional integration in Africa, and the disastrous reality that only 10 per cent of the average African country’s trade is with other African countries. It should also harness the continent’s vast agricultural and renewable-energy potential. Africa has the means not just to lift itself out of need, but to help deal with some of the rest of the world’s needs for food and fuel.

The agreement on food security reached at L’Aquila must not be forgotten. Food crises have the potential to affect our world radically, by accelerating inflation and so impeding a return to growth, while increasing social unrest in developing regions. The G20 in Seoul started a decent process on this issue, but France is better placed to deliver on those plans.

The partnership most exciting for some, and threatening for others, is the evolving South–South relationship between the emerging powers of China, Brazil and India, and the developing power of Africa. Europe and America will grow only in irrelevance if we do not harness ourselves to these engines, and as we do so, we must impart values of transparency and accountability, rather than narrow interests and parochial concerns. The best way to share our values is to demonstrate them in our actions. Competition with China today should not mean that we copy their worst practices, but that we share the best of ours. We also need to improve African representation at the G20. Excluding one billion men, women, children, producers and consumers from global decision-making is ridiculous, self-defeating and wrong.

If President Sarkozy can begin to deliver on these concerns, then his G20 presidency will be judged a success.

Bob Geldof

High food prices, but no crisis? Hmmm…

Jan 7th, 2011 6:26 PM UTC
By Emily Alpert

Over the last 6 months, we have been watching global food prices climb, raising concerns of another food crisis that would again push millions in to poverty. In late November 2010 food prices were just 10% lower than at the height of the global food crisis in mid-2008. Experts at the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) held a meeting to assess the situation. Their conclusion? No, not another food crisis, just high prices. Now prices have actually surpassed even the highest levels reached in 2008. The FAO food price index that measures baskets of major grains, meats, dairy, oils and sugar reached 215 points this week – the highest ever level since they began monitoring food prices in 1990. Yet, the FAO still says it’s not a crisis. How can this be? What’s different this time around? And is a full-blown crisis just around the corner?

So let’s take a step back for a second. If we think about what all the factors that caused the 2008 food crisis…

1. bad weather and low yields, or less food on the market -according to the law of supply and demand, the less there is of an item, the more it costs
2. wealthier consumers in developing countries like China and India buying more meat and dairy products (in case you don’t know, most cows and chicken eat grains, not grass, so the more meat the world eats, the more grains and water we need to grow food for animals)
3. rising oil prices – not only does higher prices at the gas pump mean higher transportation costs to ship food, but most farmers use fertilizers that are produced with natural gas or coal and prices of these base products are affected by the price of oil making it more expensive for farmers to grow food
4. using food crops for fuel – many countries – especially the US and EU – require certain amounts of energy sources to come from biofuels. The bigger these mandates get, the more food we use in our fuel tanks instead of our bellies
5. excessive speculation – there are few regulations on the behaviours of investors in food markets and the more they bet in the market on food, the higher they can drive prices
6. low levels of investment in agriculture - investment in agriculture, including donor aid , while recently on the rise in response to the 2008 food crisis, is still insufficient to help poor countries grow more food and respond to market and weather shocks

…not much has changed. Weather disasters – like flooding in Australia and warmer temperatures and fewer rains in South America, caused by La Nina – are reducing crop yields and could get worse according to some meteorologists. Consumers in developing countries are still demanding higher value foods. Oil prices have reached about US$95 a barrel, not nearly as high as they were during the height of the crises pushing US$150/barrel, but they could get higher – some say maybe even more than double over the next few decades. Rich countries are still blending millions of tonnes of food crops like corn and oilseeds into their fuel supplies to reduce dependence on oil imports. International regulations on investor behaviour in food markets are still very limited. Global aid to agriculture remains only about a quarter of its peak in the mid 1980’s.

…yet, we haven’t witnessed riots breaking out across the developing world. In 2008, riots erupted in 33 countries and hundreds died. Governments too for the most part haven’t reacted by imposing restrictions on exports (which further limit supplies on the market and drives up prices). Local and regional prices too seem to be more insulated from global prices due to better harvests in poorer countries. Some increase in price could improve incomes for farmers in a position to take advantage of price movements.  Further, the biggest price hikes are happening in certain commodities – such as corn, meat, oils and sugar – but not in others like rice and wheat that are two of the most critical crops for food security in poor countries. Whereas in 2008 prices for all major crops skyrocketed. For instance, rice is trading at about US$535 per tonne today versus more than US$1,000 in mid 2008.

So, does this mean the coast is clear? Can we just wash our hands of this and assume that people have just learned to cope with higher food prices? Probably not.

Global food supplies are tight. More major disruptions could push prices up even higher. OPEC has said they are comfortable with oil priced at US$100 per barrel. And if we listen to some of our development partners such as ActionAid – they’re hearing a slightly different story from the ground. Prices are getting higher for people. Maybe local prices aren’t high enough to push millions into poverty and bring them to the streets, but this is definitely cause for serious concern.

As we keep a vigilant eye on the issue here at ONE, we will continue to advocate for policies that will help keep global prices at affordable levels for consumers and producers – especially in view of the French G20 where President Sarkozy vows to curb food price volatility. We will also continue to hold donors accountable to their commitments made at the 2009 G8 L’Aquila Summit to increase spending on aid to agriculture and improve the way it’s delivered to help countries recover from and build resilience to future shocks and spur economic growth.

Seoul G20 Summit: How can Asia help Africa?

Nov 11th, 2010 11:08 AM UTC
By Tom Wallace

The G20, a combination of finance ministers from twenty of the world’s most influential economies, meet in Seoul this week to discuss how to promote development in the poorest nations. Building on commitments made at the G20 in Toronto, under the leadership of South Korea, the G20 has been looking at the conditions that generate development success.

The findings of this research will be presented in Seoul. It is expected that the research will highlight the importance of economic growth as a driving factor in generating poverty reduction. Building on this, it is expected that G20 governments will make commitments to focus more of their efforts on helping generate the conditions needed to stimulate economic growth. This will most likely mean a shift in the focus of government support toward improving infrastructure, increasing financial inclusion, securing private investments, assisting good governance and encouraging food security.

While some may consider this a departure from the traditional poverty reduction techniques Jamie Drummond, executive director of ONE, said “This isn’t a false choice between aid on the one hand and growth or governance on the other — we need a joint agenda combining good aid, good growth and good governance because smart assistance will be needed to help build infrastructure for growth and strengthen governance systems, as well as tackle basic needs in health and hunger in the medium term. Sustainable equitable growth can create the long term prosperity to reduce and ultimately eliminate the need for any aid.”

Want to learn more? Read “The G20 and Africa: Can an Asian tiger help the African lions roar?”, our Seoul summit pitch on inclusive growth in Africa.

Developing country voting rights boosted at IMF

Oct 28th, 2010 8:00 PM UTC
By Joseph Powell

The G20 Finance Ministers meeting in South Korea over the weekend have come to an agreement on voting right reform at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The IMF will transfer power to under-represented emerging economies such as Brazil, China and India, although there is no indication African countries are set to benefit. About 6% of the voting rights will be transferred, although the US will retain its veto by continuing to hold 17% of votes in a forum where 85% approval is needed for key decisions.

The move does, however, send a strong message about the future of the G20. Analysts predict the Group will now be more willing to address issues like trade distorting protectionism, an important move as the Doha trade talks continue at a glacial pace. A deal on agricultural subsidies, for example, would open up Western markets to African exports.

As preparations continue for the Seoul Heads of State meeting in a little under two weeks time attention will now turn to the findings of the Development Working Group, a committee set up by the G20 to come up with new ideas on pro-poor inclusive economic growth.