Dear friends,

Profiting from Crisis is a story about how corporations, backed by lawyers, are using international investment agreements to scavenge for profits by suing governments from Europe’s crisis countries. It shows how the global investment regime thrives on economic crises, but is very uneven in who it benefits. While speculators making risky investments are protected, ordinary people have no such protection and – through harsh austerity policies – are being stripped of basic social rights.

Profiting from Crisis looks closely at how corporate investors have responded to the measures taken by Spain, Greece and Cyprus to protect their economies in the wake of the European debt crisis. In Greece, Postová Bank from Slovakia bought Greek debt after the bond value had already been downgraded, and was then offered a very generous debt restructuring package, yet sought to extract an even better deal by suing Greece using the Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) between Slovakia and Greece. In Cyprus, a Greek-listed private equity-style investor, Marfin Investment Group, which was involved in a series of questionable lending practices, is seeking €823 million in compensation for their lost investments after Cyprus had to nationalise the Laiki Bank as part of an EU debt restructuring agreement. In Spain, 22 companies (at the time of writing), mainly private equity funds, have sued at international tribunals for cuts in subsidies for renewable energy. While the cuts in subsidies have been rightly criticised by environmentalists, only large foreign investors have the ability to sue, and it is egregious that if they win it will be the already suffering Spanish public who will have to pay to enrich private equity funds.

Profiting from Crisis reveals how the public bailout of banks that led to the European debt crisis could be repeated with a second public bailout, this time of speculative investors. Corporate investors have claimed in arbitration disputes more than 700 million euros from Spain; more than one billion euros from Cyprus and undisclosed amounts from Greece. This bill, plus the exorbitant lawyers’ fees for processing the cases, will be paid for out of the public purse at a time when austerity measures have led to severe cuts in social spending and increasing deprivation for vulnerable communities. In 2013, while Spain spends millions on defending itself in lawsuits, it cut health expenditure by 22 per cent and education spending by 18 per cent.

Read the full report "Profiting from crisis": http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/files/download/profiting_from_crisis_0.pdf

Cecilia Olivet
Economic Justice Program
Transnational Institute
telephone: +31 20 662 66 08
e-mail: ceciliaolivet@tni.org
skype: mcolivet
twitter: CeOlivet
linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/ceciliaolivet

Dear All,

Thanks for this important discussion.

One of the problems is that the ILO is responsible for labor force data in general but the FAO is responsible for agricultural data. Agricultural labor force data often falls in a gap between the two organizations. The WIEGO network has worked closely with the ILO to improve the measurement of informal employment - but our work with the ILO has been restricted to non-agricultural employment as there is no consensus on how to define informality in agriculture. We now need to work with both the ILO and FAO to define informality in agriculture in order to get estimates on informal employment as a percentage of total employment. Measurement, as you know, if both technical and political - and financial.

Marty Chen
Lecturer in Public Policy, Harvard Kennedy School
Affiliated Professor, Harvard Graduate School of Design
International Coordinator, WIEGO Network
Mailbox #32
Belfer 107
Harvard Kennedy School
79 John F. Kennedy Street
Cambridge, MA 02138
USA
P: 1 (617) 495-0797
F: 1 (617) 496-2828
E: martha_chen@harvard.edu
W: www.wiego.org

Dear colleagues, 

This (or a variant of it) is a widely cited fact in the literature, often referring to people throughout the livestock value chain (not just primary agricultural producers). However, having tracked back through various levels of citations, including several blind alleys, as far as I can tell the 1.3 billion originated as a misrepresentation of a passage in Thornton et al., 2009, (http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2009.05.002) that states, "Of the planet’s 1.3 billion poor people, at least 90% of them are located in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, and climate change will have major impacts on the more than 600 million people who depend on livestock for their livelihoods".

The 600 million (also common) appears to have derived from Thornton et al.'s, 2002, (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=4qAikQ8kOxoC) Table 7 which has an illustrative number of poor livestock keepers (in 2000) of 555.8 million.

The equally common "There are about 500 million small farms in developing countries, supporting almost 2 billion people" is also of dubious origin.

Hopefully the completion of the 2010 round of World Agricultural Censuses (http://www.fao.org/economic/ess/ess-wca/en/) will help us all to collectively refresh our understandings in these areas.

Best wishes,


Richard King

Policy Research Adviser

OXFAM

Oxford, UK

Well said, Manuel. That is precisely the reason (the generation of non-agricultural jobs) why India has managed to reduce, for the first time in the history of the country, the absolute numbers of the poor, between 2004-5 and 2011-12 from 406 million to 268 million, a decrease of 168 million. The incidence of poverty had been declining in India for thirty years (until 2004-5), but the numbers of poor had barely fallen.

Dr Santosh Mehrotra
Phd (Econ.) Cambridge
Director-General, Institute of Applied Manpower Research,
Planning Commission of India
Tel 91 11 2778 3468
website: iamrindia.gov.in
Website: santoshmehrotra.web.officelive.com

Dear friends,

The new South Centre’s work on sustainable development goals in available here:  

http://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Post-2015-and-SDGs-Perspectives-of-the-South-Centrer1_EN.pdf

The MDG discourse forgot that reducing poverty permanently is not a result of micro-interventions, but mostly of economic structural transformation to generate decent jobs, with policies for greater distributional equity. A development-led globalization requires de-colonizing the MDGs.

South Unity, South Progress.
Manuel F Montes
Senior Advisor on Finance and Development
17-19 chemin du Champ d'Anier
1209 Petit Saconnex, Geneva
E-mail: montes@southcentre.int ; Skype ID: manuelfmontes
Website: http://www.southcentre.int

The South Centre is an intergovernmental organization of developing countries supporting their efforts and providing expertise to promote their common interests in the international arena. The South Centre was established by an Intergovernmental Agreement which came into force on 31 July 1995. Its headquarters are in Geneva, Switzerland.

Dear colleagues,

Many thanks Prof. Pogge, for your comment and for your hugely important work on "how to count" the poor, or the hungry, to make sure we do not fall into complacency.

The 1.3 billion people "employed in the livestock sector" comes from the 2006 FAO report "Livestock's long shadow". It refers not to the people whose main or exclusive occupation is as herders or livestock keepers or producers, but to people in households who own some animals - very often, a pig, a few goats, or some hens in the backyard, which supplements their diets on a more or less regular basis. As to the figure of 1 billion people employed in agriculture, it is much lower than most figures cited by FAO or the World Bank (who put the figure at around 1.6 or 1.8 billion), but again the discrepancy may be explained by the fact that many poor households in rural areas in developing countries have some agricultural production, for own consumption ("subsistence agriculture"), but are not marketing what they produce or do so only very occasionally. These people survive by diversifying their incomes: they have a few animals, half a hectare on which they cultivate maize, and they work periodically as farm workers on large industrial plantations or in cities.

Best wishes,

Prof. Olivier De Schutter
UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food
tel. ++32(0)2.640.4295 / ++32(0)488.482004
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/index.htm
http://www.srfood.org/

Postal address:
SSH/JURI/PJTD - Coll�ge Thomas More
Place Montesquieu 2, bte L2.07.01
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

For official communications related to my mandate as UN Special Rapporteur:
Special Rapporteur on the right to food
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR, CH1211 Gen�ve 10, Suisse
E-mail: srfood@ohchr.org
Tel: +41 22 917 9323
Fax: +41 22 917 9006

Dear colleagues,


This is a very good report, many thanks. There is so much to be learned from the report, e.g. about the costs of red meat consumption and of food waste. 

Paragraph 9 says that "Globally, livestock production employs 1.3 billion people". This seems too high. The ILO reports that total employment in agriculture is about 1 billion (www.fao.org/docrep/015/i2490e/i2490e01b.pdf); and this is broadly consistent with World Bank data (http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS). If this is right, then the number of people employed in livestock production should be substantially less than 1 billion, shouldn't it?


With all good wishes,
Thomas Pogge
Leitner Professor of Philosophy and International Affairs
Yale University, PO Box 208306, New Haven, CT 06520-8306
pantheon.yale.edu/~tp4
www.ted.com/speakers/thomas_pogge.html

Dear Friends,

I am attaching my final report, presented in Geneva last week (there were about six hours of discussions in the Human Rights Council).  This is a (probably foolish) attempt to summarize six years of travels, consultations, and studies. Do not hesitate to circulate widely!

Much has been achieved over the past six years. The ideas defended here were largely seen as seditious when I took over. They are now, almost, mainstream. Of course, the hard work remains to be done: to move from rhetorics to action.

Warm wishes,
Olivier De Schutter

UN Special Rapporteur on the right to food
tel. ++32(0)2.640.4295 / ++32(0)488.482004
http://www2.ohchr.org/english/issues/food/index.htm
http://www.srfood.org/
Postal address:
SSH/JURI/PJTD - Collège Thomas More
Place Montesquieu 2, bte L2.07.01
B-1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

For official communications related to my mandate as UN Special Rapporteur:
Special Rapporteur on the right to food
Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights
UNOG-OHCHR, CH1211 Gen=E8ve 10, Suisse =20
E-mail: srfood@ohchr.org
Tel: +41 22 917 9323
Fax: +41 22 917 9006

Dear colleagues,

Please find below the official views on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) from developing countries at the United Nations (also accessible here: http://www.twn.my/title2/unsd/2014/unsd140303.htm).
The Open Working Group held its first consultation session on the SDG text from 3 to 5 March in New York.

Best regards,

Bhumika Muchhala
Finance and Development Programme
Third World Network (TWN)
Email: bhumika@twnetwork.org - and - bhumika.muchhala@gmail.com
Web: www.twn.my

Dear colleagues,

I'd like to state my agreement with this reaction to the Open Working Group summary. It is very disappointing. It is supposed to represent the gist of what was said during the eight substantive sessions, much of which was in fact "business as usual" thinking, but it leaves out many voices that spoke very clearly against the economic orthodoxy. For our part at Inter-Parliamentary Union, we made a strong case for a new economic model centered on well-being, not on economic growth by the usual means, and several member states also made arguments in that direction. However, there is no evidence whatever of that discussion in this summary. Similar views expressed by civil society and particularly the Women major group were left out entirely. Also note that in the end most of the discussion remains focused on the developing countries a la MDGs, with not much said about how the new agenda should apply to the developed countries. Had that being the case, everything the paper says about the virtues of economic growth as the driver of development (and of course we can assume it's growth by private sector, aka, big business), then it would have had to acknowledge that "perhaps" the consumerist model and the over-consumption of the developed world constitutes a little bit of a problem if global sustainability is to be achieved in any way.

I am very impressed and encouraged with this discussion and I agree with the comment that adding protection to the existing enterprise model will not cut it. We need to embed the social in the economic from the production level up.

Alessandro Motter
Senior Advisor (economic and social affairs)
Inter-Parliamentary Union
Office of the Permanent Observer to the United Nations
New York, USA
Office: +1 212 557 5880
Fax: +1 212 557 3954

Dear Friends,

I recently returned from some ILO work in Bangkok and Hanoi to find that my new book has come out. It debunks both the theory and empirics of austerity policies, and is aimed for non-economists. I would appreciate it if you could let colleagues and friends know of it.

John Weeks
Professor Emeritus
of the School of Oriental and African Studies
of the University of London

Economics of the 1%: How mainstream economics serves the rich, obscures reality and distorts policy  John F. Weeks http://www.anthempress.com/economics-of-the-1-percent Now published Today’s ‘doctrine of choice’ assures adults that they are competent to make serious personal decisions about healthcare, education and retirement plans. At the same time, most people are convinced that they are so ignorant of economics that they are not capable of holding an informed opinion, and that economic issues must be left to experts. The so-called experts of the mainstream economics profession claim to have profound, inaccessible knowledge; in fact they understand little and obscure almost everything. Understanding the economy is not simple, but it is no more complicated than understanding the political system sufficiently to cast a vote. In straightforward language, John F. Weeks exposes the myths of mainstream economics and explains why current economic policies fail to serve the vast majority of people in the United States, Europe and elsewhere. He demonstrates that austerity policies have little theoretical basis and achieve nothing but inequality and misery. He goes on to explain how the current deficit and debt ‘crises’ in the United States and Europe are ideologically manufactured, unnecessary and simple to overcome. Drawing on examples from around the world, this book provides a bold alternative to the economics of the 1%. Their failure to serve the interests of the many results from their devoted service to the few.

Dear colleagues,

Perhaps some of you may be interested in a publication on a practice-oriented policy debate on Social Protection Floors in India which I guest edited with an introductory section. I also included folks such as Naila Kabeer, Mukul Asher, Francie Lund, Wouter van Ginniken, RKA Subrahmanya, and Carmelo Mesa Lago. As all of you know, the mix of these experts covers experience across the world on the institutions and mechanics of social protection.

The url is https://www.academia.edu/4971841/Social_Protection_floors_for_21st_Century_India

The issue includes the scholars/policy comments but also usefully provides grassroots reportage in India on what these floors or coverage might entail.

I also mention the book Market Menagerie, which covers similar issues of universal entitlements and the challenge for local health care: Market Menagerie: Health and Development in Late Industrial States
(Stanford University Press Economics and Finance 2012; Cambridge University Press Foundation Books 2013) http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=21146

Prof. Smita Srinivas
Technological Change Lab (TCLab) www.tc-lab.org
Urban Planning program
Columbia University, New York City
ss3079@columbia.edu

Dear friends,

The recently published Capital in the Twenty-First Century by Thomas Piketty is an indispensable book for anyone interested in learning more about the unequal distribution of wealth in the world today. As I read this major 950-page study, which is supplemented by a large amount of statistical data and tables available on Internet (http://piketty.pse.ens.fr/fr/capital21c), it became blindingly obvious that the Occupy Wall Street movement is completely right to target the richest 1%.

Read more http://cadtm.org/What-can-we-do-with-what-Thomas#nb6-2

Eric Toussaint
Senior lecturer at the University of Liege
President of the Committee for the Abolition of Third World Debt 

OWG proposals risk sidelining consensus on human rights-centered sustainable development
CESR Statement (http://www.cesr.org/downloads/OWG.CoChairs.Backstep.on.HR.Consensus.pdf)

As the interactive dialogues of the Open Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (OWG on SDGs) drew to a close, a consensus emerged from the initial stock-taking exercise that the post-2015 framework should mainstream a human rights-based approach encompassing all human rights, including the right to development.

This was consistent with the Rio+20 agreement that any new SDGs should be based on existing international law, including human rights standards, and with the UN Secretary General’s call last September for a new development framework "firmly anchored in human rights". Nonetheless, as the talks enter a more political phase, the OWG Co-Chairs’ proposals set out in their recent ‘focal area document’ raise serious doubts as to whether these aspirations will be fulfilled.

The ‘focal areas’ included in the document cover key issues such as poverty eradication, food, health, education, water and sanitation, the environment, decent work, social protection, promoting a welcome focus on quality as well as access to services in many of these areas. The Co-Chairs also acknowledge that human rights are essential to creating inclusive and equitable societies, and include a number of laudable commitments on ensuring equality, transparency, participation, accountability and access to justice.

However, there is a significant gap between the Co-Chairs’ proposals and the affirmations included in the OWG’s summary of its debates. Reference to the pre-existing human rights obligations of States in each SDG area is largely absent. Indeed, with the exception of education, none of the socio-economic issues outlined above are recognized as matters of human rights. Nor do the proposals mention the human rights responsibilities of business, international organizations and other key development actors. Regarding the question of global governance, the Co-Chairs’ proposals do not reflect the OWG summary document’s recognition of the “need to strengthen policy coherence between development policies and human rights and to ensure that business globally respects fundamental human rights, in line with the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights.” (para. 145). Rather than mainstreaming human rights across all SDG focal areas, the Co-Chairs’ proposals risk marginalizing the emerging consensus over a human rights-centered sustainable development framework.

CESR therefore calls on member states in the OWG to act on their stated commitment to making human rights central to the post-2015 agenda. In line with the SG´s recommendations to the General Assembly last September, and with the ‘Human Rights For All Post-2015’ statement endorsed by over 350 civil society organizations worldwide in December, CESR calls on the OWG to:

1. Ensure the full range of human rights standards form the non-negotiable normative basis of the new sustainable development framework. The respect, protection and fulfillment of human rights should be explicitly recognized as both the overall goal of sustainable development and the means for achieving it. All goals, targets and indicators should be aligned with relevant human rights standards.
2. Frame goals and targets in line with their economic and social rights obligations. The immediate obligation to ensure at least essential levels of these rights, without discrimination or retrogression, requires ‘universal’ or ‘zero targets’ for all sectors wherever possible and, where this is not practicable, strong equality benchmarking. The duty to use the maximum available resources to fulfil these rights progressively requires monitoring of both the policy and fiscal and budgetary efforts of governments, alongside sustainable development outcomes.
3. Include more robust commitments to tackle gender and socio-economic inequality, as well as other forms of discrimination. The new framework should include stronger provisions to protect decent work and reduce unfair wage disparities in order to reduce socio-economic inequality both within and between countries. It should also include more comprehensive commitments to ensure women's substantive equality across all spheres of life, including in the socio-economic sphere, and ensuring access to sexual and reproductive health and rights.
4. Ensure measureable and actionable commitments to guarantee the rights to freedom of information, expression and association and to protect the space for civil society organizations and human rights defenders to carry out their work to ensure transparency, accountability and participation in development processes.
5. Recognize the common but differentiated human rights responsibilities of all development actors as the foundation for global partnership for development. Ensuring ‘policy coherence’ requires that governments, business and international institutions assess the human rights impacts of their policies and agreements, both within and beyond their borders, in areas such as environment, trade, investment, aid, tax, migration, intellectual property, debt, monetary policies and financial regulation. Governments should adopt more robust measures to ensure meaningful private sector accountability, including mandatory human rights impact reporting as a condition for private sector engagement in any global development partnership.
6. Provide for full transparency, participation, oversight and accountability in the generation and allocation of public resources. In order to increase public financing for development, governments should commit to increasing their tax bases through progressive and equitable forms of revenue generation. The SDGs should reflect a zero-tolerance approach to tax evasion, and commitments to tackle illicit financial flows and prevent tax competition, as major obstacles to realizing human rights and sustainable development.

CESR is an international NGO working to ensure human rights are properly integrated into the post-2015 sustainable development agenda. CESR is the human rights focal point of the global Beyond 2015 campaign and co-convenes the Human Rights Post-2015 Civil Society Caucus.

Nicholas Lusiani
Senior Researcher
Center for Economic and Social Rights (CESR)
Centro por los Derechos Económicos y Sociales
162 Montague St
Brooklyn, NY 11201 USA
Email: nlusiani@cesr.org
Skype: nicholas.lusiani
Tel: +1 917 703 4963
Twitter: @NikoLusiani

Dear All,

Timo's conclusion: "I agree. Social Protection for all is a good goal, as well as a smart means" is precisely argument of the the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors.

I am writing on behalf of the Global Coalition for Social Protection Floors. We presented a joint statement of 81 Civil Society Organizations and Trade Union Federations requesting a sustainable development goal on social protection floors. Together we are representing globally thousands of national and international organizations and through them millions of people who are working for social justice and social development.

The Statement (five page document plus two pages listing signatory organizations) can be accessed at http://tinyurl.com/pkbnz56. I draw your attention to the annex, "A social protection floor for everyone: A universal rights-based development goal" that outlines two objectives and three major targets. We have presented this document on two events (the Civil Society Forum preceding the Commission for Social Development on 10 February 2014 and on a side event on 18 February 2014).

We think that rights-based national social protection floors are overarching, coherent, comprehensive and indispensable social policy tools for achieving the eradication of poverty and the reduction of inequality by 2030. This requires the implementation of the ILO Recommendation No. 202, which guarantees universal access to income security and health services, within the context of a wide social protection floor strategy, which also guarantees universal access to food security, education, water and sanitation. In June 2012 the ILO Recommendation was adopted unanimously by ILO member states and workers’ and employers’ delegations. It was already at that time supported by more than 60 civil society organizations.

Social protection floors are:

Conceptually clear:

-          as they embody a comprehensive and coherent goal for the social dimension of sustainable human development that avoids competition between different social goals, and
-          are being developed at national levels successfully.

Technically possible:

-          have proven to be feasible and affordable, even if they are ambitious,
-          are flexible in means and clear on objectives,  and
-          are concrete and measurable.

Politically accepted/acceptable:

-          as they emerge from participatory national policy development and standards, and
-          are accepted by global consensus.

Social protection floors have proved that they can contribute to:

-          the eradication of extreme poverty,
-          the reduction of inequality,
-          gender equality,
-          the improvement of educational status of people,
-          health protection for vulnerable groups, and
-          increase productivity.

The Global Coalition notes that pivotal elements of social protection floors are – either explicitly or implicitly - already mentioned in ten out of 19 of the focus areas for the forthcoming SDG negotiations, namely poverty eradication, food security and nutrition, health and population, education, gender, water and sanitation, employment and decent work and promoting equality.

We think that our proposal would give more prominence and coherence to these aspects and collect them all into a more visible, implementable and pragmatic goal for social development and social justice.

Best regards,

Winifred Doherty,
NGO Representative to the UN for the Congregation of Our Lady of Charity,
on behalf of the Global Coalition 

Dear Timo,

Thanks for this. But, do we really want the World Bank to have as much as 14-16% of its lending portfolio on social protection? The kind of programmes they lend for are mainly conditional and not good for the majority of those living in poverty (in fact, WB insiders admit that they've been told they can only lend for conditional schemes). They won't lend for the type of universal programmes that you're advocating for. In fact, as I point out in the blog in the link below, the workfare programmes that they lend for - which have been bizarrely renamed as productive safety nets - may well harm people, including children.

http://www.developmentpathways.co.uk/resource-centre/blog/post/117-from-oliver-twist-to-ethiopias-psnp-how-did-workfare-become-so-productive

By the way, have you seen the new paper by the IMF that argues that high inequality is bad for economic growth and there is no trade-off between redistribution and growth? It's a bit of a blow for our neoliberal, austerity friends. You can read about it in the article below.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/feb/26/imf-inequality-economic-growth

Best,
Stephen Kidd
Senior Social Policy Specialist
Development Pathways
Bloxham Mill, Barford Road
Bloxham , Banbury
Oxfordshire  OX15 4FF
Office: +44 (0) 1295724118
Mobile: +44 (0) 7850537485

For information re: subsidies

Arab NGOs Warn IMF Against Sharp Cuts to Subsidies http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/02/arab-ngos-warn-imf-sharp-cuts-subsidies/?utm_

source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=arab-ngos-warn-imf-sharp-cuts-subsidies  

WASHINGTON, Feb 28 2014 (IPS) - Civil society activists from five Arab countries are urging the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to ease pressure on their governments to reduce food and fuel subsidies until stronger social-protection schemes and other basic reforms are implemented.

In a new report, the Arab NGO Network for Development (ANND) and the Egyptian Center for Economic and Social Rights (ECESR) argue that social safety nets in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Tunisia, and Yemen are inadequate or, in some cases, too corrupt -- to compensate for the loss of critical subsidies on which the poor and even the middle class depend.

Indeed, in the absence of stronger safety nets, even the gradual removal of subsidies for key commodities may contribute to continuing unrest across the region as the three-year-old "Arab Awakening" plays out, according to the 20-page report.

"In the near term, the unwinding of subsidies cannot serve as the panacea for the serious budgetary and fiscal difficulties facing most Arab states,"

according to the report, which was released here Thursday by the Middle East Task Force of the New America Foundation (NAF), a non-partisan think tank.

http://middleeast.newamerica.net/sites/newamerica.net/files/policydocs/Policy_Paper_Arab_Uprisings_and_Social_Justice.pdf  

"By continuing to press Arab governments to remove subsidies, the IMF has inadequately responded to the sweeping social and political changes stemming from the 2011 uprisings and subsequent period of unrest," it said.

The report also called on the IMF to urge national governments to take other measures, notably instituting progressive tax systems and cutting the military budget, in order to increase revenues and cut spending.

Governments must also be encouraged to consult more with civil-society organisation (CSOs), labour unions, and local authorities regarding economic-reform programmes, according to the report.

Jo Marie Griesgraber, who directs New Rules for Global Finance Coalition, welcomed the report, saying it was the latest indication of growing interest by grassroots groups both in the Arab world and in other countries in transition, such as Ukraine and Burma, in the IMF and of their understanding that national economic problems need to be addressed at the global level.

At the same time, she noted that the authors may be overstating the leverage the IMF enjoys over national governments with which it is required under its charter to negotiate agreements.

"I'm sure, if given a choice, the IMF would prefer that reducing subsidies would not be the first policy option they would want to implement to reduce deficits," she told IPS. "It's a government policy, and the government is going to agree to cut subsidies to the poor before it agrees to cut military expenditures."

"The IMF can't do everything; you need the World Bank; you need regional banks; you need an international court to throw corrupt officials in jail; you need a national political commitment for people to pay taxes," she said.

"The IMF is too limited in what it alone can do, although it serves as a convenient scapegoat for governments."

Leila Hilal, NAF's Middle East task force director, agreed that states "are engaging the IMF bilaterally without consulting the affected populations."

With the recent uprisings, she told IPS in an interview from Jordan, "people feel that their voices are more valuable, that they have more agency, and that there's much more at stake in terms of policy, and they want to be heard.

"So the idea is that the pressure should be on the global community that is pushing these austerity measures without considering the actual context or impact on low-income people," she said.

While the mass demonstArab world continue to capture the headlines, relatively little attention has been paid to the underlying economic problems that many analysts believe lie at the root of the continuing regional turbulence.

The Washington-based IMF, which is dominated by the wealthy Western nations, has long been involved in the Middle East/North Africa (MENA) region, particularly in the five low- and middle-income countries that are the subject of the report.

The lender of last resort for failing economies, it provides short-term loans that are subject to recipient governments' compliance with conditions designed to reduce, if not eliminate their fiscal deficits.

Over much of its history, it acquired a controversial reputation for pushing severe austerity on governments as part of "structural adjustment"

programmes which hit the poor and most vulnerable sectors of society the hardest, often as a result of cuts to food and fuel subsidies, as well as social services, including health and education.

The IMF said it was unable to comment before deadline.

Cuts in subsidies have been particularly controversial because of their immediate impact on the population. In 1977, for example, a cut in bread subsidies in Egypt provoked widespread unrest, as did Jordan's attempts cut subsidies in 1989 and again in 1996. When the IMF sent a mission to Egypt in April last year, it was greeted with protests by civil-society groups, labour unions, and political parties anticipating that the agency would demand similar cuts as a condition for much-needed loans.

In much of the region, food and fuel subsidies make up a large percentage of government spending; in 2012, for example, they accounted for 10 percent of the Egyptian budget.

As the report itself notes, the Fund - as well as its development sister agency, the World Bank -- has become increasingly sensitive to these criticisms and sought to persuade governments with which it negotiates the loan conditions to mitigate the impact on the poor by reducing subsidies more gradually and, with the Bank's help,  strengthening social-safety nets for the most vulnerable.

But the report, which was based on interviews with more than a dozen prominent civil-society activists from the five countries, as well as analyses of IMF staff reports and other IMF documents, argues that these efforts are sometimes based on faulty assumptions.

"Theoretically, the IMF proposes the expansion of social safety nets as a way to offset the negative impact of subsidy removal on the poor," it said.

"In practice, however, social protection schemes are underdeveloped and often nonexistent in Arab countries, and are thus incapable of cushioning the poor against rising prices. In many instances, corruption and the absence of transparency mechanisms further complicate the task of distribution social welfare benefits."

"Subsidy reform should only occur upon the establishment of sustainable and comprehensive social protection schemes, and can only proceed with broad support from a variety of stakeholders," according to the report.

"Our analysis highlights the need for the IMF and the G8 countries to adapt their advice to the changing political and socio-economic conditions in the Arab region," said NAF's Abdulla Zaid, one of four the report's co-authors.

"The Fund's one-size-fits-all advice prioritising fiscal austerity measures over social and economic rights fails to account for the harmful impact subsidy removal would have on low and middle-income individuals, and thus, stability."

Garance Upham