Zoo Station

Jeff Sachs has written an interesting op-ed in the Financial Times, offering his analysis of the Gleaneagles summit, especially the increased aid to Africa. I'll cut straight to the numbers.

Roughly four-fifths of the $50bn increase will come from the European Union, though Europe represents but two-fifths of the GNP of the donor countries. Notably, the pre-enlargement EU-15 have set a bold timetable to reach 0.56 per cent of GNP in aid by 2010 and the internationally agreed target of 0.7 per cent of GNP by 2015. ­Canada and Japan gave a nod to 0.7, but refused to commit to a timetable. The US did worse, denying repeatedly in recent weeks it had ever pledged 0.7, although Mr Bush signed on to the March 2002 Monterrey Consensus to “make concrete efforts towards the ­target of 0.7 per cent”. Instead, the US cobbled together some small programmes backed by big spin. The new US effort against malaria is welcome, but $1.2bn over five years is paltry when $3bn each year is needed to fight the disease in Africa. The US five-year effort is less than one day of Pentagon spending, and two cents of every $1,000 of US national income.

The IMF and World Bank have a responsibility to help mobilise the required aid. Rather than tell Ghana to keep its health budget low to preserve macroeconomic stability, the IMF should tell donors to honour their commitment to Ghana, so that it can save its children and break free of the disease-hunger-poverty trap. The $50bn a year in official aid for Africa translates into around $75 to $100 per African, depending on each country’s needs and commitments to use the aid effectively. Donor support for African health should be reaching $20 or more per capita per year, not the typical $5 or so on offer now. Donor support for agriculture and rural infrastructure should reach roughly the same amount. With suitable investments in farming systems, African food production can be tripled in a 21st century African green revolution.