| |
Contributions from
the Column
Tribune
Regional trade barriers
Using planning to overcome borders
Grinding poverty and economic boom
11/2004
|
|
[ Brazil ]
Grinding poverty and economic boom
On June 27, Berlin’s daily “Tagesspiegel” ran two articles on Brazil. Firstly, the country had triumphed in the Beach Volleyball Grand Slam in Berlin. Secondly, Brazilian meat exports were to overtake those of world champion Australia in 2004. One Brazilian firm alone supplies 20 percent of all the meat consumed in Israel. And yet, Brazil remains a limping giant.
[ By Volker Riehl and Thomas M. Schimmel ]
Brazil ranks high on the international agenda. Like India and China, it is considered one of the “new economic giants”. It is the world’s top producer of orange juice, the third largest exporter of sugar, and the tenth strongest economic power. Brazil’s per capita gross domestic product is higher than Lithuania’s. And as far as life expectancy and literacy are concerned, the country is on the same level as its one-time colonial power of Portugal. At the latest G8 meeting, Brazil was treated as a potential member of this global decision-making body. Is this South American country really on a political and economic par with the United States, Russia and France?
Brazil – South America’s jaguar state?
The situation in Brazil appears paradoxical. Some of its regions enjoy an economic prosperity comparable to EU member states, whereas other areas languish in grinding poverty. This raises questions for development policy. Should aid money be allowed to flow into industrialised zones? Brazil ranks as a country of priority for German development cooperation as well as for Catholic aid agency Misereor and the Franciscan Mission Centre (which spent 13.1 and 1.4 million Euro respectively in 2003). Can the case be made for subsidising, at the maximum level, a country that is highly developed compared to many other states? Shouldn’t priorities be set differently? The answer is no.
As the largest country in South America, Brazil plays a key role for the political and economic future of the entire continent. But Germany and the EU also have an interest in spurring sustainable development and social justice in Brazil – not only for the sake of maintaining trade relations already reliably established, but also in order to avert crisis situations, conflict and general destabilisation of Latin America.
However, 44 million people in this particular jaguar state still don’t have enough to eat. Two thirds of the population live below the poverty line. While Brazil is one of the largest food exporters internationally, land and wages are extremely unfairly distributed. Millions of families have to survive on 15 Euro a month – in a country where prices are similar to those in Europe. Many Brazilians are denied economic, social and cultural human rights. According to conservative estimates, five million campesino families have no land. This is particularly scandalous in view of the fact that half of the agricultural land in Brazil is left unfarmed. In rural areas, large landowners are constantly infringing upon the rights of the poor. In the past year, private militias have killed more than 60 people. Serfdom and pre-democratic conditions prevail on many plantations and fazendas.
The consequences of landlessness can be felt in the mega cities. The favelas of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are mushrooming due to the influx of the landless from the impoverished north and northeast. Multinationals are booming, but the mass of the population hardly benefits. The poverty gap is widening. Social tensions and problems in the favelas are escalating. The police in Rio de Janeiro are afraid to enter these shantytowns, where the law of the drug gangs holds sway.
Bearer of hope with credibility gap
As a standard bearer of poor people’s hopes, Luis Ignacio da Silva, popularly nicknamed “Lula”, was elected President in 2002 after he convinced voters with his pledge to close the gap between Brazil’s rich and poor. Not unlike Germany’s red/green federal government, he raised expectations among the people, which will take years to fulfill. Consequently his credibility is dwindling, and social movements are threatening to withdraw their allegiance.
Today, Lula’s policies are promoting economic growth only in the major industrial cities of São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro. The result has been continued social impoverishment along with the marginalisation of wide segments of the population. While there is export-oriented mass production of soy, beef and oranges, small-scale farming is under stress. After all, many peasants are denied any land. Enormous plantations of the size of German state Hesse swallow up more and more of the rainforest. This kind of growth is likely to have negative impacts on ecological sustainablity and social fairness.
The President’s election promise that his “Zero Hunger Programme” would be accompanied by a million new landowners has proved empty. Instead of the predicted settlement of 115,000 families this year, by June only 17,000 farming families had received land. Apparently the government’s desire to pay back international creditors as quickly as possible is more important than keeping its election promises. The government is also hampered by its deference to the influential oligarchy of large landowners and the lack of a majority in parliament.
Backing more radical policies
If the President would only make use of the ”movimentos populares” to support his political initiatives, this alone would be a great help. In no other country are citizens as committed as in Brazil. In no other country are those affected by landlessness, social need, despotism and injustice as efficiently organised in popular movements. These structures must be strengthened to combat hunger and to fight for a fair distribution of land. By the way, these people also constitute natural target groups for development cooperation by the church. As only the urban centres prosper and whole rural populations sink into socio-economic oblivion, political lobbying and the support of civil society organisations are more needed than ever.
Our talks with government advisers for the ambitious “Zero Hunger Program” and Lula’s like-minded political stalwart, Frei Betto, confirmed that the former union leader’s “period of grace” is running out. Opposition is growing, not only in the population but also within the administration because macro-economic development is only serving the rich, while land distribution to the poor has reached a low point. It is a moot question whether the president is unwilling or unable to stand up to the Senate, which is infiltrated with large landowners, oligarchies and former dictators. Frei Betto’s comment on overdue land reform is: “We did not wage a revolution, we won an election”.
Quo vadis – Brasilia?
Balancing precariously between neo-liberal fiscal policy, human rights and poverty eradication, Lula has opted to continue with the policies of his predecessor. This decision could prove to be fatal. While it cannot be denied that Lula’s scope for redistributive policy is limited, his coalition with conservative forces in Parliament and the Senate is certainly holding him back. The president should extend his Workers’ Party’s internationally-acclaimed new approaches – such as increased public involvement – from local and regional levels to the federal polity. There are signs that this is beginning to happen, such as when the planned northward diversion of the Rio São Francisco, originally endorsed by Lula, was overturned by a round table of civil society organisations and the federal government.
Regarding land reform, it remains to be seen whether the consequences of the previous government’s medium-term financial planning can be sufficiently contained to enable new opportunities for compensation to be paid to legal landowners. The “economic, legal and ethical audit of national debt” demanded by civil society groups could indeed unsettle international financial markets, but, on the other hand, would offer the government the financial scope to pursue an active redistribution policy.
If the government does not take more obvious steps towards establishing a fair and equitable society, there is a risk of the limping economic giant beginning to stagger. Should the colossus collapse, he’ll drag his neighbours down with him. This would have a negative impact on humanitarian development in the whole of Latin America.
Misereor and the Franciscan Mission Centre
arranged a study tour to Brazil for German
of Members of Parliament, their staff,
government officials and NGO activists.
Dr. Volker Riehl
is a development policy representative
for Misereor.
riehl.misereor.berlin@t-online.de
Thomas M. Schimmel
heads the Berlin office
of the Franciscan Mission Centre.
schimmel@missionszentrale.de
|
