Search

On 14 June 2021, the EU Neighbourhood, Development and International Cooperation Instrument (NDICI) was adopted with a budget of €79.5bn, of which 10% is allocated to migration-related actions. 93% of NDICI funds must comply with Official Development Assistance (ODA) criteria., An Oxfam analysis of the ODA eligibility of NDICI funded migration projects in Libya, Tunisia and Niger finds that a significant portion of the projects contain elements that may limit ODA eligibility and appear to prioritise the EU’s domestic migration concerns over development objectives. Moreover, insufficient documentation hinders the monitoring and democratic scrutiny needed to ensure NDICI migration programming meets the EU’s legal obligations for development spending.

Europe is facing unacceptable levels of poverty and inequality. Instead of putting people first, policy decision making is increasingly influenced by wealthy elites who bend the rules to their advantage, worsening poverty and economic inequality, while steadily and significantly eroding democratic institutions. Austerity measures and unfair tax systems across Europe are skewed in favour of powerful vested interests. It is time to reverse the course of poverty and inequality in Europe, putting people first., This briefing paper reviews the current situation and presents recommendations to help put an end to poverty and extreme inequality in Europe. It draws on data from Oxfam's research paper Background Data for Oxfam Briefing ‘A Europe For the Many, Not the Few’ for which the raw data can be viewed via our online data tool.

The realisation of the right to health for millions of people in poor countries depends upon a massive increase in health services to achieve universal and equitable access. A growing number of international donors are promoting an expansion of private-sector health-care delivery to fulfil this goal. The private sector can play a role in health care. But this paper shows there is an urgent need to reassess the arguments used in favour of scaling-up private-sector provision in poor countries. The evidence shows that prioritising this approach is extremely unlikely to deliver health for poor people. Governments and rich country donors must strengthen state capacities to regulate and focus on the rapid expansion of free publicly provided health care, a proven way to save millions of lives worldwide.

Five years ago, members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) signed a ministerial agreement to ensure that intellectual property rules would no longer obstruct developing countries’ efforts to protect public health. Since then, however, little has changed. Patented medicines continue to be priced out of reach for the world’s poorest people. Trade rules remain a major barrier to accessing affordable versions of patented medicines (generic medicines). The prevalence of debilitating and life-threatening diseases in poor countries is growing, but medicines are simply not available. Urgent action is needed.

Diseases that disproportionately affect the developing world cause immense suffering and ill health. Medical innovation has the potential to deliver new medicines, vaccines, and diagnostics to overcome these diseases, yet few treatments have emerged. Current efforts to resolve the crisis are inadequate: financing for research and development (R&D) is insufficient, uncoordinated, and mostly tied to the system of intellectual property rights. Delivering appropriate medicines and vaccines requires reforms to the existing R&D system and a willingness to invest in promising new approaches.

Some donors and governments propose that health insurance mechanisms can close health financing gaps and benefit poor people. Although beneficial for the people able to join, this method of financing health care has so far been unable to sufficiently fill financing gaps in health systems and improve access to quality health care for the poor. Donors and governments need to consider the evidence and scale up public resources for the health sector. Without adequate public funding and government stewardship, health insurance mechanisms pose a threat rather than an opportunity to the objectives of equity and universal access to health care.