10 - Building bridges

Most interactions people outside the favelas have with people from the favelas are either on a one to one basis, as employees who don’t dent their wallets, or as a statistic; ‘four narco-traffickers killed by police raid earlier this morning’. But few understand the people of the favelas as a community. As I walk through the morro do Borel and see Monica and Gisella interact warmly with so many residents, telling me their stories along the way, I feel the unmistakeable energy of a community. Where I live my neighbour is a complete stranger as we stare nervously at the numbers while the lift approaches the Ground Floor. Once in a while the silence is broken with a “Wussup?” or even “Nice skateboard man!”, “Thank you”, smiles all round, and that’s the extent of my community life.

 

Closing the gap between the favelas and the rest of the city is exactly what Agenda Social was founded to achieve. It was conceived in 1996 by the renowned Sociologist Herbert de Souza, known as Betinho. This was during the campaign to make Rio the venue for the 2004 Olympics.

 Betinho was the founder of Ibase, the Brazilian institute of Social and Economic Studies, whose offices I will will be visiting soon. He was the one of the leaders and visionaries during the active movements of civil society in the early nineties. The first of these was called ‘the movement for ethics in politics’ which lead to the impeachment of the president Fernando Collor de Melo. He was caught with a little more than lips wrapped around his, what’s it called, bank account.

 

Note how the government suddenly gets all excited about helping the poor as soon as they become a threat to their prestigious and no doubt profitable Olympic games. Well Rio lost the bid, and political will dwindled, and eventually stood smack bang in the face of the objectives of Agenda Social.

 What were these objectives? Did they want to build a city of gold and have the whites serve the blacks as a ‘we’re sorry for what we’ve done to you over the past 500 years’? Not quite. The goal of Agenda Social was to confront inequality, and to build a more just and democratic society based on citizenship.

 

The immediate focus for achieving this goal was clear: Insuring quality education for all the young people and children; getting the homeless off the streets; urbanising and integrating the favelas with the city; assuring quality food for all young people and children, together with sports and citizenship playing a crucial role.

 Working groups were created to tackle each of these objectives. These groups comprised representatives of the most diverse sectors of society. These de-centralised units met in forums, where debates and discussions lead to decisions for action. These were democratic forums. This process was believed to be an ‘Integrated and Sustainable project of local development’.

 

Integrated because it brought together such a diverse representation of civil society, and sustainable because it offered this diverse facet of society a democratic participation in carving the road ahead. 

 Very soon though, it became apparent that to achieve their goals, they needed the strong contribution of government bodies. That’s when the momentum hit a brick wall, and the project had to pause, take a look around, and redefine itself.

 

Today its aim is two-fold. Its working groups continue to brainstorm and propose necessary steps for achieving the goals of the Agenda Social. It also tries to ignite the political will necessary for transforming these possible solutions from thoughts to action. That’s a romantic way of saying ‘hitting your head against a brick wall’.

9 - The mother of all u-turns

Brazil, before 1990, was a closed economy, shaped by the ‘economic fashion’ of the time, based on import substitution. This model required active government involvement, favouring certain imported products over others using tariffs, and supporting specific sectors of the economy by subsidising them. This model favoured industry, and money collected from people and borrowed funds were used to boost this chosen sector of the economy. This strategy certainly didn’t help family farmers, evident from the shift between 1940, when 67% of workers were in the agricultural sector, and 1970, when this figure had dropped to 40%. This economic strategy, not helped by external factors such as the oil shock that put even more strain on the economy, resulted in high inflation, an artificially high exchange rate and an unsustainable level of debt.

High inflation verging on hyperinflation is not disastrous for the rich, who can protect themselves against the loss of purchasing power using simple financial instruments (such as indexed financial assets, purchasing foreign currency, buying real-estate and other real assets or simply placing cash in high-interest baring deposits). Low-income groups however, with no or with precarious access to banking services, are the most affected as their incomes lose value over time. Their salary in March can buy fewer products than the same salary back in January. Imagine how they feel come the last quarter of the year. This makes them negotiate salary rises for the next year, which in itself feeds the inflationary cycle.

Come 1990, Brazil’s Collor administration (1990-1993) takes an economic policy U-turn that has shaped economic policy ever since, and adopts the next fashionable ideology of the time. Brazil decides to ‘go global’. This latest trend in development theories is branded ‘the Washington consensus’.

This ideology strives to create free markets, free of government intervention, free of any influence beyond those created by the market. The prescription is for business to be freed from any government-laid obstacles and allowed to spread like liquid to reach every corner of the neo-liberal world and beyond. You could call it the ‘Heineken’ economic theory: The neo-liberal model that will bring business to areas other economic models couldn’t reach.

One might ask him or herself: But what is government intervention? Is it not the result of the system of governance? And this system of governance, if it were a just system, would it not represent the will of the people? The neo-liberal model of development therefore requires that the rules of a free-market override rules that might be imposed by the people through democracy. This is why the neo-liberal model of development, co-driven by the IMF, has been strongly accused of undermining the sovereignty of states.

Brazil opens the trendiest recipe book, the Jamie Oliver of economic cookbooks, and finds the three pillars of the Washington consensus: Market liberalisation, privatisation and fiscal austerity. It decides to start with the first two. By 1994 the new Cardoso administration finds itself facing the eternal economic pain in the ass-symmetry between rich and poor: High inflation verging on hyperinflation.

Drastic action is needed, and the new Cardoso government steps up for the occasion. They pick up the recipe book and turn to inflationary cuisine: ‘Reduce inflation by flooding the country with cheap imports, and keep your currency strong to prevent an equal amount of exports. Fill the trade deficit with foreign investment that you must attract with high interest rates’.

The first step taken to cook-up this nouvelle cuisine is to get rid of the old, rotten ingredients: The old currency is replaced by the Real and set at parity with the Dollar with a little leeway to sway either way. Although domestic prices rise overnight (my taxi driver remembers the sudden price-jump), unions don’t complain about this one-off compromise, anxious to see the back of inflation. Known as the Plano Real, this strategy reduces inflation from 50% to 1.5% within one year.

There is absolutely no doubt that putting a lid on inflation has a tremendous effect on the poor. Now a small salary retains its buying power throughout the year. With banks looking to replace their lost profits from the profitable games they used to play with inflation, they turned to offering people credit. This also helps the poor gain access to durable goods. Now people could finally start buying TV’s and funky trainers. But this gain turns out to be a one-off gain that camouflages other serious side-effects of this new inflationary strategy. Far from being tailor-made to solve people’s social problems, inflation control is a pre-requisite of markets, a condition necessary for the success of a neo-liberal economy. Any social gains are purely coincidental, and certainly do not tackle any of the roots of poverty: “Unequal access to wealth and education”[1]. Social Watch Brazil analysed the impact of these measures, and concluded that although the positive impact on the poor from reduced inflation should not be underestimated, “these benefits have already dried up and one third of the former poor have already fallen back to their previous condition”. Income inequality in the end of the 1990s is about the same as it was in the 1970s[2].

With the ingredients in place and inflation under control, the neo-liberal party begins. With low tariffs, high interest rates, a strong Real (up from parity to 0.8 to the USD) and loads of cash floating around the financial markets, short-term foreign speculative cash flows into the economy filling Brazil’s trade deficit as planned. (Brazil’s first trade deficit after years of surplus).

Before things start getting a little barmy and everything is still going as planned, signs of discontent begin to surface: As one would expect with high interest rates, as well as losing market share to cheap imports, local businesses feel a noose tighten around their necks. They are faced with three options: To kick the chair and declare bankruptcy, taking employees down with them, to sell to foreign buyers, or to invest to better compete with foreign imports. Despite the macro-economic climate, some companies are able to invest in making their operations more efficient, allowing them to survive. However, to use the words of the Social Watch report, “The two first possibilities materialised in large scale”. As a result unemployment soars, and millions of workers are forced into the informal labour market, walking the streets collecting tin cans for one dollar per kilo, picking up cardboard boxed for recycling, selling ‘asai, asai’ on the beach or competing with thousands of other punters selling football t-shirts in the busy streets. It’s a sorry sight you come across every time you set foot on the tarmac. Those with salaries can buy as many kilos of beans in January as they do in July, but those who lost their jobs face the prospect of deep ‘structural’ unemployment.

The party doesn’t last long however, and is ruined by the sudden departure of the guest of honour: Short term speculative capital. Mexico had cooked up a feast from exactly the same cookbook as Brazil, and its party had been cut short with its guest of honour doing a runner. Short-term speculative capital in Brazil catches the bug, which turns out to be contagious, and follows suit.

But the whole plan is balanced perfectly by precisely those foreign investments. Brazil must absolutely attract them back. It sees only one-way: To increase interest rates to levels that seem more like comedy than serious monetary policy. This does the trick though, and foreign money comes flowing back with a big smirk on its face. Now that’s more like it! Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha! it says, as it finds itself a warm and comfortable spot to chill, for a little while.

With the first pillar of the Washington consensus in place, Brazil turns the page to the next crucial recipe for success: Privatisation. The cooking had started way back in 1990, but the heat intensifies. By 1995 the entire steel industry is transferred to private hands together with petrochemical companies, then it’s the turn of some public service firms such as urban electricity, later telecommunications are sold, followed by more electricity concessions and finally the banking sector goes private in 2002. Half the buyers are Brazilians and the other half are foreign, mainly American, Spanish, Portuguese and Italian investors. By 2003 the whole thing has gone for a total of R$105.3 billion.

It seemed like a good idea at the time. People were told proceeds would be used for crucial social spending, such as health and education, and the private sector would run businesses more efficiently and pay employees more. Things often do not turn out as planned, and this was one of those times. From an economical perspective results were mixed. From a social perspective the plan was a complete failure. Foreign companies chose to fly in their own technicians and engineers for a huge salary, and pay the remaining Brazilian employees (those who were not sacked) even less. Employment in the public sector is reduced by 43.9% with over half a million jobs lost between 1989 and 1999.

No cash is spent on social projects.

The money raised is used to pay interest on its debt (high interest as per the strategy, so not a surprise), which has increased by 330% from R$ 153 billion in 1994 to R$ 661 billion in 2001, as well as by the sterilisation of money supply increases, in other words accumulating reserves to fill the gap when foreign capital leaves the country. I was on a trading floor in 1997 when investors began shorting currencies of emerging markets. Believe me, the last thing to cross the mind of a single trader was the effect the mouse clicking and frantic adrenalin-pumped shouting was having on the lives of millions of poor people and workers in those countries. It’s a game they were playing with somebody else’s money, free from emotional ties to either investors (just a coincidental convergence of interests) or millions of people across developing countries.

The sigh of relief after the Mexican crisis is followed by a relative period of stability. But it proves to be, again, the calm before the storm. But this always happens in countries all over the world. When will they learn? I don’t know. Come 1998, Asia suffers from the same damaging out-flow of short-term speculative capital. This time the contagion effect proves that we really are becoming a truly globalised world, and the Asian crisis triggers off capital flight in Latin American economies on the other side of the planet. Brazil is no exception. Having been through this before, Brazil is getting pretty good at dealing with the crisis. Unlike before, when interest rates were taken through the roof, this time Brazil announces serious public spending cutbacks. Not in the least worried about the implication of this on an already poor country, investors pour their money back into the usual easy-to-get-out-of assets, such as bonds, shares or simply Reals.

Other countries, on the other hand, when faced with the effective blackmail of speculative capital have done the Jim Carrey imaginary jazz move with the middle finger pointed at Washington, and adopted a completely different strategy to dealing with capital flight. Instead of allowing them to leave and later welcoming them back with even warmer hospitality after having ruined the party, Malaysia for example, during the Asian crisis, said “listen, if you wanna party, you are welcome to join in, but nobody leaves before the sun shines and the birds are whistling. The sign on the door said ‘No lightweights!’” Fair enough thought the investors, this might be a tad unorthodox, but at least we can party without the risk of having our festivities cut short by some unexpected bearer of bad news. This strategy, although demonised by the Washington consensus for the, God forbid, government intervention it involves, proved to be very successful. Although there was a slow period when news of other parties cut short began to circulate, things picked up again and all was forgotten much sooner than the disasters that followed those who had yielded to the neo-liberal model.

Brazil is determined to take the neo-liberal route to global market integration. This strategy helps Brazil buy a little time, but the period of stability turns out to be short lived. Russia now experiences a run on its short-term capital, causing havoc in the markets. As you would expect now that it has happened so many times since Brazil adopted this neo-liberal model of ‘development’, hot money leaves Brazil leaving behind a huge financial gap to fill. “No problem. We’ve dealt with this before, we can do it again”. Brazil pumps up its interest rates. But this time the traders are convinced that they can beat the Brazilian central bank at their favourite game. They bet that Brazil would try really hard to maintain its policy of gradual and controlled exchange rate adjustments put in place since the Mexican crisis (i.e. defending the Real from fast and furious devaluation), and fail. They were right.

On the verge of national bankruptcy, Brazil puts its neo-liberal tale between its legs and hops over to the IMF, where it desperately decides to play its last card. It hopes to borrow loads of dosh to fill the deficit, and gain some brownie points from the traders who had just broken its back. By accepting to take IMF cash with the IMF’s usual conditions, known as the adjustment program, it would send a message out to the markets that it was a good little neo-liberal who puts its investor’s well being well ahead of its own people.

There is no middle ground with the markets; you are either with them or against them.

It turns out that in this case, even bending over to IMF conditions isn’t enough to attract capital back to Brazil, and capital flight continues, threatening Brazilian solvency. Brazil loses control of its exchange rate and lets go, leaving it to blow with the economic winds. In theory this should act as a disincentive to investors thinking about taking money out of the country, as it would devalue the currency and consequently devalue their assets in Brazil. That’s just in theory though. In practice you get a race to divest and get the hell out before everyone else does. In the money game putting yourself ahead of your friends and neighbours makes it impossible to think in a win-win game theory way. Even if concerted action would make everyone better off, you know it’s not gonna happen cause there are no mechanisms in place, either legal or cultural, for this kind of thinking. Each one for him or herself, and everybody knows it. Or at least every capitalist with money to make or protect knows it. Believe me, with the threat of losing any savings I might have to currency devaluation, I wouldn’t hesitate to sell, and protect my self-interests. It’s a systematic problem, not one that can change with the good will of people with money.

A systematic solution to this roller-coaster tearing economies and societies to bits at every loop has been proposed and is supported by millions of people and civil society organisations all over the world. The suggestion is to tax capital flows out of an economy. The tax is called the Tobin tax. This would slow down the sudden rush out of an economy on the back of a red line on a Reuters screen, and make investors think twice before they run. It would also encourage a different kind of investment. In contrast to short-term speculative investments in shares, bonds and the local currency, it is believed that longer-term investments would be attracted to the country. The stability and reduced risk from reducing the ease of speculative cash to come in and out of your economy should even encourage these long-term investments. I am certainly more likely to open a tea-café in Brazil if it were free of the constant threat of financial crisis. In fact the Tobin tax should even drive interest rates down, as it becomes unnecessary to beg speculative capital back into a ravaged economy every few years. This decrease in interest rates should encourage other people to open small businesses and therefore create more clients for my tea-café.

These benefits from financial stability are complemented by another advantage from the Tobin tax: A source of tax revenues for governments, which they could spend on social priorities such as education and health. 

---

[1] Social Watch – Brazil, (How far Brazil has gotten in fulfilling Copenhagen commitments)by Celia Lessa Kerswtenetzky and Fernando J. De Carvalho - Ibase

[2] Social Watch – Brazil, (How far Brazil has gotten in fulfilling Copenhagen commitments)by Celia Lessa Kerswtenetzky and Fernando J. De Carvalho - Ibase

8 - Participation

And participation?

This brings us to Brazil in the mid eighties. Civil society awakens after the long military dictatorship. It stretches its arms after years in handcuffs, looks around, and notices that it has a lot of work to do. It embarks on a mammoth journey to build a just society based on equal rights and equal access to the system of governance, aimed at lifting its people out of poverty.

The inequality smacks me in the face on my journey from the airport to the hotel the day I land in Rio, not to mention my perspective two months later. It doesn’t take civil society too long to notice it either. It also notices that masses of people all over the country are not just excluded from the development process but also from the process of governance itself. Their needs are neither met nor acknowledged. There is no mechanism in place to allow them to express their demands, and no mechanism to legitimise their demands in the eyes of the government. In fact the government at the time doesn’t even acknowledge the existence of large sections of the populations, such as many of those in favelas or communities deep in the country. Either they are not aware of their existence, or they simply rather not acknowledge the extent of their responsibilities.

Instead of falling backwards off its chair, overwhelmed by the size of the problem, civil society offers a simple solution: Allow the poor and excluded to participate in the system of governance. Give them a voice so that their demands are heard. Then we can start tailor-making public politics to meet their needs. The first thing they do is begin by influencing the new 1988 constitution, “enshrining new rights which in many cases have not so far been implemented.”[1].

These rights include giving access to civil society to the system of governance in order to increase participation by otherwise excluded sections of the population. A new public space is created where civil society and the government meet and devise the best possible policies such as social assistance, education, health and defence of children’s and adolescent’s rights. According to Actionaid Brazil, these councils are still not in place in many municipalities, and their decisions have been systematically ignored by ministers and department heads at state level.

This momentum of civil involvement leads to the impeachment, in 1991/92, of the first elected president by direct vote since the fall of the dictatorship. He is accused of corruption and forced out of office. Several NGOs turn their attention to combat Brazil’s extreme inequality, by initiating a movement called ‘Citizen’s action against hunger, poverty and for life’. This campaign mobilises a significant cross section of civil society, with 3 million people organised in committees across the country and 30 million people donating for this campaign.

This momentum, full of hope and energy encounters strong resistance from the government in the mid nineties. Actionaid describes this resistance as “citizenship deconstruction” by the federal government. The government uses constitutional reform, in other words the undemocratic use of pen and paper, to withdraw established rights. They simultaneously combat any grassroots mobilisations and their organisations. “According to this strategy, it’s not sufficient to repress and demoralise grassroots mobilisations, it’s also necessary to dismantle the very capacity of the social sectors to mobilise”[2].

“Citizen deconstruction” continues to run deep throughout the nineties. The Federal Executive curtails the democratic functioning of other state branches, the Legislative and Judiciary branches are subordinated and governance is done through provisional measure. Actionaid explains how they get away with such draconian measure: “To ensure the political backing of conservative forces, the government has handed out ministries, public positions, and the government budget, thus reinforcing corrupting practices and private appropriation of public assets”. This structural system of controls is further strengthened by “implementing public-opinion mechanisms (media control). These mechanisms favour the increasing presence in congress of powerful organised-crime representatives, particularly of drug lords, seeking parliamentary immunity; and they stimulate all types of fraudulent activities”. This perspective is presented by the team of nine in Actionaid Brazil in a country strategy paper prepared with the contribution of its partner organisations, the landless rural workers’ entities, impoverished family farmers, slum dwellers in large city outskirts, and NGOs committed to empowering those social groups.

Not convinced by the notion of participation for building a democratic autonomy as a strategy for lifting its people out of poverty, the government has other plans for meeting its human rights obligations. This plan is based on a new macro-economic trend that promises to lift Brazil and its people into the comfort of the twenty first century.

---

[1] Country strategy paper 2001-2003 – Actionaid Brazil

[2] Actionaid – Country strategy paper 2001-2003, page 10.

7 - Let's philosophise a little

Before we explore the practical question of participation, which so many groups and institutions including global leaders agree is an essential ingredient for poverty reduction, let’s philosophise a little. What I am about to share with you is the philosophical basis upon which our communities are built on. What I am hoping will become clear is that what we are told is sphere is actually cube. 

I called Taciona from Fase, a large Brazilian NGO that works with many communities across the country. Taciona is a technician in the team dealing with sanitation and works for the day everyone in Brazil enjoys equal and adequate access to social services. I will meet her next week, but in the mean time she leaves me a package at Fase’s front desk with some reading material. At first I wonder why I am being put through such a high level of concentration needed to follow this philosophical train of thought. But soon it becomes obvious as the bigger picture appears to me like a premonition, and bang, it’s all worth it. So here goes, in English.

Democracy without participation by all its citizens is not democracy at all. Everyone must have equal right to participate in the system of governance for it to qualify as democracy. Equal right to participate is not enough though, it is argued. What is needed is equal access to the ‘abilities, resources and opportunities’ necessary to participate. This makes sense. If the ballot is on the moon, and everyone has the right to vote as long as they turn up, in practice only the astronauts will have a say. Once the voters are at the ballots, they must have the abilities and information to weigh up the alternatives.

Equal rights and abilities to participate in the system of governance is what the principles of Autonomy and self-determination are based on. It is argued that such a ‘just system’ of governance would manage public politics in a way that would best meet the demands of its people.

In a country where huge inequalities exist, it is logical to question whether a just system of governance, in other words democracy, really exists. To quote the words of Held (1997:69) “Is a system of political, economic and social power that generates systematic asymmetries of opportunity compatible with the principle of autonomy?” In other words, what has been referred to as sphere might actually be cube.

It is widely agreed that inequality and exclusion of the masses can only be tackled if those excluded from the system of governance are allowed back in, so that they can stand up for themselves and demand the rights they have been denied. They say ‘if you don’t ask you don’t get’. But if there is no way of asking, you can pretty well bet you won’t get anything at all.  socratise

This is where civil society comes in. “Civil society is made up of public spirited citizens, who believe in equal political relations by everyone and in a social structure based on trust and collaboration”[1]. Well at least that’s how one influential scholar defines civil society. And from the people I have met so far in several organisations, albeit a narrow cross-section of an enormous world that constitutes civil society, this definition certainly seems to capture the spirit I have been exposed to.

After extensive study of the political process in Italy, Putman concludes that the higher the level of participation by civil society in the process of governance, the more likely the demands of society will be met.

---

[1] Putman (1996:31)

6 - Not a favour

I go to the nearest Internet Café and I type in a key word. My floppy disk now contains a document that, to my dismay, has never been shown to me before. I download what should arguably be the most widely read document in history: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The fact that I have never read this document stands smack in the face of the General Assembly. For right after this act was signed in 1948, the assembly called upon all member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories." [1]

Reading our Universally accepted Human Rights is likely to rouse some senses. Knowing that we are not alone, but linked by a set of values that transcend all man-made barriers is very heartening.  Moreover it can alter one’s perspective of a given snapshot of reality, or even one’s perception of his or her own predicament. What might have once been perceived as a fact of life, as “that’s how things have always been” or “it’s too bad” becomes an unacceptable breach of Human Rights. It shifts from awful to illegal. People’s needs become people’s rights. Access to these rights becomes a matter of justice, not a favour. Meeting one’s rights becomes a matter of duty, not choice.

These entitlements automatically imply an obligation from some kind of entity capable of rendering justice where it belongs. This is what Itamar was referring to when he said the government should invest in these favelas as a matter of duty, not a favour. Take a look at article 25 agreed upon by the General Assembly of the United Nations, implying the agreement of every represented country on this planet: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services...” Next is article 26: “Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit”.

Not surprisingly, many argue that poverty is a result of the denial of basic human rights. In fact the Chair of the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights sent a letter to the Office of the High Commissioner asking him "to develop substantive guidelines for the integration of human rights in national poverty reduction strategies" This was part of an initiative to “integrate human rights into the whole of the Organization's [the UN’s] work”. This guideline was also intended as a tool to be used by national governments and institutions “that are committed to the eradication of poverty” [2]

It was created by the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) with the collaboration of many organisations, institutions and individuals including the European Network on Debt and Development, the Food and Agricultural Organization, the Ford Foundation, the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Cooperation, the Overseas Development Institute (ODI), the United Nations Development Programme, the World Bank and the World Health Organization to name just a few. “The text draws upon both the experience of the international human rights system over the last 50 years, and more recent scholarship by social scientists”. 
 
The driving force behind this report was the belief that “poverty cannot be banished without the realization of human rights”. In the words of the Human Development Report 2000: “A decent standard of living, adequate nutrition, health care, education and decent work and protection against calamities are not just development goals – they are also human rights”.
As I began reading this historic guideline to solving problems facing billions of poor people all over the world, this is what I read in the introduction: “It is now widely recognized that effective poverty reduction is not possible without empowerment of the poor. The human rights approach to poverty reduction is essentially about such empowerment”.

This point is emphasised many time in this report: “A human rights approach to poverty reduction also requires active and informed participation by the poor in the formulation, implementation and monitoring of poverty reduction strategies...the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs... is a crucial and complex human right that is inextricably linked to fundamental democratic principles…A human rights approach to poverty reduction is thus holistic in nature, encompassing civil and political rights as well as economic, social and cultural rights”.

The next big issue to jump out at me is the question of accountability. Here is what a document created with the contribution of the World Bank and the IMF states about accountability: “While a State is primarily responsible for realizing the human rights of the people living within its jurisdiction, other States and non-State actors are also obliged to contribute to, or at the very least not to violate, human rights. This has important implications for the conduct of international affairs. It calls for an adequate flow of financial and technical assistance from the rich to the poor countries and for active efforts to establish equitable systems of multilateral trade, investment and finance that are conducive to poverty reduction”. 
The issues of participation and accountability are reinforced: “Unlike old-style approaches to poverty reduction, the human rights approach …emphasizes the importance of ensuring people’s participation, especially participation by the poor and otherwise marginalized groups, in all aspects of decision-making. The importance of participation is being increasingly recognized.” 

A few paragraphs later: “Perhaps the most important source of added value in the human rights approach is the emphasis it places on the accountability of policy-makers and other actors whose actions have an impact on the rights of people”. 

This idea of participation is echoed by Prince Charles, on a visit to Casa de Cultura, a community project supported by Actionaid Brazil. In response to a question posed by 8-year-old Victor, the Prince explains that in his opinion the way to end world poverty "is to work through different organisations to try to make a difference in particular area, … picking the people in communities who have real personality and leadership and helping to empower them.

The report develops into guidelines intended for use when “formulating, implementing and monitoring a poverty reduction strategy if it is to be consistent with a human rights approach”. This far-reaching and scrupulous report dives straight into the major human rights issues it identifies, and analyses them one by one. They are the right to adequate food, health, education, decent work, adequate housing, personal security, the right to appear in public without shame, the right of equal access to justice, political rights and freedoms and the right to international assistance and cooperation.
For each one of the above rights identified by the OHCHR, the report highlights the importance of the issue, its relevance to poverty reduction strategies and its scope. Then it breaks each one down with a set of comprehensive targets. So for each issue it identifies several targets, and each target has several indicators. The right to education, for example, has eight targets and twenty-two indicators. The right to adequate housing has seven targets and fifteen indicators. (See targets and indicators to adequate housing in box1).
Box 1:

Key targets and indicators 

Target 1: All people to have a home

Indicators:  

·        Proportion of homeless people in the overall population

·        Number of homeless shelter beds per homeless person

Target 2: All people to enjoy security of tenure

Indicators:  Proportion of people in the overall population:

·       With legal title (e.g. freehold, leasehold, collective tenure) to their homes

·       With statutory or other (e.g. common law) legal due process protections with             respect to eviction

·       Living in informal settlements

·       Squatting

·       Forcibly evicted within a given period

Target 3:     All people to enjoy habitable housing

Indicator: 

·      Average number of square metres per poor person or poor household 

Target 4:      All people to enjoy housing situated in a safe and healthy location

Indicator:  

·    Proportion of poor households within 5 kilometres of a hazardous site (e.g. toxic waste, garbage dump)

Target 5: All people able to afford adequate housing

Indicator:  

·   Monthly housing expenditure by median poor household as a proportion of its monthly income 

Target 6: Adequate housing physically accessible to all

Indicator: 

·    Proportion of multi-unit residential buildings occupied by the poor that are accessible to persons with physical disabilities 

Target 7: All people to enjoy housing with access to essential services, materials, facilities and infrastructure

Indicators: Proportion of households with: 

·        Potable water

·        Sanitation facilities

·        All-weather roads

·        Electricity

The World Bank measures poverty using the universal benchmark of one-dollar per day per person, based on 1985 purchasing power parity. It is widely believed, and in light of the above it makes sense, that this figure underestimates poverty, let alone giving no indication of its causes. You see it doesn’t matter if I earn just under a dollar or a dollar fifty per day if my house has no access to water, sanitation and electricity, and if my kids can’t go to school. Either way I am denied my basic human rights.

---

[1]UN document celebrating 50 years anniversary of the Universal declaration of Human Rights.

[2] Draft Guidelines: A Human Rights Approach to Poverty Reduction Strategies. 

5 - A community leader

The blacks have been struggling to carve themselves a road out of misery ever since they were brought over from Africa, slaved away for almost four hundred years, and left to fend for themselves as underdogs in a ruthless system. Today, five hundred years later, their struggle continues.

 

Let it be known, Brazil is a country in segregation. In today’s Brazil there is no need to have the words ‘No Blacks’ to create apartheid. The historical progression over the years has created an apartheid society that is quite evident to the naked eye. Yesterday I went to one of the biggest cinemas in Rio de Janeiro, cinema Leblon. There was not a single black person in the whole queue. And we are talking about the mother of all queues that wrapped itself half way around the building. In a country where x% of the population is non-white, this speaks for itself. If there was a rich area full of black people you could attribute it to cultural neighbourhoods, but there isn’t. There were two black people there though; they checked that all the white people had bought a ticket before being allowed in to watch the film.

 

The struggle therefore continues, and favela leaders are doing their best to take the movement forward, and to carve a way out of poverty and exclusion for their community.

 

I am standing outside the office of an organisation called the Human Rights Foundation of Bento Rubiaon. They, together with the NGO Ibase, are in charge of co-ordinating the working groups of the Agenda Social. I am meeting Itamar, a well known community leader, representing the people of the favelas for over 25 years. A black, bearded, man with a soft friendly smile welcomes me with a warm hand shake and shows me to his office. He is very calm, confident and humble.

 

Itamar has been involved in numerous projects and organisations since 1976. This process has earned him the honorary title of community leader. I ask Itamar how he imagines a favela in 30 years time. He laughs, “If public politics does not change, I see the favelas exactly as they are today... Today there are between 600 and 700 favelas with continually growing populations. So here is how I would like to see favelas in 30 years here in Rio de Janeiro: First I see them with all their problems of infrastructure completely resolved, with quality public investment. There are favelas out there, such as Rossinia, with 80,000 residents, which are basically cities in their own right. I see hospitals, schools and a job market in all these communities. I also see people’s personal space altered, such as houses completed and painted. I see all the people frequenting high quality schools. I also see, between now and 30 years time, the rest of the city respecting the favelas. Not seeing the favelas in a negative light, but as they view the barrios, a place where citizens live with their problems and qualities.”

 

I ask Itamar what he believes are the biggest obstacles to achieving his dream. “ In my opinion the obstacles are political. To tell you the truth our agenda is suffering from a method of governing by the city and the state. It’s very, what’s the word, political. They use public instruments to maintain their personal power. So the way they invest in the favelas is done in a very private way in order to gain personal dividend to promote themselves; and not for the public good. They should perceive their investments as meeting people’s rights, and not as a favour. This is a big obstacle. What needs to change is the culture of these politicians, these governments, so that they understand that the people have rights, and that all investments should be made in light of this fact.”

 He continues to explain that the other major obstacle is that with each change in government, the projects initiated by the previous government are cancelled, and the whole process starts from scratch. Each step foreword is taken back two by changes in government. 

 

I ask Itamar if he thinks globalisation offers hope for the people of the favelas. “The topic of globalisation is very distant from the people living in favelas. For sure globalisation reaches the favelas through television, through the media. But I certainly don’t think the poor see globalisation as an opportunity. They don’t think it will change their practical life, their daily life. So they don’t see globalisation as an opportunity. They see it as a world that is opening, a world that is nearer, brought to them through the media. So for the poor globalisation is what they see on television.”

 

As I walk towards Rio Branco with Itamar’s words spinning in my head, one thought emerges as key: Itamar considers the investment in favelas as people’s rights, not a favour.

_________________________________________

Note: Pictures taken in art college in Parque Lage- Rio de Janeiro.

4 -Morro de Borel

Since the 1970’s, a profitable trade has been emerging in the favelas, offering the poor a seemingly easy way out of poverty. This is the trade in drugs. Unfortunately narco-trafficking is not just illegal, and therefore does not help the integration of favelas into society, but affects the lives of each and every resident of favelas. As if the hardships of poverty were not enough, ordinary citizens live in constant threat of cross fire between police and the gangs, as well as between the gangs themselves.

The police have been known to use heavy-handed tactics when dealing with the drug traffickers. Yes, this is an understatement. Yesterday, the 10^th of May 2003, police stormed the Morro do Turano, a favela in the North of Rio, and killed eight suspected drug traffickers in a shoot-out. They claim to have found guns and an undeclared amount of cocaine. Military police occupied the Mare, an area comprising 16 of the most violence-stricken favelas in the Northern part of the city.

 

In a separate incident the day before, the Office of Urban Planning was bombed early in the morning. The bomb was thrown at the entrance of the building as an act of intimidation.

 In the past week the drug traffickers ordered some universities to close down. One university in particular refused to be intimidated and paid the price heavily: An innocent 17-year-old girl was shot by a passing car. She is likely to be paralysed from the neck down for the rest of her life.

 

The past 2 weeks has claimed the lives of over 100 people who have been shot dead by police raids on the favelas. Rio de Janeiro has slid down a spiral of violence that is affecting the lives of all its residents, especially those living in what were once referred to as “the leprosy of aesthetics infesting the beautiful mountains of Rio”.

Morro do Borel

 

Rua Sao Miguel acts like the border between the favela of Borel and the Barrio of Tijuca. We meet our contacts Monica Santos Francisco and Gisella outside number 500 at 11:20am. We are 20 minutes late because of the diversion our taxi driver took us on to find a tape for my voice recorder This does not seem to bother the two warm and smiling young ladies who greet us with hugs and smiles, clearly happy that someone cares to visit their community. Monica works for the local municipality as well as a radio station I plan to visit after the weekend. Gisella is a social worker with the local Samaritan church. They both live on the morro do Borel.

 

Without wasting time we begin our climb up the steep road into the favela. On the first bend of the main windy road, already high enough to appreciate a good view of the city from above, five or six white policemen armed with long and narrow machine guns are standing around. I say white because later I realise almost everyone in the favela is Black or mulatto. Monica explains that over the past few days the police have occupied many favelas as the spiral of violence has intensified. Later I will learn what this means to the residents of this neighbourhood, one of the most violence stricken favelas of Rio de Janeiro.

 

As we walk past the armed men in blue, avoiding eye contact as I’ve left my passport in my flat, the road becomes heavily built-up on both sides. Monica tells me how since 1997 the local municipality has been implementing the barrio-favela project, aimed at turning the favelas into barrios. The tarmac road we are climbing is a consequence of this on-going project.

 Monica leads me down this seriously narrow lane separating two houses just off the main road. A few meters down it leads to a space pasted with garbage, porch to a couple of single roomed houses, home to five or six family members. A little girl speaks into my voice recorder telling me her name and age. Her mother peers out of the curtain covering the entrance to the house, and greets us both. She is busy so we head off back up the main road. She had just been interviewed by representatives of IBASE, the NGO helping me find my way round Rio. Complete coincidence.

 

We walked past young teenagers tugging on kites from rooftops and off the side of the road. I ask Monica why these kids were not at school. She said she visited this particular kid’s home once in a while, and basically he did not want to go to school. I ask Monica why. She shrugs her shoulders. Monica points out the school at the bottom of the hill, across the road where the taxi dropped us off. It was built as part of the barrio/favela initiative: the teachers are badly trained and there are over 40 kids per class. Next to the school there is a huge supermarket, the French chain Carrefour apparently none of the favela residence can afford to shop there choosing instead the small shops inside their community. Next to Carrefour is a huge private school, much bigger and more beautiful than the government school. This and the supermarket stand out as symbols of exclusion, constantly reminding the people of the hill that they live in a world apart.

 

A little further up we stop at a nicely painted house with blue walls and yellow wooden shutters. Gisel tells me how she helped build this nursery with her bare hands a few years ago. It cost about 20000 reals or under £5000, donated by the church and collected from community intiative such as selling shirts and other products. We walk in and find a world apart, three stories high, painted with flowers, butterflies and filled with pastel colours that reflect the innocence and joy of child hood. It costs 50 reals per month to educate and feed a child. The teachers are all voluntary. When I learn that only 20 kids up to the age of 4 enjoy this loving and careing space, I ask Gisel how the children are chosen. “this is what broke my heart the most, having to turn down so many children. We chose those whose families were living in the poorest conditions.”

 

We leave this surreal space and continue our journey up the ‘morro’, deeper into the favela. As we progress further and further up the hill, the well tarmac road disappears, leaving a narrow path made of mud and soil, garbage, concrete, streams of sewage connected by a precarious net work of planks of wood. Monica explains that this area is not visible from the barrio and therefore was not included in the barrio-favela initiative. Here people are poorer, less educated, and pay much less rent. Giselle pays 200 Reals per month further down on the main road, compared to 50 Reals per month up here in the poorer area of the favela. Here the impact of a little investment and education smacks us hard in the face as we manoeuvre awkwardly across the path trying not to slip or step on anything we wouldn’t want to take back home. I ask Giselle why they don’t clean the area right outside their homes. “Getting people to live in favelas is easy, but the challenge is getting the favela to live in peoples hearts.” This world of dirt and ugliness is where people here wake up every morning. They are uneducated, neglected by the rest of society, left to hate the world they live in. I guess whether you are a child or an adult, if no one ever invests in you, it is very hard to gather the motivation and self-esteem to invest in yourself.

 

As we reach the top of the hill and begin our descent on the other side, the reverse contrast is apparent again: The road is properly built and there is a small pile of garbage nicely gathered to one side, as if left there on purpose as a symbol of pride and self-respect. 

We visit another couple of schools for 4 to 6 year olds. There are only 3 schools in Borel, offering an education and a quality childhood to about 120 children. After that they have no choice but to go to a state school such as the one at the bottom of the hill. Monica explains how you cannot compare the love and attention given by the teachers of the community here in Borel to the impersonal job-like attitude at the state schools. This was clear by the pride with which the teachers and directors showed me around the classrooms, and brought my attention to every possible detail, from the painted walls to the books on the shelves.

 

One head mistress points out that the small wooden playhouse, which I noticed in other schools as well, is used to teach the children about the home. Many families are one-parent families due to either the father escaping the stress of family life in poverty, or the death of a parent due to a number of reasons. Playacting is a nice escape from reality into a perfect world.

 

As we continue our walk down the main road Giselle insists I visit her home. We take a step over the open sewers, which thanks to the lack of ‘activity’ and the relatively cool temperature do not smell too bad, and squeeze through an alley between two houses, into a small courtyard. The men sitting there greet us nicely, albeit with a subdued air. Very little eye contact is made. Gisella introduces us to her beautiful daughter who is there with Monica’s lovely girl, her husband and her tiny white dog. Gisella points at the moisture spreading at the corners of her ceiling, and tells me they will be moving out as it is becoming unbearable on the lungs. She coughs to make sure I have understood. She is one of the lucky ones who can move when at risk. One week from now the front page of the national newspaper has a picture of a couple of flattened houses due to a rockslide. An entire family is killed while sleeping.

 

I say goodbye and head off with Monica. Our next visit, the community music school, just across the road from Giselle’s. A large graffiti covering the wall ahead of us as we enter says “Borelouvando”, which is a play on words meaning ‘praise to the lord’. The drum at the centre of the picture says ‘Deus e fiel’, ‘In God we trust’. It occurs to me that faith in god was manifested several times throughout my journey so far. Through paintings on the walls of the schools and nursery, a church looking more like a community centre where people can gather and pray, the missionary centre housing several social workers, some even from abroad, and a large wooden cross looking over the morro from above.

 

Christianity might have been slow at protecting the rights of the blacks in the days of slavery, but at least it is doing a little to help pull them out of poverty today. Whether it is doing enough, I am in no position to say, but there is no doubt that the missionary workers are completely dedicated to helping, as they roll up their sleeves and work in the community clinic, help build a school or give hope and love through the ‘word of god’ in church, amongst many other social initiatives. The church offers people a pillar to gather around as a community, and generate hope, love and self- esteem. It also offers a safe haven for gang members looking for a reformed life away from the violence. Here religion certainly has a real and positive impact on the local community.

 

After making a bit of noise on a lovely drum we say goodbye and hit the road again. We have to beware of the motorbikes bombing it up the main road. Monica takes me to four black and white posters on the side of the road. On each one was a name and a profession: Thiago, mechanic; Carlos Magno, student; Everson, taxi driver; Carlos Alberto, painter. She explains that four days ago the police drove up the road we were on, shooting. She said they literally came into Borel and opened fire at whoever was in their way, and looked suspicious. “They shoot first and ask questions later”. The four young victims she said were innocent, one of them had come to visit from abroad. The police planted drugs and guns on them to legitimise what she described as a massacre.

 

I asked her why the police would do such a thing. She explained: “The police today are continuing the oppression of the military police in the late 1800’s. They were created to protect the elite. We are poor and black, descendants of the slaves, so they can come in here and shoot us whenever they want, and there is nothing we can do about it. The police have no respect for the people here.” Monica was clearly angry, albeit controlled and composed. As we continue our walk back, she points at some photocopied newspaper clippings to reminding people they have not been forgotten by the outside world. Further down is a notice saying the United Nations will be investigating the case, and is being looked at as a possible violation of human rights. A huge black flag hung across the street in morning, with the words ‘Podemos nos identificar’, a call for recognition. A man whose son was killed in a separate incident passes us by. He avoids eye contact.

 The day after the shooting the people of Borel gathered together dressed in white, and walked into the streets below in protest. They demanded justice. Their call was heard by the president who sent in a minister on his behalf. He promised to investigate the case.

 

We bump into a friend of Monica’s who offers us a lift to the bottom of the hill. On our drive down Monica tells me: “There is no death penalty in Brazil, but the police impose the death penalty here in the favelas. If you live in a favela and you are black, you are condemned to death; by the police.”