CANADA-Nepal needs us and help urgently/ ForeignAid and $$$$ -quantity and quality of aid have been poor and donor nations NOT held accountable. United Nations - WTF??/Poverty and the Environment/ Canada- help ur own poor- our First Peoples of the North/USA-Russia and China all lovey because of Oil in Arctic- Climate change my arse-imho/NEPAL- make sure ur money and help gets there quickly- call research get involved Canada, Nepal needs us/UN needs serious fixing and WHO 4 Ebola disaster/Updates May 2015/JUNE 1- Canadians raised $17Million from own pockets- CANADA OFFERS EMPLOY FOR NEPALESE YOUTH IN AGRICULTURE
news update June 1 2015
Canadians raised $17 MILLION fm own pockets
Canada offers employment for quake-hit Nepalese youths in agriculture
KATHMANDU, June 1 (Xinhua) -- The Canadian government
has expressed its willingness to hire the quake-displaced Nepalese
youths for employment opportunities in Canada, the country's labor
minister said.
During a meeting with the Nepalese Minister for Labor and Employment
Tek Bahadur Gurung in the capital, visiting Canadian Minister for Labor
Kellie Leitch expressed commitment of providing employment quotas for
Nepalese youths in the agriculture sector.
Her offer comes after the Nepalese Minister Gurung requested his
counterpart to support the Nepalese people, who witnessed a massive
earthquake on April 25 that killed more than 8600 people with thousands
left homeless.
Bhola Prasad Siwakoti, Secretary at the Ministry for Labor and
Employment informed Xinhua on Monday, "The Canadian government has
agreed to hire the youths to work for six months to a year in the
seasonal agricultural farming."
However, they are yet to decide upon the number of quotas and the
procedures. "Only the preliminary discussion has been held, we will hold
more round of talks to finalize the matter", Secretary Siwakoti added.
How Survivors in Nepal Are Getting Better Earthquake Aid -
TIME http://bit.ly/1cxDnNM
#WeStandWithNepal
Oh Jacqueline... what a share... gave money through bank and it's suggested we can donate through Doctors Without Borders (did this with Ebola) and Red Cross and UNICEF ... Nepal is such a beautiful nation of brothers and sisters..... #WeStandWithNepal - the troops of our nations are just so awesome... and the volunteers.... their beautiful haunted faces..... it's good 2 see aid getting through.... swear one more hurt child is more than can stand.... and the old ones ... beautiful Nepal...
On Saturday 25 April a
massive 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal. It severely shook the
lives of at least 8m people and left many homeless. Nepal’s major
cities, including the capital Kathmandu, have been badly damaged and
rural areas near the epicentre have been completely cut off by
avalanches.
Apr 27, 2015 -TD donates $50000 to the Red Cross for
disaster relief inNepal,Read
...around the globe:
Canadian Retail, includingTD Canada Trust, TD ...
Nepal. (Ottawa, April 29, 2015) - The Canadian
Red Cross is pleased to announce that nine banks in Canada...NepalRed Cross staff and...TD Canada Trust.
Apr
27, 2015 -FindDoctors Without Borders Canada/Médecins
Sans Frontières (MSF)Canadaon .... They are currently at theNepaleseborder on their way to the ... April 25:MSFannounces initial response to earthquake inNepal.
Nepal: MSF teams witness destruction caused by the second earthquake while assessing needs in remote areas
Brian Sokol/Panos
People sit on stone steps in their destroyed village in the Tsum valley of Gorkha District, Nepal, on May 7. On April 25 a magnitude 7.8 earthquake killed more than 8,000 people and destroyed massive amounts of property. A second quake on May 12 has created even more destruction and casualties, especially in Nepal's remote mountain regions. MSF teams are working to bring badly needed medical care to the areas most cut off from available aid.
May 13, 2015
Shortly after an earthquake hit Nepal on May 12 — just two weeks after an earlier earthquake on April 25 — MSF quickly started assessing needs in the affected areas, most of which are once again in the remote mountain districts.
An MSF team that headed for Dolakha district witnessed first-hand villages being destroyed by the earthquake and landslides. Dolakha district was the epicentre of yesterday’s 7.3 magnitude earthquake.
In Charikot, a village at the edge of the mountain, buildings had collapsed. The village of Sailungeshwar was affected by many landslides, some of which were ongoing at the time of the assessment.
MSF is assessing the needs in the affected areas while providing medical and relief assistance to the populations in need including those affected by the April 25 earthquake.
A second earthquake today hit Nepal, this time with an epicentre 80 kilometres east of Kathmandu, in Dolakha district. Teams from Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) are conducting assessments in the affected areas, including Dolakha itself. In the Charikot area of Dolakha district they have seen villages destroyed by this second quake.
An additional MSF team is conducting an assessment in Bhaktapur, east of Kathmandu, while other MSF medical teams have divided and are visiting various hospitals in Kathmandu ready to intervene immediately if necessary.
This comes as the Nepali population struggles to recover from the loss of life and substantial damage that followed the earthquake of April 25 in which over 8,000 people died.
“This complicates an already precarious situation. There is going to be more trouble accessing the affected areas. MSF is strengthening its emergency operations and re-assessing the needs of those affected by the current earthquake in order to respond accordingly and immediately,” says, Dan Sermand, MSF’s Country Director in Nepal
For the last two weeks, MSF teams have been providing medical assistance and distributing food and shelter to remote areas impacted by the previous earthquake. MSF has also set-up an inflatable hospital in Arughat in Gorkha district, which is running and serving the population affected by that previous disaster.
From May 5, 2015:
On April 25, a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal, with its epicentre in Gorkha district, 200 kilometres northwest of the capital, Kathmandu. As of April 30, the government of Nepal reported 7,365 deaths and over 14,000 injured. More than 130,000 houses were destroyed and 85,856 houses damaged. The country’s only international airport in Kathmandu is heavily congested due to the arrival of numerous international organizations bringing in aid. Tremors were felt strongly in northern India, where to date a reported 72 people have been killed and 237 injured in the states of Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. Casualties are expected to rise. In Tibet, the death toll currently stands at 17.
Since April 29, Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) medical teams in Nepal have started reaching people spread across isolated mountain villages by helicopter and on foot. The districts of Dhading, Gorkha, Rasuwa and Sindhupalchowk were hit hard on April 25 by a 7.8 magnitude earthquake, and little or no assistance has reached many villages.
While the most critically injured people were evacuated in the days immediately after the earthquake, those remaining have been trapped in their villages, as roads and walking tracks have been cut off by avalanches and landslides. MSF medical teams are flying by helicopter to assess the needs and provide assistance in these remote villages. Between April 29 and May 4, MSF’s medical teams saw people in more than 15 villages.
May 4: The 20-bed inflatable hospital being set up by MSF in Arughat, northwest of Kathmandu, will admit it’s first patients within the next couple of days.
On May 3, an MSF team also set up a temporary clinic in the area of Chhapchet, in Dhading district, and began providing basic healthcare and minor surgical interventions. The team will work to spread the word in the surrounding villages that people can now come to the clinic to receive care. On May 4, another team landed in Lapubesi in Gorkha district, and will stay for three days to provide medical assistance in the area.
“We are seeing people in need of basic healthcare, as well as a number of people with wounds sustained in the earthquake that have now become infected,” says Anne Kluijtmans, an MSF nurse. “We are cleaning and dressing wounds, as well as distributing antibiotics and pain medication. We have also treated cases of pneumonia, including among children.”
Henrik Jörnvall/MSF
Food, shelter and mental-health needs
With many villages completely or partially destroyed, the most significant need is for shelter, while some of the more isolated villages in the mountains are facing shortages of food. MSF teams have started distributing high energy biscuits and blankets in Kyanjin Gumba in Rasuwa district, and in Nampa Golche in Sindhupalchowk district. They have also provided more than 500 shelter kits in Gorkha district. Our teams are continuing to look into effective ways to transport both food and shelter materials into the mountains, where temperatures at the higher altitudes are dropping below zero at night.
MSF staff are also seeing significant mental-health needs stemming from the traumatic experience of the earthquake, and we are adding mental-health workers to our teams in order to start providing psychological first aid in some of the most affected villages.
Hospital support
MSF assessed the situation in a number of the main hospitals in and around Kathmandu that have been treating injured patients. While hospitals were overwhelmed with patients in the first days after the earthquake, the pressure has reduced significantly and the phase for treating patients with acute trauma has passed. People are now waiting for more minor or follow-up surgeries, as well as treatment for regular illnesses. MSF has made donations to some hospitals in the capital. In Kathmandu and Pokhara, the authorities responsible for emergency management have mobilized a unit of local nephrologists to treat crush syndrome cases. This has contributed effectively to saving lives.
An MSF surgical team provided support for three days at the hospital in Bhaktapur, on the outskirts of Kathmandu, in order to help the staff operate on waiting patients. In the town of Arughat, in Gorkha district, MSF is setting up a 20-bed inflatable hospital to initially provide treatment for wounded.
Corinne Baker/MSF
Challenge to reach those in most need
Logistical challenges, including congestion at Kathmandu airport and the fact that the majority of affected areas are inaccessible by road, have hampered MSF’s efforts to scale up activities quickly.
“Our priority is to reach people in places where no one else is going and who have not received assistance,” says Dr. Prince Mathew, who was one of the first MSF staff members to arrive in the country. “So it has been a huge challenge logistically to get the necessary supplies in through the congested airport, and secure the air transport we need to be able to provide medical assistance and deliver shelter and relief materials to the people in most urgent need.”
MSF now has more than 120 staff members in the country and has flown in more than 80 tons of supplies, including the inflatable hospital. In addition to flying supplies into Kathmandu, MSF teams working across the border in Bihar state in India, were able to quickly transport shelter, hygiene and kitchen kits by truck to Gorkha, 200 kilometres northwest of Kathmandu and close to the epicentre of the earthquake.
“We will increase the number of clinics as quickly as possible,” says Dr. Mathew. “Our teams also plan to distribute tons of shelters, hygiene materials and cooking equipment. With the monsoon season approaching, we’re worried that the window of opportunity to reach people in these areas is rapidly closing.”
How you can help
MSF teams are on the ground in Nepal, providing emergency assistance in response to the April 25 earthquake. If you would like to help MSF deliver essential care to people affected by this and other disasters, please visit our fundraising page.
Your donations will go directly to MSF's general emergency fund, which enables us to act immediately when crises occur anywhere in the world, and has made our rapid response and ongoing efforts in Nepal possible.
From May 1:
Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) has teams on the ground working to assist those affected by the recent earthquake in Nepal. More personnel and supplies are on the way.
An MSF team (doctor, nurse, logistician) began mobile clinic activities by helicopter in the mountains to the north of Kathmandu, including Langtang valley and Rasuwa district. They saw around 30 patients and also assessed the needs in a number of villages in the area.
A surgical team (surgeon, anesthetist, nurse) began supporting the hospital in Bhaktapur. They have managed fivemajor surgeries so far.
A mobile medical team is visiting remote villages in the mountains to the north-west of Kathmandu to provide consultations and assess further needs.
A surgeon is assessing the the capacity of the referral hospital in Bharatpur, south of Ghorka, which has been receiving patients following the earthquake.
An MSF team is continuing its assessment of a location to set up the inflatable hospital that arrived by cargo plane on Wednesday night.
A nurse and a doctor are providing support in the medical evacuation of some patients from Larpak in Ghorka district.
Update April 30: MSF Cargo flight carrying the inflatable hospital arrived in Kathmandu, MSF teams carry out aerial assessment of the district of Gorhkha
MSF Emergency Coordinator, Eric Pujo gives an update on MSF's relief efforts in Kathmandu, Nepal. April 29, 2015
WATCH: MSF Canada's Executive Director Stephen Cornish speaks to CTV News: Canada AM about our earthquake response in Nepal. April 28, 2015
Earthquake in Nepal - Medical Focus: Crush Syndrome
Canadian MSF doctor Tim Jagatic describes the dangers and challenges of treating patients with crush syndrome.
From April 30:
Overnight, MSF's first cargo plane has been able to land in Kathmandu and all the contents have been cleared through customs. This cargo plane has come from France containing four inflatable tents to construct a field hospital, as well as the necessary medical supplies. The team is identifying the most appropriate location to construct the hospital where the needs are significant and where we can have the biggest added value.
A surgical team will start providing support to the hospital in Bhaktapur district, a heavily affected area east of Kathmandu.
A three-person team (medical doctor, nurse, logistician) has left Kathmandu in a helicopter to begin mobile clinics in remote villages in the mountainous areas of Sindhupalchowk district, which have been heavily hit by the earthquake and where little or no assistance has been provided.
On Wednesday, a team was able to get more than 200 shelter kits to the village of Gumba in Ghorka district.
On Thursday, further assessments are being carried out in hospitals in Kathmandu and Bhaktapur to evaluate the capacity for management of "crush syndrome."
MSF
A three-person MSF team began running mobile clinics by helicopter to remote villages in the mountains to the north of Kathmandu. Many villages have been completely or partially destroyed, and people are living under makeshift shelters. The earthquake and subsequent avalanches have cut off access to many villages so people are stuck with no way out.
From April 29:
MSF currently has 61 staff members on the ground in Nepal.
On Tuesday, a team assessed the situation in Gorkha District Hospital, which has suffered damage from the earthquake. The in-patient department is destroyed. On Wednesday, a truck carrying a rapid surgical intervention kit left Kathmandu for Ghorka (200 kilometres north-east) now that the road has been re-opened. The surgical team is on their way to Ghorka to set up and begin responding to surgical needs ine area.
On Tuesday, a team assessed the Tudikhel makeshift camp in the centre of Kathmandu. The water and sanitation situation is concerning, with people having limited access to clean drinking water and the public toilets overflowing. In terms of medical needs at this camp, a team of doctors from Bir hospital (located opposite the camp) have set up a makeshift consultation area and are managing primary health care needs. Many of the people in the camp are from in and around Kathmandu, but there are also a number of migrant workers who can no longer stay in the temporary accommodation they normally have in the city. There are others in the camp who have come from outside Kathmandu after their villages were destroyed in the earthquake. MSF is looking into the water and sanitation situation in the camp urgently.
On Tuesday, a team assessed the needs and capacity in four hospitals in Kathmandu, with a focus on trauma and nephrology departments (to understand the capacity to deal with "crush syndrome"). Generally these hospitals are overstretched after dealing with influxes of wounded following the earthquake, and are also trying to continue to deal with regular patients with chronic illnesses and other needs. Kathmandu Teaching Hospital has been receiving an increased number of patients requiring dialysis — mostly chronic rather than people with crush syndrome — coming from other hospitals. There are currently 200 patients on their list needing dialysis, with only eight machines to meet the demand. MSF made a donation of wound-dressing kits to two hospitals and is looking into options for supporting specific hospitals in Kathmandu according to the need.
On Tuesday, an MSF team returned to a makeshift camp in Bhaktapur (40 km east of Kathmandu), where more than 1,500 people are staying. They are facing a difficult situation in terms of water and sanitation, with people collecting rain water and lacking latrines. They have yet to receive assistance and have either lost their homes in the earthquake or are too scared to move back to their homes in case of aftershocks. MSF is looking into the water and sanitation situation in the camp urgently. The team also donated dressing and first aid materials to the hospital in Bhaktapur.
On Tuesday, a surgical team arrived in Kathmandu and will be deployed as soon as possible with a mobile field hospital, which is en route to Kathmandu.
From April 28:
MSF currently has approximately 38 staff on the ground in Nepal, based in Kathmandu and Ghorka.
Kathmandu has experienced relatively low-level destruction, with the vast majority of buildings and houses still standing. However, many people are sleeping outside in tents and makeshift shelters as they are afraid to be inside due to aftershocks. This is a concern given that storms are expected over the coming days.
MSF does not yet have a full overview of the needs, especially outside Kathmandu in areas that are only accessible by helicopter. Teams are focusing on accessing and assessing the situation in more remote and isolated areas outside Kathmandu. They are doing rapid assessments so that we can begin operations immediately and target our response according to the needs. Our priority is to reach people who have not yet received any assistance.
From first aerial assessments, the damage seems to be quite significant in a number of villages in the mountainous region. Due to the destruction, there is a need for relief items such as shelter, hygiene materials and cooking equipment.
On Monday, April 27, an MSF team assessed the situation in two main hospitals in Kathmandu (Bir Hospital and Teaching Hospital). Both have been receiving wounded and are now lacking supplies. Patients are sleeping in tents in the grounds of Bir hospital.
An MSF team did an aerial assessment by helicopter of areas to the east, north and west of Kathmandu. Of approximately 65 villages viewed, around 45 had visible damage or were destroyed. These areas are isolated and only accessible by helicopter. One village, Warpak, has suffered extensive damage and the team plans to respond there. Teams arrived by road from Bihar (India) into Ghorka The town itself has not suffered damage.
An MSF team assessed the situation in Bhaktapur (east of Kathmandu), which has experienced destruction. The hospital there does not have a functional operating theatre and all cases are being referred to Kathmandu. People are staying in makeshift shelters in the open air, and the sanitation conditions are concerning, with no latrines and only scarce water.
Relief items (1,000 shelter kits, 500 hygiene kits, 500 kitchen kits) are on the way by road from Bihar (India) to Ghorka. These will be distributed to affected people in villages outside Ghorka.
Initial briefing of the first MSF surgical team to arrive at the Kathmandu airport in Nepal.
From April 27:
One 17-member team is in Kathmandu. They have carried out an initial assessment of the damage by helicopter.
One team is expected in Kathmandu later today after flying in from New Delhi. They were initially rerouted back to India after aftershocks prevented the plane from landing.
One team has reached Gorkha, 70 km northwest of Kathmandu, after travelling by road from Bihar state in India. Three trucks containing essential relief items have also crossed the Nepalese border and are on their way to Gorkha.
An 11-member surgical and medical team is on its way to Kathmandu from Brussels with a "rapid intervention surgical kit" which will enable them to set up a surgical unit and start performing surgical operations within the vital 72-hour window after the earthquake struck. The team will also travel to the districts of Tanahu, Lamjung and Gorkha, with the aim of providing support to hospitals, running mobile clinics, distributing essential relief items (blankets, hygiene kits and shelters), and providing water and sanitation, according to people’s needs.
A five-member team (including a surgeon) left Japan today for Kathmandu.
An inflatable hospital and supplies of drugs will be dispatched from MSF’s supply depot in Bordeaux, France on April 28.
Thirty tons of emergency supplies were dispatched from MSF’s supply depot in Ostende, Belgium on April 27.
A team of medics and water and sanitation specialists left Amsterdam for Nepal on April 27.
Four teams left Bihar state, India, on April 26. They are currently at the Nepalese border on their way to the worst-affected areas.
A three-member team (including a midwife) is due to arrive in Pokhara on April 27.
A three-member team (including a midwife and an anaesthetist) left Paris on April 27.
Cholera is endemic in Nepal so it is crucial that we act now to stop any chance of the disease getting a foothold. Read more ->. The people of Nepal need us ...
Help us help those who are most vulnerable. ... Second earthquake strikes Nepal. ...Your gift will help UNICEF respond to the needs of children and families ...
Remember us for entire Nepalese community services in and around Canada. Feel free ... We all want the resources to flow to those who are in the most need.
---------------------------------
Joe South- 1970- Walk a Mile in My Shoes - with Lyrics
LYRICS: Walk A Mile In My Shoes
Joe South and The Believers
Written by Joe South
Peaked at # 12 in 1970
Re-make 4 months later by Willie Hightower managed only # 107
If I could be you and you could be me for just one hour
If we could find a way to get inside each other's mind
If you could see you through my eyes instead of your ego
I believe you'd be surprised to see that you'd been blind
Walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my shoes
Yeah, before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes
Well, your whole world you see around you is just a reflection
And the law of common says you're gonna reap just what you sow
So unless you've lived a life of total perfection
Mm-mm, you'd better be careful of every stone that you should throw
Yet we spend the day throwin' stones at one another
'cause I don't think or wear my hair same way you do
Well, I may be common people but I'm your brother
And when you strike out and try to hurt me it's a 'hurtin you,
Walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my shoes
Yeah, before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes
There are people on reservations and out in the ghettos
And brother, there, but for the grace of God, go you and I
If I only had the wings of little angels don'tcha you know I'd fly
To the top of the mountain and then I'd cry?
Walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my shoes
Hey, before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Better walk a mile in my shoes
Walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my shoes
Oh, before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes,
Walk a mile in my shoes, walk a mile in my shoes
Hey, before you abuse, criticize and accuse
Walk a mile in my shoes
Foreign
aid or (development assistance) is often regarded as being too much, or
wasted on corrupt recipient governments despite any good intentions
from donor countries. In reality, both the quantity and quality of aid
have been poor and donor nations have not been held to account.
There
are numerous forms of aid, from humanitarian emergency assistance, to
food aid, military assistance, etc. Development aid has long been
recognized as crucial to help poor developing nations grow out of
poverty.
In 1970, the world’s rich countries agreed to give 0.7%
of their GNI (Gross National Income) as official international
development aid, annually. Since that time, despite billions given each
year, rich nations have rarely met their actual promised targets. For
example, the US is often the largest donor in dollar terms, but ranks
amongst the lowest in terms of meeting the stated 0.7% target.
Furthermore, aid has often come with a price of its own for the developing nations:
Aid is often wasted on conditions that the recipient must use overpriced goods and services from donor countries
Most aid does not actually go to the poorest who would need it the most
Aid
amounts are dwarfed by rich country protectionism that denies market
access for poor country products, while rich nations use aid as a lever
to open poor country markets to their products
Large projects or massive grand strategies often fail to help the vulnerable as money can often be embezzled away.
This article explores who has benefited most from this aid, the recipients or the donors.
Governments Cutting Back on Promised Responsibilities
“Trade,
not aid” is regarded as an important part of development promoted by
some nations. But in the context of international obligations, it is
also criticized by many as an excuse for rich countries to cut back aid
that has been agreed and promised at the United Nations.
Rich Nations Agreed at UN to 0.7% of GNP To Aid
Recently, there was an EU pledge to spend 0.56% of GNI on poverty reduction by 2010, and 0.7% by 2015.
However,
The donor governments promised to spend 0.7% of GNP on ODA (Official Development Assistance) at the UN General Assembly in 1970—some 40 years ago
The deadline for reaching that target was the mid-1970s.
By 2015 (the year by when the Millennium Development Goals are hoped to be achieved) the target will be 45 years old.
This target was codified in a United Nations General Assembly Resolution, and a key paragraph says:
In
recognition of the special importance of the role which can be
fulfilled only by official development assistance, a major part of
financial resource transfers to the developing countries should be
provided in the form of official development assistance. Each
economically advanced country will progressively increase its official
development assistance to the developing countries and will exert its
best efforts to reach a minimum net amount of 0.7 per cent of its gross
national product at market prices by the middle of the Decade.
Financial
aid will, in principle, be untied. While it may not be possible to
untie assistance in all cases, developed countries will rapidly and
progressively take what measures they can … to reduce the extent of
tying of assistance and to mitigate any harmful effects [and make loans
tied to particular sources] available for utilization by the recipient
countries for the purpose of buying goods and services from other
developing countries.
… Financial and technical assistance should
be aimed exclusively at promoting the economic and social progress of
developing countries and should not in any way be used by the developed
countries to the detriment of the national sovereignty of recipient
countries.
Developed countries will provide, to the greatest extent possible, an increased flow of aid on a long-term and continuing basis.
The aid is to come from the roughly 22 members of the OECD, known as the Development Assistance Committee (DAC). [Note that terminology is changing.
GNP, which the OECD used up to 2000 is now replaced with the similar
GNI, Gross National Income which includes a terms of trade adjustment.
Some quoted articles and older parts of this site may still use GNP or
GDP.]
ODA
is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but
doesn’t include private contributions or private capital flows and
investments. The main objective of ODA is to promote development. It is
therefore a kind of measure on the priorities that governments
themselves put on such matters. (Whether that necessarily reflects their
citizen’s wishes and priorities is a different matter!)
Almost all rich nations fail this obligation
Even though these targets and agendas have been set, year after year almost all rich nations have constantly failed to reach their agreed obligations of the 0.7% target. Instead of 0.7%, the amount of aid has been around 0.2 to 0.4%, some $150 billion short each year.
Furthermore, the quality of the aid has been poor. As Pekka Hirvonen from the Global Policy Forum summarizes:
Recent
increases [in foreign aid] do not tell the whole truth about rich
countries’ generosity, or the lack of it. Measured as a proportion of
gross national income (GNI), aid lags far behind the 0.7 percent target
the United Nations set 35 years ago. Moreover, development assistance is
often of dubious quality. In many cases,
Aid is primarily designed to serve the strategic and economic interests of the donor countries;
Or [aid is primarily designed] to benefit powerful domestic interest groups;
Aid systems based on the interests of donors instead of the needs of recipients’ make development assistance inefficient;
Too little aid reaches countries that most desperately need it; and,
All too often, aid is wasted on overpriced goods and services from donor countries.
The
Cold War years saw a high amount of aid (though not near the 0.7% mark)
as each super power and their allies aided regimes friendly to their
interests. The end of the Cold War did not see some of the savings from
the reduced military budgets being put towards increased aid, as hoped.
Instead, as noted by the development organization, the South Centre, “developing countries found themselves competing with a number of countries in transition for scarce official assistance.”
As
others have long criticized, aid had a geopolitical value for the donor
countries as aid increased when a Cold War had to be fought. (A long
decline in the post Cold War 1990s has seen another rise, this time to
fight terrorism, also detailed below.)
The issues raised by
Hirvonen above are detailed further below. But before going into the
poor quality of aid, a deeper look at the numbers:
Some donate many dollars, but are low on GNI percent
Some interesting observations can be made about the amount of aid. For example:
USA’s
aid, in terms of percentage of their GNP has almost always been lower
than any other industrialized nation in the world, though paradoxically
since 2000, their dollar amount has been the highest.
Between
1992 and 2000, Japan had been the largest donor of aid, in terms of raw
dollars. From 2001 the United States claimed that position, a year that
also saw Japan’s amount of aid drop by nearly 4 billion dollars.
Aid increasing since 2001 but still way below obligations
Throughout
the 1990s, ODA declined from a “high” of 0.33% of total DAC aid in 1990
to a low of 0.22% in 1997. 2001 onwards has seen a trend of increased
aid. Side Note»
Between
2001 and 2004, there was a continual increase in aid, but much of it
due to geo-strategic concerns of the donor, such as fighting terrorism.
Increases in 2005 were largely due to enormous debt relief for Iraq,
Nigeria, plus some other one-off large items.
(As will be detailed
further below, aid has typically followed donor’s interests, not
necessarily the recipients, and as such the poorest have not always been
the focus for such aid. Furthermore, the numbers, as low as they are,
are actually more flattering to donor nations than they should be: the
original definition of aid was never supposed to include debt relief or
humanitarian emergency assistance, but instead was meant for development
purposes. This is discussed further below, too.)
In 2009, the OCED and many others feared official aid would decline due to the global financial crisis.
They urged donor nations to make aid “countercyclical”; not to reduce
it when it is needed most — by those who did not cause the crisis.
And indeed, for 2009, aid did increase
as official stats from the OECD shows. It rose 0.7% from just under
$123 bn in 2008 to just over $123 bn in 2009 (at constant 2008 prices).In 2011, the OECD noted a 6.5% increase in official development aid in 2010 over the previous year
to $129 billion, but it still averaged only 0.32% of the combined GNI
of donor countries — less than half of what had been promised long ago.
But they also warned about worrying trends for the future; donor
countries are expecting to reduce the rate of increased official aid.
The
OECD also noted that due to continued failure to meet pledged aid in
recent years (some nations have met those pledges, however), a code of
good pledging practice was to be drawn up, which might be a first step
towards better donor accountability.
2011: first aid decline in years
In 2012, the OECD noted an almost 3% decline in aid over 2010’s aid
— the first decline in a while. Although this decline was expected at
some point because of the financial problems in most wealthy nations,
those same problems are rippling to the poorest nations, so a drop in
aid (ignoring unhealthy reliance on it for the moment) is significant
for them. It would also not be surprising if aid declines or stays
stagnant for a while, as things like global financial problems not only
take a while to ripple through, but of course take a while to overcome.
During
recent years, some developing countries have been advancing (think
China, India, Brazil, etc). So if there was declining aid due to many no
longer needing it then that would be understandable. However, as the
data shows, whether it has been recent years, or throughout the history
of DAC aid, the poorest countries have received only a quarter of all
aid. Even during recent increases in aid, these allocations did not
change. In addition, as industrialized nations’ attention will turn
towards their own economies, aid will be less of an issue, and as
economics editor of the Guardian notes,
The
fizz has gone out of the anti-poverty campaign groups. … their own
performance … in recent years has been distinctly lacklustre. Even in
the good years, politicians had to be pushed into action, and this was
nearly always the result of public demands for change orchestrated by
development groups. Until the spirit and the energy that led to Jubilee
2000 and Make Poverty History is rekindled, western politicians will be
able to get away with breaking their promises.
(The
first comment in the above article also makes a point that despite the
predictable aid fall, it is to the industrialized nations’ credit that
it didn’t fall by a much larger amount given the situation most of them
are in, economically.)
2013: aid rebounds
In 2014, the OCED noted that Development aid rose by 6.1% in real terms in 2013 to reach the highest level ever recorded,
despite continued pressure on budgets in OECD countries since the
global economic crisis. This rise was a rebound after two years of
falling volumes, as a number of governments stepped up their spending on
foreign aid.
However, it was also noted that assistance to the neediest countries continued to fall,
which raises worries about the purpose of the increased aid. As the
rest of this article has shown, for decades, much foreign aid has been
less about helping the recipient, but furthering agendas of donor
countries, for example to gain favorable access to resources or markets
in recipient countries. It may be too early to tell for sure, but in the
context of the financial crisis that has hurt donor countries
particularly, some of the increase in aid may be to help with domestic
economic concerns.
While the financial crisis does show the reliance on aid is not a good strategy for poor countries at any time, some have little choice in the short term.
Donor nations’ wealth (GNI) generally increased through the 1990s to 2010
The levels of aid (tied to that growth) should have increased too
Instead,
in the 1990s it actually fell, while picking up in the 2000s. (Some of
those recent rises, especially the large increases, were almost entirely
due to debt write-off for a handful of countries — such as Iraq.)
Aid for the poorest countries remained at a steady dollar amount in this period.
Given overall wealth of donors had increased, this in effect meant that they reduced their aid to the poorest countries.
Despite the loss in GNI in 2009 due to the financial crisis, aid did increase slightly.
It
should be noted that in 2009 when donor nations had lower GNI due to
the global financial crisis they still increased their aid in % terms,
perhaps heeding the OECD’s plea mentioned earlier. The expected decline
in aid eventually occurred in 2011, as effects from the global financial
crisis take time to ripple through in terms of policy impacts. But the
decline was perhaps not as sharp as could have been expected.
Source: OECD, September 2014
The
charts and data below are reproduced from the OECD (using their latest
data, at time of writing. It will be updated when new data becomes
available).
When broken down by region since 1970 the poorest countries have received just a quarter of all DAC aid:
Recent years, however, show a similar trend, with the poorest countries receiving a quarter of all aid:
While
aid to the wealthier developing countries has reduced somewhat, the
portion going to the poorest countries has hardly changed. In effect,
most ODA aid does not appear to go to the poorest nations like we might
naturally assume it would:
Aid money is actually way below what has been promised
2006
onwards is typically regarded as years of high aid volumes. However, at
around 0.3% of GNI, if all DAC countries had given their full 0.7%,
2010’s aid alone would have been almost $284 billion (at 2010 prices),
or an increase of almost $159 billion.
Considering the typical aid amount at around 0.25 to 0.4% of GNI for over 40 years, the total shortfall is a substantial and staggering amount: just under $5 trillion aid shortfall at 2012 prices:
The numbers are probably flattering donors too much,
for (as detailed further below), a lot of “development aid” today
includes items not originally designated for this purpose (such as debt
relief, emergency relief, etc.)
Averaging this data since 1970, when the target of donating 0.7% of national income was agreed, shows the following:
Between 1970 and 2009, the shortfall in aid has been 58%:
Taking data since 2000 up to 2012, the shortfall increases to 61%:
While
dollar amounts of aid increases, the gap between the promised amount
(0.7% of GNI) and the actual given seems to be increasing.
This
gap was quite small during the 70s, and got smaller in the 80s, but has
since widened considerably. (But even when the gap was close, the
average ODA aid was around 0.35% of GNI at best, still far below the
promised 0.7%.)
Taking
just the latest figures (at time of writing), many nations, while
seemingly providing large quantities of aid, are far below the levels
they had agreed:
(See also the side note, Official global foreign aid shortfall: $5 trillion for more details.)
Side note on private contributions
As
an aside, it should be emphasized that the above figures are comparing
government spending. Such spending has been agreed at international
level and is spread over a number of priorities.
Individual/private
donations may be targeted in many ways. However, even though the charts
above do show US aid to be poor (in percentage terms) compared to the
rest, the generosity of the American people is far more
impressive than their government. Private aid/donation typically through
the charity of individual people and organizations can be weighted to
certain interests and areas. Nonetheless, it is interesting to note for
example, based on estimates in 2002, Americans privately gave at least
$34 billion overseas — more than twice the US official foreign aid of
$15 billion at that time:
International giving by US foundations: $1.5 billion per year
Charitable giving by US businesses: $2.8 billion annually
American NGOs: $6.6 billion in grants, goods and volunteers.
Religious overseas ministries: $3.4 billion, including health care, literacy training, relief and development.
US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.3 billion
Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $18 billion in 2000
Source: Dr. Carol Adelman, Aid and Comfort, Tech Central Station, 21 August 2002.
Although
Adelman admitted that “there are no complete figures for international
private giving” she still claimed that Americans are “clearly the most
generous on earth in public—but especially in private—giving”. While her
assertions should be taken with caution, the numbers are high.
The Center for Global Prosperity, from the Hudson Institute, (whose director is Adelman) published its first Index of Global Philanthropy
in 2006, which contained updated numbers from those stated above. The
total of US private giving, since Adelman’s previous report, had
increased to a massive $71 billion in 2004. Page 16 of their report
breaks it down as follows:
International giving by US foundations: $3.4 billion
Charitable giving by US businesses: $4.9 billion
American NGOs: $9.7
Religious overseas ministries: $4.5
US colleges scholarships to foreign students: $1.7 billion
Personal remittances from the US to developing countries: $47 billion.
While
the majority of the increase was personal remittances ($18 bn in 2000
to $47 bn in 2004), other areas have also seen increases.
Side Note on Private Remittances
Globally,
private remittances have increased tremendously in recent years,
especially as a number of developing countries have seen rapid growth
and economic migration has increased amongst these nations. In 2005, private remittances were estimated to be around $167 billion, far more than total government aid. In
2008, the World Bank estimated private remittances between 350 to 650
billion dollars were sent back home by 150 million international
migrants.
Many
economists and others, including Adelman in the article above, point out
that personal remittances are effective. They “don’t require the
expensive overhead of government consultants, or the interference of
corrupt foreign officials. Studies have shown that roads, clinics,
schools and water pumps are being funded by these private dollars. For
most developing countries, private philanthropy and investment flows are
much larger than official aid.”
Unfortunately Adelman doesn’t
cite the studies she mentions because “these private dollars” do not
seem to be remittance dollars, but private investment. Economists at the
IMF surveyed
literature on remittances and admitted that, “the role of remittances in
development and economic growth is not well understood … partly because
the literatures on the causes and effects of remittances remain
separate.” When they tried to see what role remittances played, they
concluded that “remittances have a negative effect on economic growth” as it usually goes into private consumption, and takes place under asymmetric information and economic uncertainty.
Even if that turns out to be wrong, the other issue also is whether personal remittances can be counted as American
giving, as people point out that it is often foreign immigrant workers
sending savings back to their families in other countries. Political
commentator Daniel Drezner takes up this issue arguing, “Americans aren’t remitting this money—foreign nationals are.”
Comparing Adelman’s figures with her previous employer’s, USAID,
Drezner adds that “Adelman’s figure is accurate if you include foreign
remittances.” However, if you do not count foreign remittances then it
matches the numbers that the research institute, the Center for Global
Development uses in their rankings (see below).
Finally, Drezner
suggests that Adelman is not necessarily incorrect in her core thesis
that Americans are generous, but “lumping remittances in with charity
flows exaggerates the generosity of Americans as a people.”UNICEF also notes the dangers of counting on personal remittances solely based on economic value, as reported by Inter Press Service.
Latin America alone received some $45 billion in remittances in 2004,
almost 27% of the total. At a regional conference, noting a Mexican
household survery showing remittances contributed to improved provision
of child care, the United Nations children’s charity, UNICEF, warned
that the importance of family unity cannot be underestimated in terms of
child well-being. If a parent is away working in another country, for a
child, “the loss of their most important role models, nurturers and
caregivers, … has a significant psychosocial impact that can translate
into feelings of abandonment, vulnerability, and loss of self-esteem,
among others.”In addition, as the global financial crisis starts to spread, private remittances will decrease,
as well as foreign aid in general. Some nations rely a lot on these
remittances. Remittances to Sri Lanka, for example, make up some 70% of
the country’s trade deficit, according to the Inter Press Service
(see previous link). This raises questions as to whether aid and
remittances are sustainable in the long term or signal a more
fundamental economic problem, as discussed further below.
Adjusting Aid Numbers to Factor Private Contributions, and more
Contrary
to popular belief, the US is not the only nation with tax incentives to
encourage private contributions. (Only Austria, Finland and Sweden do
not offer incentives.)
Factoring that in, the US ranks joint 19th out of 21
Japan fairs a lot worse
Roodman
also admits that “many—perhaps most—important aspects of aid quality
are still not reflected in the index—factors such as the realism of
project designs and the effectiveness of structural adjustment
conditionality.”
Ranking the Rich based on Commitment to Development
The CGD therefore attempts to factor in some quality measures based on their commitment to development for the world’s poor. This index considers aid, trade, investment, migration, environment, security, and technology.
Their
result shows the Netherlands first, Japan last, and the US ranking
thirteenth, just behind the United Kingdom, out of 21 total. As David
Roodman notes in his announcement of the 2006 Commitment to Development Index,
“As in the past, the G-7 ‘leading industrial nations’ have not led on
the [Commitment to Development Index]; Germany, top among them, is in
9th place overall.”
Recent claims of some “leading industrial
nations” being “stingy” may put people on the defensive, but many
nations whom we are told are amongst the world’s best, can in fact, do
better. The results were charted as follows:
Source: Center for Global Development, Commitment to Development Index 2006
Adelman,
further above noted that the US is “clearly the most generous on earth
in public—but especially in private—giving”, yet the CGD suggests
otherwise, saying that the US does not close the gap with most other rich countries;
“The US gives 13c/day/person in government aid….American’s private
giving—another 5c/day—is high by international standards but does not
close the gap with most other rich countries. Norway gives $1.02/day in
public aid and 24c/day in private aid” per person. (These numbers will
change of course, year by year, but the point here is that Adelman’s
assertion—one that many seem to have—is not quite right.)
Private donations and philanthropy
Government
aid, while fraught with problems (discussed below), reflects foreign
policy objectives of the donor government in power, which can differ
from the generosity of the people of that nation. It can also be less
specialized than private contributions and targets are internationally
agreed to be measurable.
Private donations, especially large
philanthropic donations and business givings, can be subject to
political/ideological or economic end-goals and/or subject to special
interest. A vivid example of this is in health issues around the world.
Amazingly large donations by foundations such as the Bill and Melinda
Gates Foundation are impressive, but the underlying causes of the
problems are not addressed, which require political solutions. As
Rajshri Dasgupta comments:
“Private
charity is an act of privilege, it can never be a viable alternative to
State obligations,” said Dr James Obrinski, of the organisation
Medicins sans Frontier, in Dhaka recently at the People’s Health
Assembly (see Himal, February 2001). In a nutshell, industry and private
donations are feel-good, short-term interventions and no substitute for
the vastly larger, and essentially political, task of bringing health
care to more than a billion poor people.
As
another example, Bill Gates announced in November 2002 a massive
donation of $100 million to India over ten years to fight AIDS there. It
was big news and very welcome by many. Yet, at the same time he made
that donation, he was making another larger donation—over $400 million,
over three years—to increase support for Microsoft’s software
development suite of applications and its platform, in competition with Linux and other rivals. Thomas Green, in a somewhat cynical article, questions who really benefits,
saying “And being a monster MS [Microsoft] shareholder himself, a ‘Big
Win’ in India will enrich him [Bill Gates] personally, perhaps well in
excess of the $100 million he’s donating to the AIDS problem. Makes you
wonder who the real beneficiary of charity is here.” (Emphasis is original.)
India
has potentially one tenth of the world’s software developers, so
capturing the market there of software development platforms is seen as
crucial. This is just one amongst many examples of what appears
extremely welcome philanthropy and charity also having other motives. It
might be seen as horrible to criticize such charity, especially on a
crucial issue such as AIDS, but that is not the issue. The concern is
that while it is welcome that this charity is being provided, at a
systemic level, such charity is unsustainable and shows ulterior
motives. Would Bill Gates have donated that much had there not been
additional interests for the company that he had founded?
In addition, as award-winning investigative reporter and author Greg Palast also notes,
the World Trade Organization’s Trade-Related Intellectual Property
Rights (TRIPS), “the rule which helps Gates rule, also bars African
governments from buying AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis medicine at cheap
market prices.” He also adds that it is killing more people than the
philanthropy saving. What Palast is hinting towards is the unequal rules
of trade and economics that are part of the world system, that has
contributed to countries such as most in Africa being unable to address
the scourge of AIDS and other problems, even when they want to. See for
example, the sections on free trade, poverty and corporations on this web site for more.
The LA Times has also found that the Gates Foundation has been investing in questionable companies that are often involved in environmental pollution, even child labor, and more.
In
addition to private contributions, when it comes to government aid,
these concerns can multiply as it may affect the economic and political
direction of an entire nation if such government aid is also tied into
political objectives that benefit the donor.
The
above talks a lot about numbers and attempts to address common
questions about who gives what, as for Americans and Europeans, there is
indeed a fascination of this topic.
Less mentioned in the media
is that some aid money that is pledged often involves double accounting
of sorts. Sometimes offers have even been reneged or just not delivered.
This site’s section on the Asian tsunami disaster and on third world debt has more on these aspects.
It
is common to hear many Americans claim that the US is the most generous
country on earth. While the numbers above may say otherwise in a
technical sense, is “who gives the most” really the important discussion
here? While important, concentrating on this one aspect diverts us from
other pressing issues such as does the aid actually help the recipient,
or does it actually help the donor.As we will see further
below, some aid has indeed been quite damaging for the recipient, while
at the same time being beneficial for the donor.
The Changing Definition of Aid Reveals a much Deeper Decline than What Numbers Alone Can Show
The South Centre,
mentioned earlier, notes that when the 0.7% of GNI promise for
development aid was made in 1970, “official development assistance was
to be understood as bilateral grants and loans on concessional terms,
and official contributions to multilateral agencies.”
But, as they
note, a number of factors have led to a large decline in aid, some that
cannot be shown by numbers and graphs, alone. Factors include:
Tighter budgetary constraints in richer countries during the 1980s;
Increasing number of countries competing for development aid funds;
Donors putting a broader interpretation on what constitutes development assistance.
On the last point above, South Centre notes that the broader interpretation “include categories which bear little relationship to the need of the developing countries for long term development capital.” (Emphasis Added.) Thus, those expanded categories for official development assistance include:
Provision of surplus commodities of little economic value;
Administrative costs;
Payments for care and education of refugees in donor countries;
Grants to NGOs and to domestic agencies to support emergency relief operations; and
Technical co-operation grants which pay for the services of nationals of the donor countries.
An analysis of OECD data over time shows such increases in non-development aid:
In
effect, not only has aid been way below that promised, but what has
been delivered has not always been for the original goal of development.The technical co-operation grants are also known as technical assistance. Action Aid, has been very critical about this and other forms of this broader interpretation which they have termed “phantom aid”:
This year we estimate that $37 billion—roughly half of global aid—is “phantom aid”, that is, it is not genuinely available to poor countries to fight poverty.
…
Nowhere is the challenge of increasing real aid as a share of overall
aid greater than in the case of technical assistance. At least one
quarter of donor budgets—some $19 billion in 2004—is spent in this way:
on consultants, research and training. This is despite a growing body of
evidence—much of it produced by donors themselves and dating back to
the 1960s—that technical assistance is often overpriced and ineffective,
and in the worst cases destroys rather than builds the capacity of the
poorest countries.
… Although this ineffectiveness is an open
secret within the development community, donors continue to insist on
large technical assistance components in most projects and programmes
they fund. They continue to use technical assistance as a “soft” lever
to police and direct the policy agendas of developing country
governments, or to create ownership of the kinds of reforms donors deem
suitable. Donor funded advisers have even been brought in to draft
supposedly “country owned” poverty reduction strategies.
The above report by Action Aid
uses OECD data, as I have done. Their figures are based on 2004 data,
which at time of their publication was the latest available. However,
they also went further than I have to show just how much phantom aid
there is. For example, they note (p.11) that the $37 billion of phantom
aid in 2004 included:
$6.9 billion (9% of all aid) not targeted for poverty reduction
$5.7 billion (7%) double counted as debt relief
$11.8 billion (15%) on over-priced, ineffective technical assistance
$2.5 billion (3%) lost through aid tying
$8.1 billion (10%) lost through poor donor co-ordination
$2.1 billion (3%) on immigration related spending
at least $70 (0.1%) million on excessive administration costs.
These
figures are necessarily approximate, they note. “If anything, they
probably flatter donors. Lack of data means that other areas of ‘phantom
aid’ have been excluded from our analysis. These include conditional or
unpredictable aid, technical assistance and administration spending
through multilateral channels, security-related spending and emergency
aid for reconstruction following conflicts in countries such as Iraq.
Some of these forms of aid do little to fight poverty, and can even do
more harm than good.”
Action Aid also provided a matrix (p.14) showing the volumes of real and phantom aid by donor countries:
Real aid volumes and share of phantom aid
High Real Aid Volume
Medium Real Aid Volume
Low Real Aid Volume
Source: Action Aid, Real Aid: Making Technical Assistance Work, July 5, 2006, p.14; OECD Figures for 2004 (latest at time of publication)
Low share of phantom aid
Ireland
Luxemborg
Sweden
Denmark
Norway
Netherlands
UK
Medium share of phantom aid
Switzerland
Belgium
Finland
Germany
Canada
New Zealand
Japan
Italy
High share of phantom aid
France
Portugal
Australia
Spain
Austria
Greece
USA
At the 2005 G8 Summit,
much was made about “historic” debt write-offs and other huge amounts
of aid. The problem, the media and government spin implied, was that
rich country aid often gets wasted and will only be delivered to poor
countries if they meet certain conditions and demands. Yet, hardly ever
in the mainstream discourse is the quality of rich country aid an issue
or problem that needs urgent addressing. The South Centre noted this
many years ago:
The
situation outlined above indicates a significant erosion in ODA in
comparison with its original intent and content, and in relation to the
0.7 per cent target. It will no longer suffice to merely repeat that ODA
targets should be fulfilled. What is required, in view of the policy
trends in the North and the mounting need for and importance of
concessional flows to a large number of countries in the South, is a
fundamental and comprehensive review of the approaches by the
international community to the question of concessional financial flows
for development, covering the estimated needs, the composition and
sources of concessional flows, the quantity and terms on which they are
available, and the destination and uses.
Professor
William Easterly, a noted mainstream economics professor on development
and aid issues has criticized foreign aid for not having achieved much,
despite grand promises:
[A
tragedy of the world’s poor has been that] the West spent $2.3 trillion
on foreign aid over the last five decades and still had not managed to
get twelve-cent medicines to children to prevent half of all malaria
deaths. The West spent $2.3 trillion and still had not managed to get
four-dollar bed nets to poor families. The West spent $2.3 trillion and
still had not managed to get three dollars to each new mother to prevent
five million child deaths.
… It is heart-breaking that global
society has evolved a highly efficient way to get entertainment to rich
adults and children, while it can’t get twelve-cent medicing to dying
poor children.
— William
Easterly, The White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest
have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good, (Penguin Press, 2006), p. 4
The United Nations Economic and Social Council, when noting that effectiveness of aid to poor countries requires a focus on economic infrastructure,
also noted that ODA was hampering aid. Jose Antonio Ocampo,
Under-Secretary-General for the United Nations Economic and Social
Affairs said that debt, commodities,
official development assistance and, in some cases, the risk of
conflict is hampering development in the least developed countries.See also, for example, the well-regarded Reality of Aid
project for more on the reality and rhetoric of aid. This project looks
at what various nations have donated, and how and where it has been
spent, etc.
Private flows often do not help the poorest
While
ODA’s prime purpose is to promote development, private flows are often
substantially larger than ODA. During economic booms, more investment is
observed in rapidly emerging economies, for example. But this does not
necessarily mean the poorest nations get such investment.
During the boom of the mid-2000s before the global financial crisis
sub-Saharan Africa did not attract as much investment from the rich
nations, for example (though when China decided to invest in Africa,
rich nations looked on this suspiciously fearing exploitation, almost
ignoring their own decades of exploitation of the continent. China’s
interest is no-doubt motivated by self-interest, and time will have to
tell whether there is indeed exploitation going on, or if African
nations will be able to demand fair conditions or not).
As private
flows to developing countries from multinational companies and
investment funds reflect the interests of investors, the importance of
Overseas Development Assistance cannot be ignored.
Furthermore, (and detailed below) these total flows are less than the subsidies many of the rich nations give to some of their industries, such as agriculture, which has a direct impact on the poor nations (due to flooding the market with—or dumping—excess products, protecting their own markets from the products of the poor countries, etc.)
In
addition, a lot of other inter-related issues, such as geopolitics,
international economics, etc all tie into aid, its effectiveness and its
purpose. Africa is often highlighted as an area receiving more aid, or
in need of more of it, yet, in recent years, it has seen less aid and
less investment etc, all the while being subjected to international
policies and agreements that have been detrimental to many African
people.
For the June 2002 G8 summit, a briefing was prepared by
Action for Southern Africa and the World Development Movement, looking
at the wider issue of economic and political problems:
It
is undeniable that there has been poor governance, corruption and
mismanagement in Africa. However, the briefing reveals the context—the
legacy of colonialism, the support of the G8 for repressive regimes in
the Cold War, the creation of the debt trap, the massive failure of
Structural Adjustment Programmes imposed by the IMF and World Bank and
the deeply unfair rules on international trade. The role of the G8 in
creating the conditions for Africa’s crisis cannot be denied. Its
overriding responsibility must be to put its own house in order, and to
end the unjust policies that are inhibiting Africa’s development.
As
the above briefing is titled, a common theme on these issues (around
the world) has been to “blame the victim”. The above briefing also
highlights some common “myths” often used to highlight such aspects,
including (and quoting):
Africa has received increasing amounts of aid over the years—in fact, aid to Sub-Saharan Africa fell by 48% over the 1990s
Africa
needs to integrate more into the global economy—in fact, trade accounts
for larger proportion of Africa’s income than of the G8
Economic
reform will generate new foreign investment—in fact, investment to
Africa has fallen since they opened up their economies
Bad
governance has caused Africa’s poverty—in fact, according to the UN
Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD), economic conditions
imposed by the IMF and the World Bank were the dominant influence on
economic policy in the two decades to 2000, a period in which Africa’s
income per head fell by 10% and income of the poorest 20% of people fell
by 2% per year
The
reforms that rich countries forced on Africa were supposed to boost
economic growth. However, the reality is that imports increased
massively while exports went up only slightly. The growth in exports
only partially compensated African producers for the loss of local
markets and they were left worse off.
The quantity issue is an input into the aid process. The quality is about the output. We see from the above then, that the quantity of aid has not been as much as it should be. But what about the quality of the aid?
Aid as a foreign policy tool to aid the donor not the recipient
Aid appears to have established as a priority the importance of influencing domestic policy in the recipient countries
— Benjamin
F. Nelson, International Affairs Budget: Framework for Assessing
Relevance, Priority and Efficiency, (Washington, DC: General Accounting
Office, October 30, 1997)
As shown throughout this
web site (and hundreds of others) one of the root causes of poverty lies
in the powerful nations that have formulated most of the trade and aid
policies today, which are more to do with maintaining dependency on
industrialized nations, providing sources of cheap labor and cheaper
goods for populations back home and increasing personal wealth, and
maintaining power over others in various ways. As mentioned in the structural adjustment section, so-called lending and development schemes have done little to help poorer nations progress.
The
US, for example, has also held back dues to the United Nations, which
is the largest body trying to provide assistance in such a variety of
ways to the developing countries. Former US President Jimmy Carter
describes the US as “stingy”:
While
the US provided large amounts of military aid to countries deemed
strategically important, others noted that the US ranked low among
developed nations in the amount of humanitarian aid it provided poorer
countries. “We are the stingiest nation of all,” former President Jimmy
Carter said recently in an address at Principia College in Elsah, Ill.
— Who rules next?, Christian Science Monitor, December 29, 1999
Evan Osbourne, writing for the Cato Institute, also questioning the effectiveness of foreign aid
and noted the interests of a number of other donor countries, as well
as the U.S., in their aid strategies in past years. For example:
The
US has directed aid to regions where it has concerns related to its
national security, e.g. Middle East, and in Cold War times in
particular, Central America and the Caribbean;
Sweden has targetted aid to “progressive societies”;
France
has sought to promote maintenance or preserve and spread of French
culture, language, and influence, especially in West Africa, while
disproportionately giving aid to those that have extensive commercial
ties with France;
Japan has also heavily skewed aid towards
those in East Asia with extensive commercial ties together with
conditions of Japanese purchases;
Osbourne also added that
domestic pressure groups (corporate lobby groups, etc) “have also proven
quite adept at steering aid to their favored recipients.” And so, “If
aid is not particularly given with the intention to foster economic
growth, it is perhaps not surprising that it does not achieve it.”
Aid And Militarism
IPS noted that recent US aid has taken on militaristic angles as well, following similar patterns to aid during the cold war. The war on terrorism is also having an effect as to what aid goes where and how much is spent.
For example:
“Credits
for foreign militaries to buy US weapons and equipment would increase
by some 700 million dollars to nearly five billion dollars, the highest
total in well over a decade.” (This is also an example of aid benefiting
the donor!)
“The total foreign aid proposal … amounts to a mere five percent of what Bush is requesting for the Pentagon next year.”
“Bush’s
foreign-aid plan [for 2005] actually marks an increase over 2004
levels, although much of the additional money is explained by greater
spending on security for US embassies and personnel overseas.”
“As
in previous years, Israel and Egypt are the biggest bilateral
recipients under the request, accounting for nearly five billion dollars
in aid between them. Of the nearly three billion dollars earmarked for
Israel, most is for military credits.”
This militaristic aid will come “largely at the expense of humanitarian and development assistance.”
The European Union is linking aid to fighting terrorism
as well, with European ministers warning countries that their relations
with the economically powerful bloc will suffer if they fail to
cooperate in the fight against terrorism. An EU
official is quoted as saying, “aid and trade could be affected if the
fight against terrorism was considered insufficient”, leading to
accusations of “compromising the neutrality, impartiality and
independence of humanitarian assistance”.
Aid Money Often Tied to Various Restrictive Conditions
As
a condition for aid money, many donors apply conditions that tie the
recipient to purchase products only from that donor. In a way this might
seem fair and “balanced”, because the donor gets something out of the
relationship as well, but on the other hand, for the poorer country, it
can mean precious resources are used buying more expensive options,
which could otherwise have been used in other situations. Furthermore,
the recipient then has less control and decision-making on how aid money
is spent. In addition the very nations that typically promote
free-markets and less government involvement in trade, commerce, etc.,
ensure some notion of welfare for some of their industries.
IPS noted that aid tied with conditions cut the value of aid to recipient countries by some 25-40 percent, because it obliges them to purchase uncompetitively priced imports from the richer nations. IPS was citing a UN Economic Council for Africa study
which also noted that just four countries (Norway, Denmark, the
Netherlands and the United Kingdom) were breaking away from the idea of
“tied aid” with more than 90 percent of their aid “untied”.
In addition, IPS noted the following, worth quoting at length:
[Njoki
Njoroge] Njehu [director of the 50 Years is Enough campaign] cited the
example of Eritrea, which discovered it would be cheaper to build its
network of railways with local expertise and resources rather than be
forced to spend aid money on foreign consultants, experts, architects
and engineers imposed on the country as a condition of development
assistance.
Strings attached to US aid for similar projects, she
added, include the obligation to buy products such as Caterpillar and
John Deere tractors. “All this adds up to the cost of the project.”
Njehu
also pointed out that money being doled out to Africa to fight HIV/AIDS
is also a form of tied aid. She said Washington is insisting that the
continent’s governments purchase anti-AIDS drugs from the United States
instead of buying cheaper generic products from South Africa, India or
Brazil.
As a result, she said, US brand name drugs are costing up
to 15,000 dollars a year compared with 350 dollars annually for
generics.
…
AGOA [African Growth and Opportunity Act, signed
into US law in 2000] is more sinister than tied aid, says Njehu. “If a
country is to be eligible for AGOA, it has to refrain from any actions
that may conflict with the US’s ‘strategic interests.’”
“The
potential of this clause to influence our countries' foreign policies
was hinted at during debates at the United Nations over the invasion of
Iraq,” she added.
“The war against Iraq was of strategic interest
to the United States,” Njehu said. As a result, she said, several
African members of the UN Security Council, including Cameroon, Guinea
and Angola, were virtually held to ransom when the United States was
seeking council support for the war in 2003.
“They came under heavy pressure,” she said. “The message was clear: either you vote with us or you lose your trade privileges”.
As
noted further above, almost half of all foreign aid can be considered
“phantom aid”, aid which does not help fight poverty, and is based on a
broader definition of foreign aid that allows double counting and other
problems to occur. Furthermore, some 50% of all technical assistance is
said to be wasted because of inappropriate usage on expensive
consultants, their living expenses, and training (some $11.8 billion).In their 2000 report looking back at the previous year, the Reality of Aid 2000
(Earthscan Publications, 2000, p.81), reported in their US section that
“71.6% of its bilateral aid commitments were tied to the purchase of
goods and services from the US.” That is, where the US did give aid, it
was most often tied to foreign policy objectives that would help the US.
Leading
up to the UN Conference on Financing for Development in Monterrey,
Mexico in March 2002, the Bush administration promised a nearly $10
billion fund over three years followed by a permanent increase of $5
billion a year thereafter. The EU also offered some $5 billion increase
over a similar time period.
While these increases have been
welcome, these targets are still below the 0.7% promised at the Earth
summit in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. The World Bank have also leveled some
criticism of past policies:
Commenting
on the latest US pledge [of $10 billion], Julian Borger and Charlotte
Denny of the Guardian (UK) say Washington is desperate to deflect
attention in Monterrey from the size of its aid budget. But for more
generous donors, says the story, Washington’s conversion to the cause of
effective aid spending is hard to swallow. Among the big donors, the US
has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself—70 percent
of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is
spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year
goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.
In
addition, promises of more money were tied to more conditions, which
for many developing countries is another barrier to real development, as
the conditions are sometimes favorable to the donor, not necessarily
the recipient. Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment commented
on the US conditional pledge of more money that:
Thus,
status quo in world relations is maintained. Rich countries like the US
continue to have a financial lever to dictate what good governance
means and to pry open markets of developing countries for multinational
corporations. Developing countries have no such handle for Northern
markets, even in sectors like agriculture and textiles, where they have
an advantage but continue to face trade barriers and subsidies. The
estimated annual cost of Northern trade barriers to Southern economies
is over US $100 billion, much more than what developing countries
receive in aid.
— Puppets on purse strings, Down To Earth, (Centre for Science and Environment) Vol 10, No 23, April 30, 2002
As discussed further on this site’s section on water issues, the World Development Movement
campaign organization reported in early 2005 that the British
government has been using aid money to pay British companies to push
privatization of water services to poor countries, even though it may
not be in their best interests.
The 2005 G8 Summit at Gleneagles in Scotland
saw promises of lots of aid and debt relief, but these were accompanied
with a lot of spin, and more conditions, often considered harmful in
the past.Another aspect of aid tying into interests of
donors is exemplified with climate change negotiations. Powerful nations
such as the United States have been vocally against the Kyoto Protocol
on climate change. Unlike smaller countries, they have been able to
exert their influence on other countries to push for bilateral
agreements conditioned with aid, in a way that some would describe as a
bribe. Center for Science and Environment for example criticizes such
politics:
It is
easy to be taken in with promises of bilateral aid, and make seemingly
innocuous commitments in bilateral agreements. There is far too much at
stake here [with climate change]. To further their interests, smaller,
poorer countries don’t have aid to bribe and trade muscle to threaten
countries.
— Pop of the world, Equity Watch, Center for Science and Environment, October 25, 2002.
This
use of strength in political and economic arenas is nothing new.
Powerful nations have always managed to exert their influence in various
arenas. During the Gulf War in 1991 for example, many that ended up in
the allied coalition were promised various concessions behind the scenes
(what the media described as “diplomacy”). For example, Russia was
offered massive IMF money. Even now, with the issue of the International
Criminal Court, which the US is also opposed to, it has been pressuring
other nations on an individual basis to not sign, or provide
concessions. In that context, aid is often tied to political objectives
and it can be difficult to sometimes see when it is not so.
But some types of conditions attached to aid can also be ideologically driven. For example, quoted further above by the New York Times,
James Wolfensohn, the World Bank president noted how European and
American farm subsidies “are crippling Africa’s chance to export its way
out of poverty.” While this criticism comes from many perspectives,
Wolfensohn’s note on export also suggests that some forms of development
assistance may be on the condition that nations reform their economies
to certain ideological positions. Structural Adjustment has been one of
these main policies as part of this neoliberal ideology, to promote
export-oriented development in a rapidly opened economy. Yet, this has
been one of the most disastrous policies
in the past two decades, which has increased poverty. Even the IMF and
World Bank have hinted from time to time that such policies are not
working. People can understand how tying aid on condition of improving
human rights, or democracy might be appealing, but when tied to economic
ideology, which is not always proven, or not always following the “one
size fits all” model, the ability (and accountability) of decisions that
governments would have to pursue policies they believe will help their
own people are reduced.
More Money Is Transferred From Poor Countries to Rich, Than From Rich To Poor
For
the OECD countries to meet their obligations for aid to the poorer
countries is not an economic problem. It is a political one. This can be
seen in the context of other spending. For example,
The US recently increased its military budget by some $100 billion dollars alone
Europe
subsidizes its agriculture to the tune of some $35-40 billion per year,
even while it demands other nations to liberalize their markets to
foreign competition.
The US also introduced a $190 billion
dollar subsidy to its farms through the US Farm Bill, also criticized as
a protectionist measure.
While aid amounts to around $70 to 100 billion per year, the poor countries pay some $200 billion to the rich each year.
There are many more (some mentioned below too).
In effect then, there is more aid to the rich than to the poor.
While
the amount of aid from some countries such as the US might look very
generous in sheer dollar terms (ignoring the percentage issue for the
moment), the World Bank also pointed out
that at the World Economic Forum in New York, February 2002, “[US
Senator Patrick] Leahy noted that two-thirds of US government aid goes
to only two countries: Israel and Egypt. Much of the remaining third is
used to promote US exports or to fight a war against drugs that could
only be won by tackling drug abuse in the United States.”
In October 2003, at a United Nations conference, UN Secretary General Kofi Annan noted that
developing
countries made the sixth consecutive and largest ever transfer of funds
to “other countries” in 2002, a sum totalling “almost $200 billion.”
“Funds
should be moving from developed countries to developing countries, but
these numbers tell us the opposite is happening…. Funds that should be
promoting investment and growth in developing countries, or building
schools and hospitals, or supporting other steps towards the Millennium
Development Goals, are, instead, being transferred abroad.”
Aid Amounts Dwarfed by Effects of First World Subsidies, Third World Debt, Unequal Trade, etc
Combining
the above mentioned reversal of flows with the subsidies and other
distorting mechanisms, this all amounts to a lot of money being
transferred to the richer countries (also known as the global North),
compared to the total aid amounts that goes to the poor (or South).
As
well as having a direct impact on poorer nations, it also affects
smaller farmers in rich nations. For example, Oxfam, criticizing EU
double standards, highlights the following:
Latin
America is the worst-affected region, losing $4bn annually from EU farm
policies. EU support to agriculture is equivalent to double the
combined aid budgets of the European Commission and all 15 member
states. Half the spending goes to the biggest 17 per cent of farm
enterprises, belying the manufactured myth that the CAP [Common
Agriculture Policy] is all about keeping small farmers in jobs.
And as Devinder Sharma adds, some of the largest benefactors of European agricultural subsidies include the Queen of England, and other royalties in Europe!The
double standards that Oxfam mentions above, and that countless others
have highlighted has a huge impact on poor countries, who are pressured
to follow liberalization and reducing government “interference” while
rich nations are able to subsidize some of their industries. Poor
countries consequently have an even tougher time competing. IPS captures this well:
“On
the one hand, OECD countries such as the US, Germany or France continue
through the ECAs [export credit agencies] to subsidise exports with
taxpayers' money, often in detriment to the competitiveness of the
poorest countries of the world,” says [NGO Environment Defence
representative, Aaron] Goldzimmer. “On the other hand, the official
development assistance which is one way to support the countries of the
South to find a sustainable path to development and progress is being
reduced.”
…
Government subsidies mean considerable cost
reduction for major companies and amount to around 10 per cent of annual
world trade. In the year 2000, subsidies through ECAs added up to 64
billion dollars of exports from industrialised countries, well above the
official development assistance granted last year of 51.4 billion
dollars.
As
well as agriculture, textiles and clothing is another mainstay of many
poor countries. But, as with agriculture, the wealthier countries have
long held up barriers to prevent being out-competed by poorer country
products. This has been achieved through things like subsidies and
various “agreements”. The impact to the poor has been far-reaching, as
Friends of the Earth highlights:
Despite
the obvious importance of the textile and clothing sectors in terms of
development opportunities, the North has consistently and systematically
repressed developing country production to protect its own domestic
clothing industries.
Since the 1970s the textile and clothing
trade has been controlled through the Multi-Fibre Arrangement (MFA)
which sets bilateral quotas between importing and exporting countries.
This was supposedly to protect the clothing industries of the
industrialised world while they adapted to competition from developing
countries. While there are cases where such protection may be warranted,
especially for transitionary periods, the MFA has been in place since
1974 and has been extended five times. According to Oxfam, the MFA is,
“…the most significant..[non tariff barrier to trade]..which has faced the world’s poorest countries for over 20 years”.
Although
the MFA has been replaced by the Agreement on Textiles and Clothing
(ATC) which phases out support over a further ten year period—albeit
through a process which in itself is highly inequitable—developing
countries are still suffering the consequences. The total cost to
developing countries of restrictions on textile imports into the
developed world has been estimated to be some $50 billion a year. This
is more or less equivalent to the total amount of annual development
assistance provided by Northern governments to the Third World.
— Clothes, The Citizens' Guide to Trade, Environment and Sustainability, Friends of the Earth International,
January 24, 2001
There is often much talk of trade
rather than aid, of development, of opening markets etc. But, when at
the same time some of the important markets of the US, EU and Japan
appear to be no-go areas for the poorer nations, then such talk has been
criticized by some as being hollow. The New York Times is worth quoting at length:
Our
compassion [at the 2002 G8 Summit talking of the desire to help Africa]
may be well meant, but it is also hypocritical. The US, Europe and
Japan spend $350 billion each year on agricultural subsidies (seven
times as much as global aid to poor countries), and this money creates
gluts that lower commodity prices and erode the living standard of the
world’s poorest people.
“These subsidies are crippling Africa’s
chance to export its way out of poverty,” said James Wolfensohn, the
World Bank president, in a speech last month.
Mark Malloch Brown,
the head of the United Nations Development Program, estimates that these
farm subsidies cost poor countries about $50 billion a year in lost
agricultural exports. By coincidence, that’s about the same as the total
of rich countries' aid to poor countries, so we take back with our left
hand every cent we give with our right.
“It’s holding down the
prosperity of very poor people in Africa and elsewhere for very narrow,
selfish interests of their own,” Mr. Malloch Brown says of the rich
world’s agricultural policy.
It also seems a tad hypocritical of
us to complain about governance in third-world countries when we allow
tiny groups of farmers to hijack billion of dollars out of our taxes.
In
fact, J. Brian Atwood, stepped down in 1999 as head of the US foreign
aid agency, USAID. He was very critical of US policies, and vented his
frustration that “despite many well-publicized trade missions, we saw
virtually no increase of trade with the poorest nations. These nations
could not engage in trade because they could not afford to buy
anything.” (Quoted from a speech that he delivered to the Overseas Development Council.)
As
Jean-Bertrand Arisitde also points out, there is also a boomerang
effect of loans as large portions of aid money is tied to purchases of
goods and trade with the donor:
Many
in the first world imagine the amount of money spent on aid to
developing countries is massive. In fact, it amounts to only 0.3% of GNP
of the industrialized nations. In 1995, the director of the US aid
agency defended his agency by testifying to his congress that 84 cents
of every dollar of aid goes back into the US economy in goods and
services purchased. For every dollar the United States puts into the
World Bank, an estimated $2 actually goes into the US economy in goods
and services. Meanwhile, in 1995, severely indebted low-income countries
paid one billion dollars more in debt and interest to the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) than they received from it. For the 46 countries of
Subsaharan Africa, foreign debt service was four times their combined
governmental health and education budgets in 1996. So, we find that aid
does not aid.
— Jean-Bertrand
Aristide, Eyes of the Heart; Seeking a Path for the Poor in the Age of
Globalization, (Common Courage Press, 2000), p. 13
In other words, often aid does not aid the recipient, it aids the donor. For the US in the above example, its aid agency has been a foreign policy tool to enhance its own interests, successfully.
And then there has been the disastrous food aid policies, which is another example of providing aid but using that aid as an arm of foreign policy objectives.
It has helped their corporations and large farmers at a huge cost to
developing countries, and has seen an increase in hunger, not reduction.
For more details, see the entire section on this site that discusses
this, in the Poverty and Food Dumping part of this web site.
For
the world’s hungry, however, the problem isn’t the stinginess of our
aid. When our levels of assistance last boomed, under Ronald Reagan in
the mid-1980s, the emphasis was hardly on eliminating hunger. In 1985,
Secretary of State George Shultz stated flatly that “our foreign
assistance programs are vital to the achievement of our foreign policy
goals.” But Shultz’s statement shouldn’t surprise us. Every country’s
foreign aid is a tool of foreign policy. Whether that aid benefits the
hungry is determined by the motives and goals of that policy—by how a
government defines the national interest.
— Frances
Moore Lappé, Joseph Collins and Peter Rosset, World Hunger: 12 Myths,
2nd Edition, (Grove/Atlantic and Food First Books, Oct. 1998), Chapter
10, p.130.
The above quote from the book World Hunger is from Chapter 10, which is also reproduced in full on this web site. It also has more facts and stats on US aid and foreign policy objectives, etc.
As
an aside, it is interesting to note the disparities between what the
world spends on military, compared to other international obligations
and commitments. Most wealthy nations spend far more on military than development,
for example. The United Nations, which gets its monies from member
nations, spends about $10 billion—or about 3% of what just the US alone
spends on its military. It is facing a financial crisis
as countries such as the US want to reduce their burden of the
costs—which comparatively is quite low anyway—and have tried to withhold
payments or continued according to various additional conditions.
And
with the recent financial crisis, clearly the act of getting resources
together is not the issue, as far more has been made available in just a
few short months than an entire 4 decades of aid:
But, as the quote above highlights as well, as well as the amount of aid, the quality of aid is important. (And the above highlights that the quality has not been good either.)
Government
aid, from the United States and others, as indicated above can often
fall foul of political agendas and interests of donors. At the same time
that is not the only aid going to poor countries. The US itself, for
example, has a long tradition of encouraging charitable contributions.
Indeed, tax laws in the US and various European countries are favorable
to such giving as discussed further above. But private funding,
philanthropy and other sources of aid can also fall foul of similar or
other agendas, as well as issues of concentration on some areas over
others, of accountability, and so on. (More on these aspects is
introduced on this site’s NGO and Development section.)
Trade and Aid
Oxfam highlights the importance of trade and aid:
Some
Northern governments have stressed that “trade not aid” should be the
dominant theme at the [March 2002 Monterrey] conference [on Financing
for Development]. That approach is disingenuous on two counts. First,
rich countries have failed to open their markets to poor countries.
Second, increased aid is vital for the world’s poorest countries if they
are to grasp the opportunities provided through trade.
In
addition to “trade not aid” perspectives, the Bush Administration was
keen to push for grants rather than loans from the World Bank. Grants
being free money appears to be more welcome, though many European
nations aren’t as pleased with this option. Furthermore, some
commentators point out that the World Bank, being a Bank, shouldn’t give
out grants, which would make it compete with other grant-offering
institutions such as various other United Nations bodies. Also, there is
concern that it may be easier to impose political conditions to the
grants. John Taylor, US Undersecretary of the Treasury, in a recent
speech in Washington also pointed out that “Grants are not free. Grants
can be easily be tied to measurable performance or results.” Some
comment that perhaps grants may lead to more dependencies as well as
some nations may agree to even more conditions regardless of the
consequences, in order to get the free money. (More about the issue of grants is discussed by the Bretton Woods Project.)
In
discussing trade policies of the US, and EU, in relation to its effects
on poor countries, chief researcher of Oxfam, Kevin Watkins, has been
very critical, even charging them with hypocrisy for preaching free
trade but practicing mercantilism:
Looking
beyond agriculture, it is difficult to avoid being struck by the
discrepancy between the picture of US trade policy painted by [US Trade
Representative, Robert] Zoellick and the realities facing developing
countries.
To take one example, much has been made of America’s
generosity towards Africa under the Africa Growth and Opportunity Act
(AGOA). This provides what, on the surface, looks like free market
access for a range of textile, garment and footwear products. Scratch
the surface and you get a different picture. Under AGOA’s so-called
rules-of-origin provisions, the yarn and fabric used to make apparel
exports must be made either in the United States or an eligible African
country. If they are made in Africa, there is a ceiling of 1.5 per cent
on the share of the US market that the products in question can account
for. Moreover, the AGOA’s coverage is less than comprehensive. There are
some 900 tariff lines not covered, for which average tariffs exceed
11%.
According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the
benefits accruing to Africa from the AGOA would be some $420m, or five
times, greater if the US removed the rules-of-origin restrictions. But
these restrictions reflect the realities of mercantilist trade policy.
The underlying principle is that you can export to America, provided
that the export in question uses American products rather than those of
competitors. For a country supposedly leading a crusade for open,
non-discriminatory global markets, it’s a curiously anachronistic
approach to trade policy.
Watkins
lists a number of other areas, besides the AGOA that are beset with
problems of hypocrisy, and concludes that “nihilism and blind pursuit of
US economic and corporate special interest represents an obstacle to
the creation of an international trading system capable of extending the
benefits of globalisation to the world’s poor.” (See also this site’s
section on free trade and globalization,
where there is more criticism about northern countries exhibiting
mercantilist, or monopoly capitalist principles, rather than free market
capitalism, even though that is what is preached to the rest of the
world.)
In that context then, and given the problems mentioned
further above about agricultural and textiles/clothing subsidies, etc.
the current amount of aid given to poor countries doesn’t compare to
“aid” given to wealthier countries’ corporations and industries and
hardly compensates for what is lost.
Both increasing and
restructuring aid to truly provide developing countries the tools and
means to develop for themselves, for example, would help recipients of
aid, not just the donors. Aid is more than just charity and cannot be
separated from other issues of politics and economics, which must also
be considered.
Productive development strategies to attract currency and sustaining economic growth.
For
least developed countries (LDCs) to minimize their disadvantages—such
as the small size of their economies—regional integration would help.
Countries giving aid could help by providing:
Greater investment
Greater debt relief
Actually practice free and fair trade
“Trade not Aid” sounds like decent rhetoric. As the economist Amartya Sen for example says, a lot that can be done at a relatively little cost. Unfortunately, so far, it seems that rhetoric is mostly what it has turned out to be.
In
addition, as J.W. Smith further qualifies, rather than giving money
that can be squandered away, perhaps the best form of aid would be
industry, directly:
Do Not Give the Needy Money: Build Them Industries Instead
With
the record of corruption within impoverished countries, people will
question giving them money. That can be handled by giving them the
industry directly, not the money. To build a balanced economy, provide
consumer buying power, and develop arteries of commerce that will absorb
the production of these industries, contractors and labor in those
countries should be used. Legitimacy and security of contracts is the
basis of any sound economy. Engineers know what those costs should be
and, if cost overruns start coming in, the contractor who has proven
incapable should be replaced—just as any good contract would require….
When provided the industry, as opposed to the money to build industry,
those people will have physical capital. The only profits to be made
then are in production; there is no development money to intercept and
send to a Swiss bank account.
— J.W.
Smith, Economic Democracy; The Political Struggle for the 21st Century,
Second Edition, (1st Books, 2002), pp. 300-301 (also available in full
online)
Use aid to Empower, not to Prescribe
The
approach which J.W. Smith hints to—and which has often been argued by
progressive and developing world activists and experts—is that aid needs
to empower local people. There may be some form of aid that is best
delivered to (and via) governments, but there are many types of
assistance that can be given directly to the people who need it, thus
also avoiding the risk of governments withholding, diverting or delaying
those funds.
Professor William Easterly, mentioned earlier, tries
to provide a simplified view of these two general approaches, using the
following definitions:
Planners
Those who go for a top-down, prescriptive, imposing approach
Searchers
Those who try to look for alternative approaches, often working at the grass-roots, or from the bottom up
A
Planner believes outsiders know enough to impose solutions. A Searcher
believes only insiders have enough knowledge to find solutions, and that
most solutions must be homegrown.
— William
Easterly, The White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the
Rest have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good, (Penguin Press, 2006), p.
4
Easterly also notes that Searchers “have had
little chance to deliver in the area of global poverty because foreign
aid has been dominated by the Planners” (p.7), which is also detailed
further above in the rest of this page.
Rich donor countries and aid bureaucracies are not accountable
Furthermore,
a fundamental issue Easterly also notes is that the “Planners” are
rarely accountable for all the grand promises they make. For example, at
the G8 Summit in July, 2005, there was much promised, such as over $40
billion in apparent debt write-off, plus further aid promises. While
much of this and previous promises have included spin and fancy
accounting, these promises have rarely been delivered upon, or if they have and subsequently failed, no-one has been held accountable. (It could be added that “Searchers” too have thus far largely been unaccountable, too.)
A
major problem Easterly also sees is that the “Planners” have a modern
version of the paternalistic attitude prevalent during colonial times;
that the powerful know what is best for the rest, and should try to
shape them in their image:
The
new military interventions are similar to the military interventions of
the cold war, while the neo-imperialist fantasies are similar to
old-time colonial fantasies. Military intervention and occuptation show a
classic Planner’s mentality: applying a simplistic answer from the West
to a complex internal problem in the Rest.
… But if rich people
want to help the poor, they must face an unpleasant reality: If it’s so
easy to end the poverty trap, why haven’t the Planners already made it
history?
— William Easterly, The
White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the Rest have Done So
Much Ill and so Little Good, (Penguin Press, 2006), pp. 10-11
Donors therefore, are not neutral actors as a review of NGOs questions:
Also
problematic is the donors’ image of themselves as neutral actors,
brokering relations between the state, business, and civil society, and
indeed separate and hidden from the triadic unity.… Yet this begs the
question from where international agencies derive their authority to act
as broker and to pose as neutral observers. Indeed, the prior
assumption of a broker role—unnegotiated, uncontested, and
unlegitimate—in itself is revealing about the balance of power. The
notion of brokering suggests that the broker has no interest of its own,
no ideological preferences, no intrinsic values and goals.
Apart
from the question of neutrality, which services to mask the distribution
of power, there is also the larger question of the morality of
interventionism. Is donor support to civil society another manifestation
of neocolonialism in the post-Cold War era, aimed at controlling the
nature of political regimes and extending global markets? Do donors have
the right, let alone the capacity, to shape other civil societies? By
projecting their own visions and understandings of civil society, do
they not undermine the ability of local organizations to set their own
priorities and agendas, to vocalize their own imaginations of social and
political change?
— Jude Howell
and Jenny Pearce (David Lewis and Tina Wallace, Editors), New Roles and
Relevance; Development NGOs and the Challenge of Change, (Kumarian
Press, 2000), p. 83
Interestingly, Easterly notes
that politicians are often “Searchers” at home but “Planners” abroad
because at home they have constituencies to whom they are usually
accountable; they are not accountable to people in other countries.
There is therefore no way for a feedback mechanism to have clout.
Without
accountability and feedback, there is little chance for success
Easterly feels. “Feedback guides democratic governments towards
supplying services that the market cannot supply, and toward providing
institutions for the markets to work”, while, “at a higher level,
accountability is necessary to motivate a whole organization or
government to use Searchers.” (P. 16)
Democracy-building is fundamental, but harder in many developing countries
Another
aspect of accountability (especially when it comes to providing public
services that free markets are not intended to provide for) is democracy.
Politically, democracy is supposed to provide a feedback mechanism so
that politicians are held accountable and react to needs. If a road
needs repairing, water systems need improving etc, we should be able to
demand that our local politicians act, for example.
As Easterly
and many other writers have acknowledged, however, the struggle for
democracy in the developing world is much harder because of the legacy
of colonialism—the artificial borders, unnatural movement and
displacement of people, etc—which means that either powerful minorities
(e.g. European settlers), or powerful majorities may not always
represent the interests of everyone in that nation. There may have been
historic tension amongst people who are now confined to the same
borders, for example, making positive democratic changes extremely
difficult, further compounded by poverty and other related problems.
Failed foreign aid and continued poverty: well-intentioned mistakes, calculated geopolitics, or a mix?
These,
and so many other factors all interplay, making foreign aid less useful
than it should have been. Certainly trillions have been spent with
little to show for it.
To
oversimplify … the needs of the rich get met because the rich give
feedback to political and economic Searchers, and they can hold the
Searchers accountable for following through with specific actions. The
needs of the poor don’t get met because the poor have little money or
political power with which to make their needs known and they cannot
hold anyone accountable to meet those needs. They are stuck with
Planners. The … tragedy [of failed foreign aid] continues.
…
To
make things even worse, aid bureaucrats [from rich donor countries]
have incentives to satisfy the rich countries doing the funding as well
as (or instead of) the poor. One oversight in the quest to help the poor
was the failure to study the incentives of its appointed helpers. The
bureaucratic managers have the incentive to satisfy rich-country vanity
with promises of transforming the Rest rather than simply helping poor
individuals. Internal bureaucratic incentives also favor grand global
schemes over getting the little guy what he wants.
… A big part of
the problem originates with the rich-country governments who set the
mandates of the aid agencies. Dear rich-country funders, please give up
your utopian fantasies of transforming the Rest. Don’t reward aid
agencies for setting goals that are impossible as they are politically
appealing. Please just ask aid agencies to focus on narrow, solvable
problems. For example, let them focus on the health, education,
electrification, water problems, and piecemeal policy reforms to promote
the private sector—where they already had some success—and fix some
remaining problems such as the refusal of donors to finance operations
and maintenance.
Collective responsibility for the Millennium
Development Goals or any other goals does not work. Hold aid agencies
individually responsible for what they own program achieve, not for
global goals. Letting different agencies specialize in different areas
would also lessen the coordination problem.
— William
Easterly, The White Man’s Burden; Why the West’s Efforts to Aid the
Rest have Done So Much Ill and so Little Good, (Penguin Press, 2006),
pp. 17, 167, 204-205
Easterly’s call to promote the
private sector is not as much about foreign private corporation going
into a country (as the problems of foreign private sector involvement
has been well known in developing countries, e.g. privatizing water services where the poor often can no longer get access to water).
Instead,
Easterly, like others such as J.W. Smith, Joseph Stiglitz, etc feel
that a local, home-grown private sector would be more responsive to
local needs. Searchers are not just of the private sector variety, but
also politicians and NGOs who are responsive to local needs. (Easterly,
for example, provides numerous examples of this.)
Easterly feels
that “Planners” are generally well-intentioned, but fundamentally miss
the point and are nonetheless popular perhaps because of a Western
fascination of heroes and heroic stories “that stars the rich West in
the leading role, that of the chosen people to save the Rest” (p.18). Side Note»
Others,
especially from developing countries, are more cynical than Easterly
(perhaps understandably, given that they are the ones who have suffered
the long history for centuries at the hands of the Planners’ ancestors),
that perhaps today’s “Planners” are continuing a time-tested strategy,
to keep the developing world in poverty so the “Planners” may continue
to dominate.
Yet others may argue that it is not necessarily these
“Planners” actively seek to do this; they may be well-intentioned, but
their education, culture, society, whatever, is geared towards
perpetuating the existing system, so they cannot think outside of that
“framework of orientation” (a term coined by J.W. Smith). The pressures
of globalization affect both rich and poor nations, and so can
(understandably) drive people that are in a position of power to follow
the bad policies that we actually do see them pursue in foreign affairs.
The
authoritative Assistant Director of Development Studies at the
University of Cambridge, Professor Ha-Joon Chang, for example, looks at
the historical context, and just as J.W. Smith and others have noted,
finds that today’s rich countries developed using different policies
than those typically prescribed to today’s poor countries:
‘How did the rich countries really become rich?’
The
short answer to this question is that the developed countries did not
get to where they are now through the policies and the institutions that
they recommend to developing countries today. Most of them actively
used ‘bad’ trade and industrial policies, such as infant industry
protection and export subsidies—practices that these days are frowned
upon, if not actively banned, by the WTO. Until they were quite
developed (that is, until the late nineteenth to early twentieth
century), they had very few of the institutions deemed essential by
developing countries today, including such ‘basic’ institution as
central banks and limited liability companies.
If this is the
case, aren’t the developed countries, under the guise of recommending
‘good’ policies and institutions, actually making it difficult for the
developing countries to use policies and institutions they themselves
had used in order to develop economically in earlier times?
— Ha-Joon Chang, Kicking Away The Ladder, (London: Anthem Press, 2002), pp.2–3. (Emphasis is original)
Chang also notes that German economist Friedrich List had analyzed the political system in his classic work, The National System of Political Economy
(1841), and observed that even the rise of Britain, the hero of free
trade and the free-market economy, was actually characterized by
protecting infant industries. Chang comments that,
List
[argued] that free trade is beneficial among countries at similar
levels of industrial development … but not between those at different
levels of development. Like many of his contemporaries in countries that
were trying to catch up with Britain, he argues that free trade
benefits Britain but not the less developed economies…. To [List]…, the
preachings on the virtues of free trade by British politicians and
economist of his time were done for nationalistic purposes, even though
they were cast in the generalistic languages…. He is worth quoting…
It is a very common clever device that when anyone has attained the summit of greatness, he kicks away the ladder
by which he has climbed up, in order to deprive others of the means of
climbing up after him. In this lies the secret of the cosmopolitical
doctrine of Adam Smith, and of the cosmopolitical tendencies of his
great contemporary William Pitt, and of all his successors in the
British Government administrations.
— Ha-Joon Chang, Kicking Away The Ladder, (London: Anthem Press, 2002), pp.4–5. (Emphasis is Chang’s)
Chang
is looking at development from the perspective of international trade
while Easterly is focused on development from the perspective of
internal market development. Chang is therefore implying that for the
kind of developments needed locally, international actions do have an
impact. Easterly feels that international actions are misguided, though
well-intentioned, while Chang sees historical calculation and power
acting to conspire against development.
It is likely we will never
know which views are correct, and there is perhaps a mixture of
reasons; a mixture of bumbling mistakes, calculated statecraft, poor
execution by some developing countries, and lack of opportunities for
the poor, etc.
Easterly does acknowledge limitations to this
oversimplification of “Planners” and “Searchers” and that there are
reformers and dissidents working at all levels, grass-roots and
macroeconomic. For example, many believe macro-economic changes are
needed to the global system (perhaps in order to enable Searchers to
work more effectively, or just to allow for a more just system where
Planners from the rich world do not dictate) and this may indeed require
people working at the global level, though this may not necessarily
require a prescriptive “we know best” approach which ultimately Easterly
is criticizing.
Turning this debate of foreign aid from an issue
of amount given (input and quantity) into one about aid effectiveness
(outcome and quality) raises some different questions. For example,
Would filling the $3.6 trillion shortfall help if aid comes with all the above-criticized strings still attached?
Could far more be achieved with far less aid dollars if there was a change in approach with less top-down and more bottom-up?
And if so, how much more could be achieved if the shortfall was filled at the same time?
Although
we keep hearing that the fault is of corrupt people in the developing
world, should first world countries also be held to account for both the
massive aid shortfall and the failed prescriptive, “we know best” approach to development?
The OECD is also rethinking how to measure development aid to reflect some of the newer realities as noted in a short video:
Whether the hope for effective foreign aid will
actually turn into reality is harder to know, because of power politics,
which has characterized and shaped the world for centuries.
A
risk for developing countries that look to aid, at least in their
short-term plans to kick-start development (for becoming dependent on
aid over the long run seems a dangerous path to follow), is that people
of the rich world will see the failures of aid without seeing the
detailed reasons why, creating a backlash of donor fatigue, reluctance
and cynicism.
Some
40 years ago, rich country governments agreed to give 0.7% of their GNI
(Gross National Income) as official aid to poor countries for
development assistance.
The average aid delivered each year has
actually been between 0.2 to 0.4%. The shortfall has therefore
accumulated to just under $5 trillion dollars at 2012 prices, while
total aid delivered in that same time frame has reached just over $3.6
trillion.
CANADA MILITARY NEWS- Innu
Peoples Starving in Canada- History of First Nations Inuit Peoples- why have
all politicians and UN ignored starving people in Canada and getting us 2 send
our money 2 other countries since the 60s??? Why? Let’s feed our own now....
Let’s make our First Nations Inuit People feel our love n devotion-
lotsoflinks.-IDLE NO MORE CANADIANS/Canada History of Innu First Peoples of
Canada- we love u
CANADA MILITARY NEWS: Water-
Canada’s glorious water…./Canada history… /Canada let’s preserve our water
better and drink from taps instead of killing whales and wildlife with plastic
eh?/ NOVA SCOTIA CANADA’S MI’KMAQ PEOPLES OF NOVA SCOTIA- ATLANTIC CANADA....
SHOWED US IMMIGRANTS HOW 2 FIND WATER, HUNT, FISH AND SURVIVE/ International
Water Day March 22, 2015
NOVA SCOTIA HISTORY....
little known...GETCHA Nova Scotia and Canada on... come visit - INCREDIBLE
HISTORICAL FIND... u can browse and check the photos on the site/ and yes NOVA
SCOTIA HAD SLAVES/and all the 1ST newspapers and historical facts are amazing
March 19 -2015 /Honouring Nova Scotia's - The Oxford Journal
CANADA'S CATHOLIC-PROTESTANT
WARS- IRELAND'S/Acadian/history - Pls don't put down Islam Faith- we had
hundreds of years of CHRISTIAN HATE AMONGST OURSELVES... God bless our
Canada/Nova Scotia /must see movie- '71
Donated through bank..... already.... couldn't wait.... always check your bank.... imho... AND DOCTORS WITHOUT BORDERS - hey Canada.... we still give and give... let's just make sure it gets there... and fast... rains are coming... and mourning 4 USA and all the horrid weather......
How Canadians Can Donate To Help Nepal's Earthquake Victims
How Canadians Can Donate To Help Nepal's Earthquake Victims
You may want to help victims of the earthquake, but they don’t need
unskilled volunteers or aid they can’t use. Here’s what you can do that
won’t get in the way
0:00
/
1:43
Embed
Drone footage over Nepal’s capital, Kathmandu, shows the scale of the devastation after the earthquake.
Shares
149,932
As someone who has considered Nepal home for many years, the shock on hearing the news of the earthquake that has devastated the country was extreme. I felt pained at being away from home – cut off in rural Cambodia – at a time like this, impotent and powerless.
The quake has left thousands dead, many more injured and even more
without shelter. What we also know from tracking events in natural
disasters all over the world is that the situation only gets worse in
the weeks following the event, as hospitals become overwhelmed, basic
supplies become scarce and those living in temporary shelters succumb to
exposure and disease. The example fresh in everyone’s minds is the 2010 earthquake in Haiti
– a country in a similar economic condition to Nepal and which, despite
an enormous influx of international aid, is still recovering from the
disaster five years later.
Something that has been much discussed in the international aid
community is the lack of coordinated response to the Haiti disaster.
Ragtag brigades of well-intentioned do-gooders
flooded the country: students, church congregations, individuals who
had previously vacationed in the area, all clambering over one another
looking for a way to make their mark and do good, but lacking either the
skills or coordination to have an impact. Indeed, many ended up slowing
down the aid efforts.
There were even reports of teams of doctors who arrived to help but
were unable to feed themselves. This wave of unsolicited and poorly
planned shipments of untrained people and donated goods was dubbed by
some humanitarians “the second disaster”.
One of the biggest problems with relief work is that it is a
free-for-all. Anyone who wants to, and who is privileged enough to
afford a plane ticket, can pitch up. Unlike doctors or engineers, who
need to train for years to gain qualifications that prove they probably
know what they’re doing, no such qualification exists for aid workers.
What Nepal needs right now is not another untrained bystander, however much her heart is hurting. Nepal
has one international airport for the entire country, which has itself
sustained damage. That airport needs to be used for emergency supplies,
immediate aid for the victims, and qualified, professional relief
workers. My trip back to commiserate with loved ones can wait a few
weeks.
I have been inundated with offers of help and contributions from
friends and family. Everyone is asking: “What do you need? What can I
do?” Here are some practical ideas that will not hamper the aid effort: •Remember that it is not about you.
It is not about your love for the country and its people. Your feelings
of guilt and helplessness may be difficult to deal with, but you may
not be what is needed right now. Do not rush to go there, at least for
the next couple of weeks while the country is reeling. The exception to
this is if you are a qualified professional with much-needed skills to
offer. If you are, join up with an international relief agency that can
place you in a position where you are needed most. •Do not donate stuff. Secondhand goods are difficult to distribute in a disaster area and are hardly ever what is actually needed.
It is easier, and often in the long run cheaper, for organisations to
procure goods themselves and distribute based on need. If you want to
give away things you no longer need, sell them and donate the money to
the relief fund. Or give them to a local charity shop, which can convert
them into cash on your behalf. •Give money. More than
your plane ticket or your collection of old T-shirts, what is most
needed in Nepal right now is money. Donate what you can, to a reputable
relief organisation, and do research to find out where your money will
go. If you can, compare a few organisations with aid appeals and ensure
that you agree with their approach. •In the short term, handouts are necessary.
I have previously questioned this as a method of long-term development.
However, in the immediate wake of such devastation, handouts are
necessary to give victims the essentials for survival.
•In the long term, rebuild sustainably. If
in the coming months you want to contribute to the rebuilding efforts
and the longer-term development of the country, consider sustainability
as a factor. There will be many programmes to repair and rebuild
destroyed houses. Nepal is an earthquake-prone country, so the buildings
most likely to withstand another quake are not those that are cheapest,
or those made by foreign volunteer labourers for “free”. •And if you do decide to go ... Please look at the resources we have produced on the Learning Service website
before you get on the plane. I am not against volunteering; I am
imploring you to wait a while and think carefully about where to use
your skills. Volunteering can have a wonderful impact on the world, when
done mindfully. But it is not easy or automatically beneficial. Before
signing up for a programme, spend time learning about Nepal and the
complex nature of its recovery and development, and continue to be open
to learning during your time there.
Many
readers are probably familiar with the tale of four blind men being
asked to identify the object in front of them. Each blind man just
investigated a part so no one identified the whole as an elephant.
Similarly, both environmental degradation and poverty alleviation are
urgent global issues that have a lot in common, but are often treated
separately. This article explores some of these linkages.
Both
environmental degradation and poverty alleviation are urgent global
issues that have a lot in common, but are often treated separately.
Consider the following:
Human activities are resulting in
mass species extinction rates higher than ever before, currently
approaching 1000 times the normal rate;
Human-induced climate change is threatening an even bleaker future;
At the same time, the inequality of human societies is extreme:
The United Nations 1998 Human Development Report reveals
that, “Globally, the 20% of the world’s people in the highest-income
countries account for 86% of total private consumption expenditures—the
poorest 20% a minuscule 1.3%”
To highlight this inequality
further, consider that approximately 1 billion people suffer from hunger
and some 2 to 3.5 billion people have a deficiency of vitamins and
minerals
Yet, some 1.2 billion suffer from obesity
One billion people live on less than a dollar a day, the official measure of poverty
However, half the world — nearly three billion people — lives on less than two dollars a day.
Yet, just a few hundred millionaires now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 2.5 billion people.
Issues
about environment, economics and politics are inter-related through the
way humans interact with their surroundings and with each other.
Biological diversity allows a variety of species to all work together
to help maintain the environment without costly human intervention. We
benefit because the environment sustains us with the variety of
resources produced.
However, there is often a mainstream belief
that for poor countries to develop, environmental concerns have to be
sacrificed, or is a luxury to address once poverty is alleviated.
Therefore,
the approaches to such issues require rethinking. The overloaded phrase
“sustainable development” must recognize the interconnectedness between
human beings and the environment if true environmental and social
justice is to be obtained.
As Delhi-based environment organization, the Centre for Science and Environment, points out,
if the poor world were to develop and consume in the same manner as the
West to achieve the same living standards, “we would need two
additional planet Earths to produce resources and absorb wastes … and
good planets are hard to find!”
Poverty and third world debt has been shown to result in resource stripping just to survive or pay off debts.
For
example, Nepal and Bangladesh have suffered from various environmental
problems such as increasingly devastating floods, often believed to be
resulting from large-scale deforestation.
Forests around the world
face increased pressures from timber companies, agricultural
businesses, and local populations that use forest resources.
Some
environmentalists, from rich nations especially, also raise concerns
about increasing populations placing excessive burdens on the world’s
resources as the current major source of environmental problems.
This
makes for a worrying situation for third world development and poverty
alleviation. However, an environment-only approach risks “blaming the
victims.” While humans are largely responsible for many problems of the
planet today, not all humans have the same impact on the environment. It
is important to consider, for example, that the consumption of just the
worlds wealthiest fifth of humanity is so much more than the rest of
the world, as highlighted at the beginning.
Thus,
putting emphasis on population growth in this way is perhaps
over-simplistic. However, this does not mean we can be complacent about
future population burdens. Sustainability is critical for the world’s
majority to develop without following the environmentally damaging
processes of the world’s currently industrialized nations.
Also
adding to the complexity is that resource usage is not necessarily
fixed. That is, while there may be a finite amount of say oil in the
ground, we may have not discovered it all, and further, overtime the use
of those resources may increase in efficiency (or inefficiency). This
means a planet could sustain a high population (probably within some
limits) but it is a combination of things like how we use resources, for
what purpose, how many, how the use of those resources change over
time, etc, that defines whether they are used inefficiently or not and
whether we will run out of them or not.
The
relationship between the rich and poor, and the impacts on the
environment go deep. Economics is meant to be about efficient allocation
of resources to meet everyone’s needs. However, international power
politics and ideologies have continued to influence policies in such a
way that decision-making remains concentrated in the hands of a few
narrow interests. The result is that the world’s resources are allocated to meet a few people’s wants, not everyone’s needs.
Indian
activist and scientist, Vandana Shiva, shows in her work that many
people have been forced into poverty due to politics and economics such
as concentrated land rights, pressure from industry to exploit the
environment in ways that destroy diversity and affect local populations,
etc. Shiva also highlights that the poor often have a lot of knowledge
about their environment and are often sustainers and efficient users of
it, as they recognize their link to it for their survival.
Excessive
third world debt burden has meant that it has been harder to prioritize
on sustainable development. Unfair debt, imposed on the third world for
decades by the global institutions, the International Monetary Fund
(IMF) and World Bank through their harsh Structural Adjustment
programmes (SAPs) have opened up of economies rapidly, in socially,
politically, environmentally and economically destructive ways, while
requiring a prioritization on debt repayment and cut backs on health,
education and other critical services. They have encouraged
concentration on producing just a few cash crops and other commodities
primarily for export, using very environmentally damaging “industrial
agriculture”, which reduces biodiversity, requiring costly inputs such
as environmentally damaging pesticides and fertilizers to make up for
the loss of free services a diverse farm ecosystem would provide, and as
Vandana Shiva charges,
has
destroyed diverse sources of food, and it has stolen food from other
species to bring larger quantities of specific commodities to the
market, using huge quantities of fossil fuels and water and toxic
chemicals in the process. … Since cattle and earthworms are our partners
in food production, stealing food from them makes it impossible to
maintain food production over time….
… More grain from two or
three commodities arrived on national and international markets, but
less food was eaten by farm families in the Third World.
The gain
in “yields” of industrially produced crops is based on a theft of food
from other species and the rural poor in the Third World. That is why,
as more grain is produced and traded globally, more people go hungry in
the Third World. Global markets have more commodities for trading
because food has been robbed from nature and the poor.
— Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), pp. 12-13
Mainstream
economists and politicians have long been criticized for concentrating
on economic growth in ways that ignores humanity and the environmental
costs. Perhaps one of the harshest ironies is how food and farm products
flow from areas of hunger and need, to areas where money and demand is
concentrated. Farm workers, and women especially, are amongst the worlds
most hungry.
It is not just a problem in agriculture but other
industries too. In 1991, then Chief Economist for the World Bank, Larry
Summers, (and later U.S. Treasury Secretary, under the Clinton
Administration), had been a strong backer of the disastrous SAPs. He
wrote a leaked internal memo in 1992, revealing the extent to which
international policies have an impact on nations around the world when
it comes to environmental and other considerations:
Just
between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging more
migration of dirty industries to the LDCs [less developed countries]? …
The economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest
wage country is impeccable, and we should face up to that…
Under-populated countries in Africa are vastly under-polluted; their air
quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or
Mexico City… The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million
change in the odds of prostate cancer is obviously going to be much
higher in a country where people survive to get prostate cancer than in a
country where under-five mortality is 200 per thousand.
— Lawrence
Summers, Let them eat pollution, The Economist, February 8, 1992.
Quoted from Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000) p.65;
See also Richard Robbins, Global Problems and the Culture of Capitalism
(Allyn and Bacon, 1999), pp. 233-236 for a detailed look at this.
For
years, rich countries have been migrating some polluting industries to
poor countries, but still producing primarily for rich countries. This
has been possible insofar as it is cheaper than to pay for costly
environmentally clean technologies that people demand.
It
is perhaps natural to assume that we are growing food to feed people,
but are struggling to keep up. Reasons are frequently attributed to the
effects that rapid population growth places of poor countries as the
ultimate cause. However, we make more than enough food to keep up with population growth, although environmentally damaging industrial agriculture threatens future sustainability.
Yet how is it that there is so much hunger, and that farm workers are usually the hungriest people in the world?
An
indication of the answer lies in what is less discussed in the
mainstream: the purpose of agriculture in today’s world. Like many other
markets, food is available to those who can afford it, not necessarily
those who need it. Most food is therefore produced to meet consumer
demands, not the needs of the poor or hungry. When money talks, the poor
have no voice.
This leads to a major diversion, and even wastage, of environmental resources from productive uses to non-productive uses.
For poor countries that need to earn foreign exchange to pay off huge
debts, cash crops offer the chance of money. For elite landowners, this
is the only way they can make money, as the poor have little. As
professor of anthropology, Richard Robbins, summarizes:
To
understand why people go hungry you must stop thinking about food as
something farmers grow for others to eat, and begin thinking about it as
something companies produce for other people to buy.
Food is a commodity. …
Much
of the best agricultural land in the world is used to grow commodities
such as cotton, sisal, tea, tobacco, sugar cane, and cocoa, items which
are non-food products or are marginally nutritious, but for which there
is a large market.
Millions of acres of potentially productive
farmland is used to pasture cattle, an extremely inefficient use of
land, water and energy, but one for which there is a market in wealthy
countries.
More than half the grain grown in the United States
(requiring half the water used in the U.S.) is fed to livestock, grain
that would feed far more people than would the livestock to which it is
fed. …
The problem, of course, is that people who don’t have
enough money to buy food (and more than one billion people earn less
than $1.00 a day), simply don’t count in the food equation.
In other words, if you don’t have the money to buy food, no one is going to grow it for you.
Put
yet another way, you would not expect The Gap to manufacture clothes,
Adidas to manufacture sneakers, or IBM to provide computers for those
people earning $1.00 a day or less; likewise, you would not expect ADM
(“Supermarket to the World”) [A large food processing company] to
produce food for them.
What this means is that ending hunger
requires doing away with poverty, or, at the very least, ensuring that
people have enough money or the means to acquire it, to buy, and hence
create a market demand for food.
In
addition to minor nutritional quality, or damaging consumer’s health,
some major agricultural products also involve production practices that
damage the health and safety of workers and the environment.
For
example, rainforests are often cleared to make way for grazing animals
to be slaughtered for unhealthy fast food meat consumption, while prime
land and the surrounding environment is often degraded when producing
cash crops for the wealthier parts of the world. The effects are
numerous. Vandana Shiva also captures this issue:
Junk-food
chains, including KFC and Pizza Hut, are under attack from major
environmental groups in the United States and other developed countries
because of their environmental impact. Intensive breeding of livestock
and poultry for such restaurants leads to deforestation, land
degradation, and contamination of water sources and other natural
resources. For every pound of red meat, poultry, eggs, and milk
produced, farm fields lose about five pounds of irreplaceable top soil.
The water necessary for meat breeding comes to about 190 gallons per
animal per day, or ten times what a normal Indian family is supposed to
use in one day, if it gets water at all.
… Overall, animal farms
use nearly 40 percent of the world’s total grain production. In the
United States, nearly 70 percent of grain production is fed to
livestock.
— Vandana Shiva, Stolen Harvest, (South End Press, 2000), pp. 70-71.
Industries
such as the fast food industry benefit from people consuming more fast
food meats and sugar-based products. Excessive consumption of coffee,
alcohol, tobacco, etc, place an extra burden on the poor and on
environmental resources, both in production of these products as well as
at the other end, where health departments are already strained.
Yet
this all contributes to economic measures such as Gross National
Product. Economists and politicians look at these to see how well their
policies are faring. Selling more sugary products or fast foods to
children and adults results in more sales! Many environmental costs are
either not accounted for or only partly so. For example, if the full
cost of water by the meat industry in the United States was accounted
for, common hamburger meat would cost $35 a pound!
We end up in a situation where 1 billion suffer from hunger, while another billion suffer from obesity.
The
above just scratches the surface, but highlights the interconnectedness
of humanity, the environment and all other forms of life. We cannot
take the environment for granted. Humanity has a responsibility not only
to each other, but to the environment as well, as the environment has
long sustained us and can only continue to do so if we do not destroy
it.
Technological solutions, such as more environmentally friendly
technologies, while extremely important, do not address underlying
political, social and economic causes. Just as doctors highlight the
need to prevent illnesses in the first place, and resort to cures when
needed, so too do we need to understand these deeper issues in a more
holistic manner. The interconnectedness needs more recognition if
environmental degradation, poverty and other global problems can begin
to be addressed.
Concentrating on one dimension without others is
similar to those blind men looking at just a part of the elephant. A
form of environmentalism that ignores humanity as an integral part of
the solution, of economic dogma that forgets about our basic needs, and
of forms of development that ignore environmental concerns all add up to
numerous problems for the world’s people and fragile ecosystems. Some
of these problems are so big we do not even see them even when we think
our eyes are open.
AND... THE UGLY.. RUSSIA AND USA MEETING ALL LOVEY NOW... WHY??? - BECAUSE OF OIL IN THE ARCTIC.... the last pristine way of life in this world next 2 nature's last country- Canada... and USA and Russian and China greed will destroy it.... shame on Obama
Well there's Climate
Change's Credibility all shot 2 hell.... at least Harper's honest... WTF??? and
China??? and Europe with your
fracking??? WTF???
Obama hearts Big Oil in the
Arctic, and other reasons to fear for humanity
CANADA'S SOCKEYE SALMON'S courage distinction verging on extinction-is
teaching what us Climate Oldies have been preaching - each and every Canadian must
actually GET INVOLVED IN CANADA'S NATURE- do something physical- not just dumb
protests that cost $$$billions- go out and save our nature-our salmon teach us
who we were and what we are losing...imho/OLD CANADIANS UNDERSTAND THIS- we
grew up in WWII severe poverty and saving and using everything and always
respect the land and sea- please get don't wave a poster- get actually
involved- our nature's dying
O CANADA-NO F**KING FRACKING/ /Nova Scotia-DOELLE-LAHEY PANEL REPORT- fish
farming report excellent/ POLYGAMY// Age of consent of youth/ tv show -my
husband's not gay ...what's the problem??bus rides and relaxing with nature
/old friends and old dogs and children and watermelon wine/SAUDI BLOGGER GETS
LASHES EACH WEEK AND AMNESTY INT. FOUND OUT SAUDI ARABIA IS ON UN HUMAN
RIGHTS??? - seriously... seriously /JE SUIS CHARLIE / #killthekcup cool video
F**KING
FRACKING- USA HAS OVER 1 MILLION WELLS- coal feb 14 2015?????- AND CHINA....
and u f**king talk and blather about Canada- and how u are going 2 run the Climate
Change program (which will cost everyday people over $400 million 2 put on) in
France- USA and China??? cause folks like u...movie stars like u- ewwwww - our
world is better than this folks... it has 2 b/Pope Francis and Vatican setting
up environment section
World Health Organization... must be replaced..... this was horrific
BLOGSPOT:
Canada Military News: EBOLA- hey Anonymous... WE NEED SOME F**KING HELP-
Ebola is NOT racial- is just plain global fear... and media is vicious in
ignoring their humanity... UN is useless and WHO is so outdated... they do more
harm than good- we need Doctors Without Borders funding/Red Cross/UNICEF-
funding and human decency... this is not a health issue 2 those using good
health procedures- COME ON...october 28- global media fear u- and us old human
rights dogs love u- no more excuses- look at all muslim,black,asian white
nations- look at this disgrace!!!! -Canada's Military- come on Canada let's get
our troops over there.... let's fix this sheeet
CANADA
MILITARY NEWS- EBOLA GLOBAL NEWS Oct.28- Dr.s Without Borders-Pls Donate-
Desiderata -Remember Haiti-Cholera- CHRISTIANS-AGED VOLUNTEERS OF THE WORLD-WE
HAVE AN EBOLA CRISIS- our brothers and sisters of Africas need our help
physically, mentally and financially... let's git r done.. EXAMPLE- BANDAGE
INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION- check their volunteer work in Belize/Remember Haiti
Cholera- pls don't repeat in the Africas and globally...When healing is done-
WHO and UN need 2 give some answers on their humanitarian – our global well
being..imho- let's git r done
All Canadian
Forces in Nepal accounted for after latest quake
All Canadian Forces members
deployed to earthquake-ravaged Nepal were safe and accounted for after another
quake hit the country Tuesday, although one team was briefly cut off from its
base after a landslide triggered by the temblor blocked its path. The latest quake to rattle the
country struck midway between Kathmandu and Mount Everest, hitting an area of
the Himalayan foothills the hardest, but was felt all over the Nepalese capital
and surrounding region. Local authorities said at least
37 people were dead, though that number was expected to rise, and more than
1,100 were injured. The quake came barely three weeks after the country was
devastated by its worst earthquake in decades, which killed more than 8,000. The Foreign Affairs Department
said all Canadian government personnel in the country, including nearly 200
members of the Canadian Forces, were safe after Tuesday’s quake, and said it
was working to reach out to Canadians in the country by all available means. Some members of Canada’s Disaster
Assistance Response Team, however, were temporarily stranded while visiting
remote villages after a landslide blocked their route back to their base, Camp
Sumitra, located about 70 kilometres northeast of Kathmandu. “They were on a section of the
highway that had been cut off by a landslide,” DART spokeswoman Lt.-Cmdr. Kelly
Williamson told The Canadian Press in an interview from Nepal. “They were fine.
We sent some heavy equipment that we have based at Camp Sumitra and they did
clear the road.” The equipment used to dig away
the rubble was a MPEV, or a multi-purpose engineering vehicle, which had been
brought to Nepal from Canada, Williamson said. The quake was also felt at DART’s
headquarters in Kathmandu, as well as at its other operations in a village 16
kilometres north of the capital. “Everyone is safe and accounted
for,” Williamson said. “We all felt the quake probably to the same degree.” After the shaking had stopped,
members of DART’s medical assistance team were asked by the Nepalese army to
assist with casualties at a hospital that had been set up at the international
airport in Kathmandu, Williamson said. DART’s urban search and rescue
technicians were also put on standby. The country’s relief and
emergency recovery effort are being run by the Nepalese government and army,
with Canadian teams available to assist where they best can, said Williamson,
noting that DART would spend the coming days reassessing where it would be the
most useful. “We’ll conduct reconnaissance to
some of the villages we’ve previously visited to reassess how this latest quake
has impacted residents,” she said. The latest quake came just as the
country was beginning to recover from the horrific effects of the massive
earthquake that hit at the end of April. Kent Page, a Mississauga, Ont.,
resident currently working with UNICEF in Kathmandu, said Tuesday’s temblor would
make what was already a difficult rebuilding effort a little bit harder. “Nobody needed a second
earthquake,” he said. Page was with a team assessing
the safety of schools in Kathmandu when Tuesday’s quake hit. He was inside a
school building as it started shaking violently. “It hit very hard, very fast,
very loud, and for a second or two you didn’t really know what was going on,”
he said. “I thought the building was going to collapse on us.” The streets of the capital were
filled with people who had rushed outdoors and were making calls to check on
loved ones, Page said. A few minutes later, an aftershock hit. “That was also very scary,” said
Page. “There were some very anxious moments.” The psychological impact of two
significant quakes in such close succession with each other is now a key
concern, Page said, while also noting the strength of the country’s residents. “The Nepali people are wonderful
people, they’re very strong, they’re very resourceful, they’re very resilient
and they’re going to pull through this,” he said. “But certainly they’ve been
through a lot.” Canada has announced five million
dollars in humanitarian assistance funding to Nepal. The federal government has
also said it will match eligible contributions until May 25 made to registered
Canadian charities for earthquake relief efforts in Nepal.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
Source: OECD, September 2014
Source: OECD Development Statistics Online, last accessed September 28, 2014
Source: Aid at a Glance 2011-2012, OECD Web Site
in 2006, which contained updated numbers from those stated above. The
total of US private giving, since Adelman’s previous report, had
increased to a massive $71 billion in 2004. Page 16 of their report
breaks it down as follows:
0.5
Source: Center for Global Development, Commitment to Development Index 2006
.jpg)
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.