Funds for Washi

Last year's tropical storm Washi continues to effect over 300,000 Filipino people. When Washi hit the island of Mindanao almost 48,000 houses were damaged and more than 550,000 had to leave their homes.

Seven weeks following storm Washi, 21,900 environmental refugees had overcrowded the evacuation centers of Cagayan de Oro and Iligan. More than 400,000 are now residing in makeshift shelters.

The United Nations has revised its prior humanitarian action plan, which had previously asked for $28.4million, and is now seeking $39 million. So far, $9.6 million has been received. The Central Emergency Fund, managed by OCHA, has contributed $3 million to disaster relief efforts.

-Akshika Patel


SOURCE:UN News Centre

UN Helps Rural Farmers Climb Out of Poverty

In an effort to alleviate poverty among farmers in Liberia, the UN International Fund for Agriculture Development (IFAD) has agreed to loan $24.9 million. The Liberian government will utilize the funding for the "tree crop revitalization support project". By improving cocoa and coffee production, this program will effect more than 15,000 smallholder cocoa and coffee famers in the region.

The funds will mainly be distributed in Northern Liberia, where most of the cocoa and coffee farmers live. By reviving 50% of the existing plantations, this program will increase the income of cocoa and coffee producers. IFAD has already invested up to $38.3million throughout five different Liberia targeted programs. It is because of UN aid given towards alleviating poverty in Liberia, that 30,000 households have benefitted.

-Akshika Patel
                                                                                                                    SOURCE: UN News Centre

Borgen Partners with Global Coalition to Make Aid Transparent

Make Aid Transparent from Make Aid Transparent on Vimeo.

Publish What You Fund, a partner of the Modernize Foreign Assistance Network, launched a new campaign today to make aid more transparent. The Borgen Project has joined the coalition of more than 50 civil society groups from over 20 countries around the world to urge governments to share their aid information. This effort is important to make aid more effective.

Currently, there is not enough readily available information for donors to know where money is being spent or how much is being spent. Even governments receiving aid are not completely sure of where aid money is being spent. This lack of transparency undermines aid’s potential and effectiveness.

Aid donors held a meeting in Ghana in 2008 to begin work to make aid more transparent. They developed a way to share all relevant information in a common format. With this format, they can understand, compare and use the information. When donors and recipients know where aid is going, it will be spent where it is needed most and citizens will be able to know what it is being spent on.

This campaign will create a public push for governments to make their aid transparent. If governments are on board to share things like how much they are spending on aid and exactly where it is going, they will be able to see where aid is needed most and where it has the most impact. This way, one place will not receive too much aid going to health and not enough to water resources, for example. The Borgen Project is excited to be part of this campaign!

-Sami Ressler

SOURCE: MAKE AID TRANSPARENT

Humanitarian Aid Needed After Ivorian Crisis

In Cote d'Ivoire the post-electoral crisis has ended, but thousands of civilians are still suffering from the months of conflict that has left the country in unrest. In 2010 both President Laurent Gbagbo and his opposing candidate Alassane Ouattara claimed victory in the election. Negotiations failed and the situation in the Ivory Coast became increasingly violent, leading to the country's second civil war.

Four months of turmoil have engulfed this African nation and the UN has declared that increased humanitarian aid is needed. UN aid officials have estimated that a millions have fled their homes and 100,000 have crossed in Liberia to flee the conflict zone. Thousands of civilians have also been killed in what many have declared a mass human rights violation. There are reports of massacres and mass graves.

The crisis ended early this month when Laurent Gbagbo finally surrendered and while fighting has slowed the UN relief officials say that there remain ongoing security threats, difficulties in access to health essentials, education and sanitation services. The population is becoming increasingly vulnerable. The priority needs in the area are the distribution of tarpaulin, kitchen utensils, mats and other non-food items. The presence of arms and the risk of sexual abuse also require attention.

UN agencies and partners have launched an appeal for $160 million to provide food security, nutrition, education, protection, water, health care and sanitation to as many as 2 million people throughout the Ivory Coast.

--Gabrielle Gurian

SOURCE: UN NEWS CENTER

Funding For Fighting Poverty Is Preserved!!

Those who were worried about the House of Representatives' decision to cut aid money can finally relax now as last night the Senate preserved all funding for fighting global poverty. The Senate passed the 2011 US budget compromise by a margin of 81-19 votes which came just hours after the House passed it 260-167. Fortunately, the budget preserves almost all key funding for various programs fighting poverty in the developing world. Here’s a breakdown of what these programs finally ended up with in the FY11 budget:

# The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria– no cut, funded at $1.05 billion

# The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) — no cut, funded at $4.6 billion

# Feed the Future Initiative (agriculture) (bilateral) — no cut, funded at about $813 million

# Feed the Future Initiative (agriculture) (multilateral) — received $100 million appropriation for the first time

# Development Assistance — no cut, at FY10 level of $2.5 billion (contains ag, ed, microfinance, water, etc)

# GAVI – hard to determine, but most likely to be flat at $78 million, perhaps better

# World Bank IDA — no cut, at $1.235 billion

The ONE Campaign has been advocating for months to preserve the abovementioned key programs at current funding. They delivered a petition of over 150,000 signatures, made over 16,000 calls to members of Congress, and arranged hundreds of in-district meetings. Those who did not sign the petition or make the call do not need to feel left out. We'll need you again next year to step up and save millions of lives in the developing world for 2012 budget fight.

For now, I am just glad I signed the petition!

-Nisha Noor

SOURCE: ONE

Pay-For-Performance Or Cash-On-Delivery?

Current debates regarding two forms of foreign aid: pay-for-performance and cash-on-delivery emphasize the importance of the results that foreign aid is supposed to achieve. The traditional form of foreign aid that pays for desired performance is improvised by a new form of aid that pays after desired performance is achieved. This cash-on-delivery approach is welcomed by many as well as rejected by a lot. According to Tina Rosenberg, cash-on-delivery has some advantages over pay-for-performance especially if we consider the bureaucratic formalities and endless paperwork requirements associated with the traditional form of aid. Cash-on-delivery will not only dispense with all these formalities but also will increase the number of households hooked up to an urban sewer system, decrease child mortality and improve air quality. But this new approach will not work well if it is not supplemented by other programs which will provide the capital money to start a project. Also, if government can manipulate the data of how good actually people are doing then there is a possibility that this form will fail to function.

Although it seems that cash-on-delivery program is totally different from pay-for-performance, in reality it is not so different. The new program has already been experimented in Lesotho, Burkina Faso and Brazil in different forms. According to Rosenberg, this new approach has the potential to be able to make aid more effective and motivate people to come out of poverty.

-Nisha Noor

SOURCE: THE NEW YORK TIMES

3 Voices For Foreign Aid

Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network (MFAN) Co-Chairs David Beckmann, George Ingram and Jim Kolbe have stated the importance that foreign development aid has for the US. These three people have very different backgrounds: Rev. David Beckmann is the president of Bread for the World, George Ingram is co-chairman of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, and Jim Kolbe is a former Republican congressman from Arizona who works as a senior advisor at McLarty and associates. But they agree in how relevant foreign assistance is for the US and the whole world.

The most important thing for them is to transmit to the average American citizen true and valuable info and facts about foreign assistance. For instance, a lot of Americans still believe the US spends up to 25% of the budget on aid when it is currently less than 1%. According to these three experts, development aid is a key component of US foreign policy, together with defense and diplomacy. The modest investment in development pays huge dividends in terms of security, prosperity and global leadership.

In the security area, the numbers could not be clearer: "development is a lot cheaper than sending soldiers," Secretary Robert Gates recently outlined. The outcomes in stability, governance and moderation of extremisms are much greater than the costs. For economic prosperity, development aid improves conditions in countries, allowing them to trade with the US, thus opening new business opportunities and political ties. Furthermore, aid is not just exporting dollars. Much of what is spent actually stays in the country in the form of wages of contractors or in payments for US made goods to be sent overseas. Finally, programs like vaccination campaigns that save thousands of lives or investment in agricultural development reinforce the image of the US and its global leadership to the eyes of the World.

It is also recommended that the aid has to be more effective and accountable, better measured and evaluated, and also more responsive and adapted to local initiatives and priorities. The role of private and public investors and donors has to be better shaped too. And with all these facts in hand, a honest debate can begin among the American public.

- David Nebreda

SOURCE: MFAN

New Aid Model: Cash On Delivery

Transparency and efficiency are two major concerns for a lot of tax payers when asked about foreign aid. Corruption and inefficiency are seen as pits where aid money just disappears. This might not be always true, but sadly sometimes it is. That is why development experts from all around the world are always trying to improve current aid modalities. Sometimes they even come up with new brilliant ideas, although experimentation in this field is extremely difficult. "Cash On Delivery" is one of these new brilliant ideas that might improve development aid.

Traditional development aid worked this way: a donor country puts a pile of money on the table and gives it to a recipient country with a goal to fulfill. The donor usually imposes how the money has to be expended and how the goals should be accomplished, often ignoring the particular circumstances of the recipient country. The donor country will also be questioning local strategies and closely monitoring the program, even when this means extra paperwork and methodologies to which recipient country's bureaucracies are not familiar with, and may consequently cause delays and obstructions. Problems do not end here. Once the money is given, it is very difficult to keep track of it, and too many times results are simply impossible to verify. The only penalty that the recipient country might face in case of misuse is a cut of future aid.

Cash On Delivery works differently: it focuses on the outcomes of aid better than the inputs. Both countries would sing a public long term agreement. In this agreement there will be an initial payment and an easily measurable goal (like children finnishing school or vaccines distributed). The recipient country will receive a certain amount of money for each outcome or result up to the goal, and a bonus for every result above the objectives as an incentive. The results will have to be accurately measured by the recipient country, and verified by independent auditors. Technical or material aid can be lent if both countries agree.

This model has several advantages: first of all, the agreement is open and public, so populations of both countries know what to expect and demand from their respective governments. As outcomes are necessary to keep receiving funding, recipient countries are encouraged to accomplish the goals on time, and donor governments can give a much better view of the whereabouts of their taxpayer's money. The hands-off approach means that the recipient country will choose, design, implement, manage and take responsibility of its own strategies and won't be disturbed by external influences. In sum, this will result in more accountability, transparency, efficiency and responsibility with money and at the same time more flexibility and freedom of action.

This model is already being tested by the NGO GAVI in several developing countries, and will be soon put down to practice in big numbers by UK's overseas aid agency. This new approach to foreign aid needs high management skills, well trained personnel and long term commitment, but it can do a lot of good if successful.

- David Nebreda

SOURCE: The New York Times

US Treasury Secretary Warns Not To Slash Aid

Two weeks ago, US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner warned the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that it was a matter of national interest that the US keeps supporting the World Bank and other multilateral development organizations. These contributions mean just a 5% of the whole foreign assistance budget, but they can mobilize funds that add up more than 150% of the budget. Therefore, funding the World Bank and other development banks such is one of the most cost-effective ways the US has to promote its interests in developing countries.

But there are also main economic security concerns in this warning. According to Timothy Geithner, a real risk can be found in withdrawing US funds from these organizations, (and development aid in general): that the US place can be taken by other countries, like China. Several Senators and Representatives have expressed their concerns about China's quick economical expansion in places like South America, Africa or Asia. A step back in foreign aid funding will inevitably cede influence to China and other rising powers, as for many countries the only alternative to the World Bank is actually China.

- David Nebreda

SOURCE: AFP

Foreign Aid 101

Switzerland To Increase Aid Budget

As the United Kingdom did some days ago, the Parliament of Switzerland voted for increasing overseas aid for development for the next years, despite the international economic crisis. With the additional funding, Switzerland's foreign aid value will reach 640 million Swiss francs, which is equivalent to 690 million US$. The Swiss Senate has also decided to scale the country's contribution to development and aid up to a 0.5% of the GNI before 2015. That level is still shorter than the famous goal of 0.7, but it is considerably bigger than the US 0.16%. Today, only four countries assign 0.7% of their GNI to official development aid: Denmark, Sweden, Luxemburg and the Netherlands.

The reasons declared by Switzerland's Foreign and Economy Ministers, this increase responds not only to the desire of reducing poverty, but also to advance Swiss interests abroad and to tackle the causes that lie beneath insecurity, conflicts, migration fluxes or environmental problems. The US should be taking note when even a country traditionally isolationed, neutral and barely involved in international affairs as Switzerland starts taking measures in this sense in the middle of an economic crisis.

- David Nebreda

SOURCE: DEVEX

Foreign Aid Is Spared From British Budget Cut

While the U.S. House of Representatives decided to undertake deep budget cut in order to fund their debts and budget deficit, the British government has already delivered the promised budget cut to fund UK's current deficit. But unlike the U.S. House bill, the British government has spared two key areas from the budget cut: national health and fortunately, foreign aid. Not only that, the government is actually planning to increase the budget for foreign aid by 37% in real terms over the next four years. The British conservatives are going to implement an average of 19% budget cuts across almost every area of government spending to eliminate the current deficit by 2015. Defense will face a 7.5% budget cut over the next four years while the diplomatic budget will shrink by 24%.

There are mainly three reasons why the British government is exempting foreign aid from the budget cut. First, national security reason. The British government believes that it is cheaper to donate several billion dollars to the fragile states in order to help them build their infrastructures than investing tens or thousands of billion dollars for emergency intervention in case these states collapse and pose a security threat for Britain. Second, economic reasons. As the world is shrinking and several new powers are competing with the West to capture the world market, it is wise to provide aid to weak countries in order to build goodwill and create personal and organizational ties. Third, humanitarian reasons. The British government believes that it is their moral duty to eliminate global poverty and to help reduce the enormous suffering across the globe. Experts are hopeful that the British government's decision of sparing foreign aid from the budget cut can be an example for the American government who so far placed less priority on aid and decided to cut a major portion of it to finance their deficit.

-Nisha Noor

SOURCE: NPR

Is Reduction In Foreign Aid Budget Really Going To Help U.S. Government?

As the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives has called for deep cuts in U.S. foreign aid budget, the Obama administration's commitment to foster global prosperity is about to face serious challenge. While President Obama's administration views weak and fragile states as threats to national security, the majority of the House of Representatives do not share this view. The House leadership by planning to cut foreign aid by 21% from 2011 budget, has promised to ensure that the foreign aid is not being used as a stimulus bill for foreign countries. The House bill proposed very deep cuts for diplomacy and development and very modest cuts for defense, thus drawing criticism from the more international-minded Representatives.

There is a an obvious ideological difference between these two groups regarding the issue of foreign aid. The Obama administration believes that reducing foreign aid to weaker states would definitely create problems associated with national security. Therefore, U.S. government must continue to provide funds both for war efforts and for economic assistance. But the House bill proposed to continue funding for war efforts and planned to cut the economic support funds. While the debate between focus on defense budget and development budget is heating up, it looks like defense budget is likely to win over development budget if Senate does not decide otherwise. In this situation, experts have a solution: given that U.S. spends more than 20 times as much on defense as it does on development assistance, it could make the changes proportional by cutting $20 from the Pentagon for every $1 it adds to development, and use the rest to draw down the deficit.

-Nisha Noor

SOURCE: FOREIGN POLICY

U.S. Plans To Cut Global Aid By 10% To 30%

The new Republican majority in the House of Representatives is planning to cut global foreign aid programs by 10% to 30% this year to help reduce the U.S. budget deficit. According to an estimate by the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, a pro-foreign aid group in Washington D.C., the Republican proposal would cut the International Affairs funds which includes everything from State Department salaries to AIDS vaccines in Africa by more than 13%. While some ultra-conservative Republicans wanted the entire U.S. foreign aid budget eliminated, some more pro-foreign aid Republicans proposed to cut upto $100 billion in domestic and foreign aid programs in order to manage the out-of-control budget deficit and U.S. debts. The House Republicans are also seeking to cut at least 2,170 State Department jobs created in recent years to make up for previous job cuts.

Democrats are fearing that the proposed foreign aid cuts will cripple U.S. diplomacy especially when drug-related violence is escalating in Mexico and Central America, and China, Iran and Venezuela are becoming more influential. It can be noted that, U.S. gives out only 0.2% of its GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in foreign assistance in comparison with Sweden's 1%. Experts are concerned that this aid cut can be the first step toward reduction in U.S. influence worldwide especially when it has been estimated that Venezuela pledged more funds ($1.3 billion) for Haiti's reconstruction than the U.S. ($1.1 billion).

-Nisha Noor

SOURCE: THE MIAMI HERALD

President Obama Requests $1.125 Billion For MCC To Continue Its Mission To Reduce Poverty

U.S. President Barack Obama delivered his Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal to Congress today which includes $1.125 billion for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to continue innovative approach to development assistance. In a press release, MCC confirmed this fact. MCC, A U.S. Government agency aims to reduce global poverty through economic growth on the principle that aid is most effective when it reinforces sound economic, political and social policies. Since it was established in 2004, MCC has partnered with 22 countries on large scale poverty reduction programs in order to help them achieve self-sufficiency and fight corruption while promoting accountability.

Besides 22 countries, MCC is expected to partner with 6 more countries in fiscal year 2011 and 2012 which account for over 6% of those living under $2 a day. These are Indonesia, Malawi, Zambia, Cape Verde, Ghana, and Georgia. These countries are eligible for partnering because their sound policies provide a solid foundation for growth and measurable development results. MCC believes that, in these difficult times it is more important than ever to make sure that American taxpayer dollars are being used efficiently by not only reducing global poverty but also creating stable trading and investment partners for U.S. that will strengthen the American economy and secure American interest.

MCC through their effort continues to make significant contributions to President Obama's foreign policy priorities including promoting global stability through development and supporting new aid initiatives such as food security and fiscal transparency. For more information on MCC's FY2012 Congressional Budget Justification, click on http://www.mcc.gov/documents/reports/mcc-fy2012-cbj.pdf

-Nisha Noor

SOURCE: MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

ONE International's Petition For Increased Transparency In Aid Funding

ONE International, through their online blog, has created a petition for people to sign to demand governments publish details of what they fund with aid money. The ONE organization wants to influence governments (especially Italy, Portugal, Austria and Japan who are the least transparent) to become more transparent in letting the public know exactly where and what aid funds are being used for. The goal is to make sure that aid is being spent in the best ways possible, free from corruption and inefficiency. The petition reads: "Please publish the details of all the aid you give, and push for all other aid donors to publish theirs too."

This campaign is just the start of a year-long fight by ONE for increased government transparency in all areas, with the hope of bringing about change that can focus governments on improving the livelihoods of their populations. You can access the petition from the link to the blog post below.

- Brock McNairy

SOURCE: ONE International