Thanks to a US Agency for International Development (USAID) agricultural diversification program, the melons have brought unprecedented prosperity to Cortez and other farmers in rural Parras Lempa, El Salvador. USAID's program helps farmers improve their growing techniques, cultivate new crops, and earn higher incomes.
While the present is a time of great success, it's the future that Cortez is thinking of: his two teenage sons, who attend high school during the day and then help him in the fields. "This is the example I try to set for them: to keep learning and to work hard," he says. "That's their heritage."
This hard work is paying off. Cortez leads a group of 64 local farmers who take part in the program; in the past two years, they've collectively invested $90,000 in renting additional fertile land. Cortez's group now manages 40 percent more land—a total of 252 acres—generating an additional $184,000 in annual income and 306 new jobs for the community.
The origins of this particular USAID program go back to early 2001, when two strong earthquakes struck central El Salvador and smashed a series of rural farming towns. USAID's country office quickly assessed the needs of these communities and began a $200 million multiyear project to rebuild damaged houses, roads, and schools.
Through those assessments, the USAID team saw that it wasn't enough to use the agriculture component of the project just to bring communities back to where they were before the earthquake; people would still be struggling to earn a living from subsistence crops. USAID would need to create new long-term solutions in order to bring about true economic development.
USAID found that new growing techniques could help the farmers of central El Salvador improve their productivity. The agency selected Fintrac, a US-based private contractor specializing in agriculture, to implement a four-year program. Fintrac built on local knowledge by hiring top Salvadoran agronomists to work closely with the farmers on the new methods.
"Other agronomists that have come with previous projects barely spent any time with you," says Cortez. "What's been different about these agronomists [from Fintrac] is that they are here with us every week, and they really get involved in teaching us every single trick of the production techniques."
In communities like Parras Lempa, farmers learned new techniques—different seed varieties, more efficient fertilizing methods, new planting patterns—to improve upon the crops their families had been growing for generations.
In other communities, like nearby Calderitas, farmers learned how to cultivate tomatoes and peppers, which fetch high prices on the domestic market. A drip irrigation system made it possible to grow the vegetables using less water and without the time-consuming labor of hand-watering.
Along the way, Fintrac had to adapt the program to the reality on the ground. Fintrac's agronomists learned that their approach didn't work well with farmers who had less than an acre of land, limited access to credit, or insufficient access to water or roads. But the farmers who met these criteria thrived under Fintrac's assistance.
Fintrac's successes led USAID to rehire the company for an additional four-year program cycle. Today many of these rural entrepreneurs—like the group in Parras Lempa—earn enough to invest their own resources, with the goal of eventually becoming independent from the program.
Fintrac succeeded at promoting economic development by doing the following:
As the second four-year cycle nears its end, USAID must now tackle the challenge of making its lessons live beyond the program's end date and boundaries. The agency is currently transferring Fintrac's knowledge to agronomists in the Ministry of Agriculture. USAID is also building partnerships with local nongovernmental organizations that will allow it to reach smaller-scale farmers—including those who originally weren't able to take part in the program.
And in a domestic market increasingly dominated by supermarket chains, USAID will need to invest in new partnerships that enable organized farmers to retain their selling power.
"In spite of the earmarks and political concerns that often keep aid programs from achieving their full potential, this example shows that USAID can implement meaningful, transformative programs," says Omar Ortez, Oxfam America's senior coordinator for programming and partnership, who visited the program in spring 2008.
"This program came about because of an emergency, but made an early commitment to long-term development. By hiring the best Salvadoran agronomists, USAID built on local knowledge and became context-driven. It learned hard lessons about its approach and adapted the program accordingly. If the US funded more long-term aid programs like this one, just imagine what could be accomplished in the fight against rural poverty."
Learn more about Oxfam America's Aid Reform initiative.
]]>Well, the US is by far the largest donor to Afghanistan—and we must acknowledge and credit the US with this generosity. Without US support, it is difficult to envisage Afghanistan achieving stability in the near future.
I think it's clear that not all of America's pledges to Afghanistan have been fulfilled. Of course, there are reasons why—partly due to the lack of capacity on the part of Afghan ministries and the security environment. But I think there is a clear need for efforts by donors, first of all, to fulfill their aid pledges wherever possible, and second, to focus on building the capacity of the government both at a central and a local level.
We also need to bear in mind, regardless of pledges, the levels of aid. The average level of US aid in Afghanistan for the last six years has been around $7 million a day, compared to the fact that the US military spends around $100 million a day in the country. Now, we can't immediately put that right, because a large of influx of aid would be a dangerous thing—it could lead to waste or corruption. What we need to do is incrementally increase the level of aid.
This brings me to perhaps the most important point: the way aid is spent is crucial. There are a number of ways in which aid is failing to maximize its potential.
For example, efficiency: too much aid is wasted on large contractors who make significant profits. Large numbers of expatriate consultants absorb a lot of the aid in high salaries. Now, we're not saying that you don't need consultants or contractors in Afghanistan—you do. But you've got to rigorously assess the extent to which they are providing value for money, in each case and in every program. And around half of aid is “tied”: donors require the procurement of goods or services from their own states. This is inefficient, and as a result we estimate 40 percent of international aid goes back to donor countries.
Also, we have been looking at the ways aid is delivered. In many cases, donors fail to ensure that aid is addressing Afghan needs, rather than being supply-driven and prescriptive according to donor preferences. In many cases there has not been an even distribution of aid. Aid has been used to achieve military and political objectives, rather than for the fundamental priority of reducing poverty. It's been urbanized, rather than prioritizing rural areas where the vast majority of Afghans live. Some two-thirds of aid bypasses the government, and only half of aid is actually in agreement with the government. Then there are problems with coordination: of all technical assistance, only about one-third is coordinated, and there is a clear lack of coherence among the donors in a number of areas.
Aid is essential to Afghanistan, and it actually needs more aid, but at the same time there have to be concerted efforts to improve aid's impact and its efficiency and its effectiveness. Donors need to provide full transparency about what they're doing, what they're spending their funds on, and how they're spending them. We need to establish indicators of aid effectiveness, tracking impact, efficiency, relevance, sustainability, accountability, ownership, and use of Afghan resources.
There should be a separate, independent body—which could even be located within an existing institution—which monitors aid delivery, evaluates aid, identifies bad practices, and issues recommendations as to how they can be put right. Donors should take steps to improve coordination, which will require efforts by each individual donor, as well as a strengthened UN and Joint Coordinating Monitoring Board in Afghanistan.
I've seen local NGOs working at grassroots level with simple projects that are according to Afghan preferences and Afghan needs; they're often led and actually implemented by Afghans. Even if it's just a simple water supply project or irrigation project, I've seen some really impressive results that benefit an entire community. And I've been impressed with the commitment of the people at these kinds of NGOs. They're really hard-working, dedicated to what they do. Of course we do need the big infrastructure projects, but the ones that strike me as particularly well-done have been these small-scale projects.
I think this is actually at the heart of effective aid. In order to have a project that is really relevant to the lives of ordinary people living in difficult circumstances, you have to ensure that they are fully engaged, fully involved, and if possible leading projects. And then indeed they will make sure—because this is of direct relevance to their lives—they will make sure that the project is addressing their needs, and in the future they will fully use it and ensure that they get the benefits from it.
Let's face it: nobody wants to feel anything is imposed on them. Communities in the developing world are no different. We cannot impose solutions; we have to really make strenuous efforts in terms of engaging people. There may be some trade-offs in terms of efficiency, but it's worth it to ensure that what we do is effective.
There has been insufficient coordination between the government and the donors. I think there is now recognition of this problem, and there will be efforts to improve and address this. It's crucial that there is a strong partnership, and wherever possible, the Afghan government takes the lead.
But at the same time there is no doubt that there have to be efforts to improve the capacity of the Afghan government, to improve its public administration, to increase transparency, to build accountability, and to reduce corruption. Donors should be conscious of this; it requires considerable efforts on their part to help the Afghan government address some of these problems.
Certainly there is significant scope for USAID to improve its aid delivery in Afghanistan. There should be efforts made to increase the amount of aid that goes to the Afghan government, and this can be done through international trust funds, which offer a means of protecting against corruption or waste. Britain and Canada both devote the vast bulk of their funds to the Afghan government through these trust funds, and we would encourage the US to do likewise. Right now, only 6 percent of US aid goes to the Afghan government. It's hard to see a sustainable government in the future if we're not building up its capacities.
USAID should ensure that all its projects are in alignment with national or provincial plans, and fully engaged with government or local authorities. It should ensure that it is reducing the amount of aid that is delivered through military teams, and increasing aid to civilian-led development processes. It should attempt to ensure real transparency in the activities of the large contracting firms, and ensure that their profit margins are fully justified. It should ensure that there is a proper assessment of whether consultants are fully justifying their considerable salaries. It should reduce tied aid requirements, so that projects do not require the use of American firms of materials. It should seek to increase the extent to which it coordinates with other donors and the Afghan government.
We would also encourage USAID to support the call for the establishment of indicators of aid effectiveness, and support an independent mechanism for monitoring the performance of donors. We believe it's in everybody's interest to identify where aid could be better spent, and how it could be better spent, which ultimately will lead to stability and allow the US to over time reduce its commitments in Afghanistan.
There is undoubtedly a link between insecurity and persistent poverty in Afghanistan. If aid is effectively delivered, and there is strong rural development, I can guarantee that is the best foundation for a future of peace in Afghanistan. There no shortcuts, no quick deals that will lead to a lasting peace. An essential component of peace is strong development, which we can achieve if we increase the level of aid and use it well.
Although violence has been increasing in recent years, there is a real prospect of achieving more peace in Afghanistan. The international community needs to recognize that a major change of direction is required. They, together with the Afghan government, need to take a number of steps. They need to support the proposals we have made and other NGOs have made about humanitarian priorities, development, peace-building, and aid effectiveness, and there needs to be a sense of urgency in order to put things on the right track. I am cautiously optimistic, primarily because of the sheer resilience and determination of the Afghans to achieve peace and development. But we have to raise our game in order to help them to achieve that.
]]>Waldman's assessment will reinforce what many Americans believe: that long years of struggle have put the Afghan people in a position of hopelessness. But when Waldman talks about the people he has met in the course of his work, what he emphasizes most is their strength and resilience.
"The Afghan people have a great strength; a dignity in their lives, and a pride in their culture....In many ways, I'm impressed by their determination to make the best of the situations they live in."
Waldman himself is British, a former foreign affairs advisor for the UK Parliament. He is in the midst of a whirlwind US trip to promote Falling Short, a report he wrote exposing the $15 billion international aid shortfall in Afghanistan.
He looks a little weary, but speaks calmly and assuredly about leading a team of Oxfam policy and advocacy specialists who work both in the capital city of Kabul and in rural areas of Afghanistan. Their job: to listen to people's concerns, conduct research, and advocate for change at the national and international level.
In the mountain provinces of Badakhshan and Daikundi, Waldman and his team visited families who survive long, harsh winters on a diet of mainly dried bread and tea; communities where the life expectancy hovers around 44 years old; places where children and pregnant women often die due to malnutrition and a lack of medical care.
In other regions, thousands of civilians have fallen victim to acts of violence by militants and criminal groups. Oxfam and local NGOs are implementing peace-building programs to end violence at the local level.
Despite the obstacles, many Afghan people are determined to build a secure future for their country and their families. "I know of individuals working for human rights, who have been subject to considerable pressures, who nonetheless continue their fight," notes Waldman. "And ordinary Afghans who work long and hard to ensure their families are well kept and their children can attend school."
The US also plays a role in securing Afghanistan's future. "The US is by far the largest aid donor to Afghanistan," Waldman says. "Without US support, it is difficult to envisage Afghanistan achieving stability in the near future."
Right now, though, US support for Afghanistan is not living up to its promises. US military spending there far exceeds spending on aid—and the US has only delivered half of the $10.4 billion in aid it committed between 2002 and 2008. To achieve real change in Afghanistan, Waldman says, the US must increase funding for aid projects that lift people out of poverty.
And effective aid is about more than just dollar amounts. "The way aid is spent is crucial," says Waldman. "Right now, there are a number of ways aid is failing to maximize its potential."
To live up to this potential, the US needs to approach aid differently in Afghanistan:
It's essential, Waldman says, that local people are the owners and leaders of the aid projects that affect their lives. "Let's face it: nobody wants to feel that anything is imposed on them. Communities in the developing world are no different. In order to have a project that is really relevant to the lives of ordinary people living in difficult circumstances, you have to ensure that they are fully involved."
If we take these steps, Waldman says, we can build on the strength of the Afghan people and help bring peace after decades of conflict.
"I am cautiously optimistic," he says, "primarily because of the sheer resilience and determination of the Afghans to achieve peace and development. But there are no shortcuts, no quick deals that will lead to a lasting peace."
Instead of getting smarter, US foreign aid is increasingly overwhelmed by short-sighted security concerns and a fixation with "results" of the wrong kind. Current US aid policies face two paradoxes:
If the US wants to become a global leader in smart development, it must reform the legislation, organizational structure, strategy, and implementation of its foreign aid to empower effective states and active citizens to lead their own development.
]]>“The next president has a chance to create a better foreign aid system that will help lift millions from poverty and re-establish US global standing,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “Foreign assistance is the international face of the US, and right now, it’s pretty ugly.”
In its report, Oxfam attributes the demise of US foreign aid’s effectiveness to the following key issues:
Oxfam says US policymakers and the next US president have to balance the hard power of the US military, with the soft power of US diplomacy and development.
“Some call this balance smart power. Oxfam believes that smart power is impossible without smart development,” said Offenheiser. “Smart development means enabling foreign governments to lead more responsibly and helping their citizens engage more actively in their own economic growth and development.”
Policy recommendations outlined in Oxfam’s report include:
US aid to the world's poorest countries fell to $21.7 billion in 2007 from $23.5 billion in 2006. Although the US is still the world's largest donor in terms of total aid dollars, it ranks near the bottom of the list when comparing development aid against gross national income (GNI). In 2007, the US gave just 0.16 percent of its GNI to development aid, down from 0.18 percent in 2006.
The figures come from new data to be released Friday in Tokyo, which show that the total overseas aid provided in 2007 was $104 billion, in real terms an 8.4 percent drop. US aid decreased by 9.9 percent in 2007.
Oxfam called on the US to meet its commitments, but also to ensure the aid it is currently delivering is effectively helping people lift themselves out of poverty.
"With increased food prices wreaking havoc on poor communities globally, the US must ensure that aid is as effective as possible," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America.
"The US must take steps to increase overseas assistance, but also to improve the quality of the aid. The long-term needs of the poor—not politics—should come first," said Offenheiser. "The next administration must refocus the foreign aid system so that it will help lift millions from poverty and re-establish US global standing."
Just this week, the BBC World Service released a poll showing that people around the world ranked the US below Russia when asked about a country's positive influence in the world.
"For every dollar the US spends on aid on poverty-focused aid, it spends almost $33 on defense," said Offenheiser. "When aid is effective, it builds a safer world for everyone."
Rich countries promised to increase aid by $50 billion by 2010. They also committed to significantly improve the way it is given, directly allocating more resources to fighting poverty. They have done very little to meet these promises since then.
Oxfam calculates that on recent trends, rich countries will fall short of the target by as much as $30 billion – a difference that could cost millions of lives. Without this vital aid, there is no chance of meeting the 2015 Millennium Development Goals, such as cutting maternal and child death and ensuring every child gets to go to school.
In 1970, rich countries promised to give 0.7 percent of their income as aid. Only Denmark, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Sweden and Norway have met this promise.
This year's figures will be released by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development in Japan, where this year's G8 Summit is set to take place in July.
For more information contact Helen DaSilva: hdasilva@oxfamamerica.org or +617-331-2984.
><p>
]]>
At a meeting with development organizations on Friday, The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) said that it would likely move ahead with its proposed Partner Vetting System (PVS). The meeting was called after non-governmental organizations (NGOs) raised serious concerns over the PVS. The screen would require all NGOs receiving funding from USAID to gather personal information on key staff members of all sub-grantees and vendors in developing countries. USAID has said that information gathered will be checked against its existing terrorist database.
“Development professionals at USAID and NGOs who are there to help people living in poverty are being pressured to act as intelligence gathering agents,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “That’s not an appropriate role for people providing development and humanitarian assistance and certainly not what they signed up for.”
According to Oxfam, the PVS will hinder poverty relief because aid workers will be perceived as agents of the US government. Aid workers’ primary mission of reducing poverty will be masked with the perception that their role is to safeguard short-term US security interests. Such a perception will undermine their ability to work at the local level and endanger the lives of individual employees being asked to collect the information, and potentially even endanger the lives of beneficiaries receiving assistance.
“No one wants to see US taxpayers’ dollars supporting terrorism, but the PVS won’t actually help the US identify terrorists and stop them. Aid workers would be collecting information to check against a list of suspects the US already has,” said Offenheiser. “If individuals have already been identified as having committed or are planning to commit a terrorist crime, they should be arrested by law enforcement officials.”
The PVS is part of a larger trend, evident in US funding, that favors short-term political goals over US long-term security and development objectives. The percentage of US foreign aid administered by the Department of Defense has grown from 3.5 percent in 1998 to 18 percent in 2006. This trend will diminish US global standing, and in effect, increase long-term insecurity and leave millions of people living in poverty unnecessarily.
“Development is a critical part of our foreign policy. The PVS will not only undermine our ability to help the poor, it will further weaken our already damaged reputation overseas.” concluded Offenheiser. Oxfam proposes that if there are groups that openly and actively support terrorism against the United States, the names of those groups should be made public and NGOs instructed not engage with them or support them in any way as a condition of receiving US government funding.
]]>The international community has pledged $25 billion to Afghanistan since 2001 but has only delivered $15 billion. The US is the biggest donor to Afghanistan but also has one of the biggest shortfalls—according to the Afghan government between 2002 and 2008 the US only delivered half of its $10.4 billion commitment.
The same sources show that over this period the European Commission and Germany distributed less than two-thirds of their respective $1.7 and $1.2 billion commitments, and the World Bank has distributed just over half of its $1.6 billion commitment. The UK pledged $1.45 billion and distributed $1.3 billion.
"The reconstruction of Afghanistan requires a sustained and substantial commitment of aid—but donors have failed to meet their aid pledges to Afghanistan. Too much aid from rich countries is wasted, ineffective or uncoordinated,” said the report’s author Matt Waldman, Afghanistan policy advisor at international aid agency Oxfam. “Given the slow pace of progress in Afghanistan, and the links between poverty and conflict, the international community must urgently get its act together."
An estimated 40 percent of the money spent has returned to rich donor countries such as the US through corporate profits, consultant salaries and other costs, vastly pushing up expenditure. For example, a road between the center of Kabul and the international airport cost the US over $3.7 million per mile, at least four times the average cost of building a road in Afghanistan.
Around 90 percent of all public spending in Afghanistan comes from international aid, so the massive shortfall hinders efforts to rebuild infrastructure damaged by over two decades of war and to ensure the widespread delivery of essential services such as education and health.
The report says a level of donor under-spending can be expected because of the lack of Afghan government capacity, large-scale corruption and challenging security conditions. But the size of the shortfall highlights the importance of donors making concerted efforts to address these issues.
The report also shows that a disproportionate amount of aid follows the conflict and is being used for political and military objectives rather than reducing poverty.
"Spending on tackling poverty is a fraction of what is spent on military operations," continued Waldman. "While the US military is currently spending $100 million a day in Afghanistan, aid spent by all donors since 2001 is on average less than a tenth of that—just $7 million a day. This is a shortsighted policy. There must be strong support for development in the south but if other provinces are neglected then insecurity could spread."
Looking to the future of aid to Afghanistan, Waldman concluded: "The priority now is to increase the volume of aid and ensure it makes a sustainable difference for the poorest Afghans, especially in rural areas. Aid must address Afghan needs, build local capacities and help Afghans help themselves."
ACBAR's main recommendations are:
The work is part of Oxfam America's new public health initiative launched by the humanitarian response department. Its aim is to deepen the effectiveness of its emergency programs and to start building a bank of scientific data that the agency can use to advocate for changes that will improve the lives of poor people.
"Public health assessments provide true evidence of a problem, and they are a lot more effective than rhetoric in focusing attention on the issues," said Miriam Aschkenasy, an emergency medicine physician and Oxfam America's first public health specialist.
Hired in July to head the initiative, Aschkenasy will work on a variety of projects as the agency begins to map out its public health priorities and build a network of specialists who could respond in humanitarian emergencies when the need arises.
"Public health was going on, but no one was calling it public health," said Aschkenasy. "Some of the grants Oxfam awarded to partners were addressing problems such as diarrhea, HIV/AIDS, and access to care. All of these are public health issues, but they didn't fall into a particular person's portfolio. As the humanitarian response department did more of this work, it became apparent it needed someone who specialized in this area."
But Aschkenasy is not undertaking this task alone. A key component of the new program calls for collaboration between Oxfam and top medical facilities, many of which are located in Boston, the agency's headquarters. A formal partnership with the Harvard Humanitarian Initiative is the first of these relationships. The initiative, or HHI, is a joint academic program involving multiple entities within Harvard's academic and medical community. It combines expertise in public health, medicine, social science, and humanities to advance research, practice, and policy in the field of humanitarian assistance.
"Here in Boston we have access to some of the most skilled public health specialists in the world," said Michael Delaney, Oxfam's director of humanitarian response. "We give them the history, the politics, and the culture of a situation--the key ingredients to an effective humanitarian response--and they give us the voice of authority on public health matters when we meet with government officials to push for change."
Twice since last summer, teams from HHI have been dispatched to Ethiopia to quickly study a problem and make recommendations on situations in which people's lives were at grave risk.
In the first instance, an outbreak of ethnic fighting in the southern part of the country had forced tens of thousands of people to flee their homes and seek safety in the bush. Hunger, exposure to the elements, and extremely limited water supplies had begun to take a toll on many of those who had fled. Oxfam and HHI sent a small team?two doctors and a humanitarian response specialis--to conduct a rapid assessment of the situation and offer ideas for improving it.
"The humanitarian needs among the internally displaced people in both the Guji and Borena zones are significant," said Jennifer L. Chan, one of the Harvard doctors, after the visit. "At the time of the HHI/Oxfam assessment, immediate food, shelter, and non-food items were needed as well as establishment of long-term peace building activities." Oxfam had already provided some emergency assistance prior to the assessment.
Three months later, Oxfam and HHI sent a second team to Ethiopia to investigate and respond to the outbreak of cholera.
"The idea behind the assessments is to provide a superior response," said Aschkenasy. "Our affiliation with HHI does that. It provides us with a cadre of cutting edge public health professionals, academics, and their resources. And the evidence they help us gather strengthens our ability to call for change."
Aschkenasy will help lay the groundwork for some of that change when she travels to Ethiopia in mid-January on a prevention mission that may help stop a repeat of the widespread suffering that affected millions of people across East Africa last year. Their lives stood in the balance as a devastating drought gripped the region, killing the livestock on which they depended for food, drying up their water sources, and plunging countless families into debilitating hunger. By the time the extent of the drought became clear to the rest of the world, it had already caused profound damage.
In Moyale, a dusty border town between Ethiopia and Kenya, Aschkenasy and Chan will launch a drought early surveillance system developed by Oxfam America and HHI. Their goal is to help officials in the region track public health trends that will warn them in advance about which droughts could become killers. How much food do families have access to? Are they plagued by diarrhea? Do their children have respiratory problems? Do their goats, cows, and sheep have enough pasture? How much rain has fallen? Is the price of grain climbing?
They sound like simple questions, but their answers--plotted on a chart that can make trends frighteningly clear--could be key to getting people in this drought-prone region, many of whom are herders and extremely poor, the help they need before it's too late.
"If we can determine quickly what the effects of limited rainfall are, then we can start doing interventions long before things get so bad that severe malnutrition becomes widespread and feeding centers are our only recourse," said Aschkenasy.
A fellow at HHI, Aschkenasy keeps her medical skills honed by working four eight-hour shifts a month at the Boston Medical Center. But she knew long before arriving at Oxfam that public health was where her heart was.
"When I was in my second year of residency, I had a chance to go to Nepal and work in the Tribhuvan University Teaching Hospital in Kathmandu. It doesn't take you long to realize that public health has a much greater impact on people than one-on-one patient care. I also realized how much I loved it," said Aschkenasy. "There's a role for one-on-one clinical care, and I enjoy it. But there's something much more satisfying about public health work. It has a broader impact. You're preventing something from happening."
And that's a central objective for Oxfam?s humanitarian response department: preventing events--natural or man-made--from cascading into disasters.
"Public health ties right in with our preparedness and livelihoods work. That triad is what development is all about," said Aschkenasy.
]]>“Just look at the headlines—skyrocketing food prices are setting off riots in countries across the world where people were already living on a knife’s edge. We have a moral responsibility to reduce poverty—but if you look at the instability caused by the current food crisis, it’s clear that reducing global poverty is fundamental to our national security as well.
“Making aid work for the world’s poor and American taxpayers means the next President and Congress must seize this historic opportunity to make aid more effective by responding to the needs of recipients. This is a basic business approach—know your customer. Our current top-down approach isn’t going to cut it.”
Howard Berman (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, called the aid reform hearing held today on Capitol Hill. The event was an important first step in Berman’s planned overhaul of US foreign assistance.
In response to Berman’s question on whether foreign aid should be provided to further US national security interests or to spur development and reduce global poverty, Offenheiser said:
“The national security establishment here in Washington has publicly acknowledged the threat of global poverty and this country’s limited ability to fight it with its current foreign aid system.”
According to Oxfam, designing a foreign aid strategy to reduce global poverty is itself a compelling American national interest. Foreign aid programs that are not designed with long-term poverty reduction as their clear purpose will not reduce poverty. Fighting poverty can deliver long-term security benefits, but only if the focus is first on poverty.
Testifying before the committee, Offenheiser, who has over 30 years of experience working on development and foreign assistance, made the case that the US has the greatest opportunity for foreign aid reform it has seen since the 1960’s, when the current aid system was implemented.
“The beginning of a new presidency is the best opportunity for real progress in foreign aid reform—there is both the need and opportunity to redefine America's global role,” said Offenheiser. “It’s clear that Americans are ready to embrace change as well—our image abroad matters to them.”
In a poll conducted by the Aspen Institute and World Learning in February, 9 out of 10 people believe it is very important for other countries to have a favorable opinion of Americans.
Oxfam supports a vision for a new US foreign assistance system that includes a new law, a new structure and a new strategy. Oxfam calls on the next President to work with Congress to:
Oxfam’s detailed policy recommendations can be found in its report, Smart Development: Why US Foreign Aid Demands Major Reform.
Offenheiser testified along with Lael Brainard, vice president and director of global economy and development at the Brookings Institution; Steve Radelet, senior fellow at the Center for Global Development; and Jim Kolbe, senior transatlantic fellow at the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
]]>A panel discussion examining options for the fundamental reform and modernization of United States? approach to international development and security. The panel will address security measures aimed to fight poverty, encourage economic development around the world, and build a lasting national security framework for Americans at home and abroad.
Panelists
Moderator
Monday, September 1, 2008
11:30 AM ? 1:00 PM
Humphrey Center
The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota
301 19th Avenue South
Minneapolis, MN 55455
Seating is limited. This panel is sponsored by the German Marshall Fund of the United States and Oxfam America. Representatives of these organizations will be available throughout the Republican National Convention for comment.
The German Marshall Fund of the United States (GMF) is a nonpartisan American public policy and grantmaking institution dedicated to promoting greater cooperation and understanding between the North America and Europe. GMF does this by supporting individuals and institutions working on transatlantic issues, by convening leaders to discuss the most pressing transatlantic themes, and by examining ways in which transatlantic cooperation can address a variety of global policy challenges. In addition, GMF supports a number of initiatives to strengthen democracies. Founded in 1972 through a gift from Germany on the 25th anniversary of the Marshall Plan as a permanent memorial to Marshall Plan assistance, GMF maintains a strong presence on both sides of the Atlantic. In addition to its headquarters in Washington, DC, GMF has seven offices in Europe: Berlin, Bratislava, Paris, Brussels, Belgrade, Ankara, and Bucharest.
The Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota is a nationally ranked graduate school that inspires, educates, and supports innovative leaders to advance the common good in a diverse world. The Humphrey Institute is home to the Center for the Study of Politics and Governance (CSPG), which is directed by nationally prominent political scientist Lawrence Jacobs. Founded in 2005, CSPG strives to develop practical, independent, and non-partisan solutions through objective, high-quality analysis, public forums, and civic engagement. Visit CSPG online at www.politicsandgovernance.org.
]]>Foreign aid accounts for 90 percent of public expenditure in Afghanistan, so how aid is spent has an enormous impact on the lives of almost all Afghans and will determine the success of reconstruction and development.
Matt Waldman, Afghanistan policy advisor for Oxfam International, said:
?So far, international aid to Afghanistan has not gone far enough to alleviate the poverty and suffering of the Afghan people. The amount of international aid has been wholly insufficient given the huge job of reconstruction in Afghanistan. Of the aid that has been given, too much has been driven by the priorities of the international community and its security concerns rather meeting the needs of the people and building a more effective state.
?This is a critical meeting, which will map out the direction that donors will take to rebuild Afghanistan. Too often, the country has suffered from bold promises which are soon forgotten.
?International donors meeting today must pledge more aid, but they must also make sure the money is spent better. More funds need to go through the Afghan government, whose capacity and accountability must be strengthened. Donors should agree to be open and transparent with the Afghan government on the assistance they provide and the programs they conduct. Less money should be spent on for-profit, private contracting firms and consultants. Aid needs to be more transparent and better monitored, with the emphasis being on getting help to the poorest Afghans in rural areas.?
Oxfam would like to see: