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:
"President Bush's call on Congress to provide nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars in additional food aid, on top of $240 million he committed recently, is an extremely important move to avert a potential humanitarian disaster,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "We especially applaud the President's call for reform of the food aid system to allow for more flexibility and resources when addressing food crises. If aid agencies are allowed to purchase food regionally rather than having it shipped in from halfway around the world, more food can get to more people faster, while encouraging local food production to avert future disasters.?
While America provides half of the world's food aid, this generosity is undermined by legal restrictions and bureaucracy, as food aid must be purchased in the US and transported on US-flagged ships, according to Oxfam. As a result, food aid takes months to deliver and costs twice as much. But Congress has so far refused to seriously consider much needed reforms of our food aid policies as part of the on going consideration of the new Farm Bill.
?Given the current crisis, Congress should support President Bush's proposal to fund additional food aid and to shift some food aid resources into cash for local purchase, making food aid delivery faster and more efficient and more flexible,? said Offenheiser.
"We also applaud the President's call for the successful completion of the Doha Round of international trade negotiations and the end of trade distorting subsidies as a means of achieving this goal,? said Offenheiser. ?In this regard, more reform of US farm subsidy programs is required and should be achieved before a final farm bill is sent to the President. The current bill being debated by farm bill conferees falls far short of what is needed to provide real reform.?
]]>The agency warned that if donors were to slash their aid budgets by 25% as they did in the global recession of the nineties, it would mean cuts of more than US$25 billion. This could keep more than 700 million people from accessing vital healthcare services.
?These are deeply concerning signals from rich country leaders. This is exactly the opposite of what the developing world needs to hear right now. Donors must come up with an aid bail out which delivers on their promises to boost lending,? said Marita Hutjes, spokesperson for Oxfam International. ?And the next president ? to be elected in four weeks—should honor the promises made by the United States to support anti-poverty and health programs in poor countries.
?The same level of urgency used to bail out the financial sector must be shown for the millions now suffering from the fuel and food crises,? said Hutjes.
Global aid flows fell for the second consecutive year in 2007, dropping from US$104.4 billion in 2006 to US$103.7 billion. This means that donors are way off the mark to reach the commitment to spend 0.7% of GNI on aid. The current figure represents just 0.28% GNI of all donors.
]]>?Oxfam applauds Representatives McCollum, Shays and Tierney for increasing the momentum that?s out there right now for US foreign aid reform,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?More members of the House should join them to become leaders on foreign aid reform and advocate for the resolution?s quick passage by the House of Representatives. The American people are ready to support them on this.?
The resolution reflects the consensus recommendations of the U.S. foreign policy community, congressionally mandated commissions, development experts and think tanks. And most importantly, it proposes a fresh new vision for America?s foreign aid?a positive and pragmatic re-engagement with our increasingly interconnected world.
US foreign aid has saved millions of lives and helped millions more overcome poverty. Yet, aid often fails to reach the people who need it most?the two and half billion people who survive on less than two dollars a day. American aid has become slow, bureaucratic, and fragmented. Built almost fifty years ago in response to the Cold War, the US foreign aid system needs to be reformed to make it more efficient, more modern, and more focused on ending global poverty.
?When President Kennedy laid out his vision for US foreign aid in his 1961 inaugural address, he painted a vision of American leadership based on our values. Americans have a fundamental interest in supporting the efforts of poor people and governments to escape poverty,? said Offenheiser. ?Without wholesale foreign aid reform, America will lack the tools it needs to lead the fight for a safer world for everyone. Like 1961, this is another once-in-a-generation opportunity, and Representatives McCollum, Shays and Tierney are seizing this mantle.?
Numerous governments have told Oxfam that while they appreciate American generosity, US foreign aid creates more headaches for them than aid from any other donor. While Oxfam America does not accept US funding, other agencies that do have told Oxfam that U.S. foreign aid is the most burdensome to administer.
?The US foreign aid system needs to end business as usual and focus on Smart Development,? said Offenheiser. ?Smart Development means Washington will need to put poor countries and poor people in control of their own future?it will need to engage in true partnerships and cede a measure of control. This won?t come easily for Washington, but it will mean the difference between investment and charity?success and failure.?
Oxfam America recently released Smart Development: Why US Foreign Aid Demands Major Reform. In it, the agency outlines its approach to Smart Development including implementing development in the context of the other forces at work in various societies, helping states govern effectively, creating markets that function fairly and working with poor people to achieve the basic tools to generate their own wealth over time.
]]>?Right now, US foreign aid is not doing all it can to reduce poverty. As commodities, goods, labor, and services cross borders with increasing speed, so do disease, ideology, and unrest. Skyrocketing food prices have set off riots in countries across the world where people were already living on a knife?s edge,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, panelist, and president of international relief and development agency Oxfam America. ?In this closer, more interdependent world, persistent poverty anywhere in the world threatens our own future. The next president must reform US foreign aid so that it more effectively reduces poverty.?
Oxfam is advocating that four reforms be prioritized by the US to deal with the global challenges of the 21st century. The US needs to create a national development strategy, rationalize its aid structure, rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act, and get its development agencies more resources and authority.
?Global interdependency has made issues like poverty increasingly a national security issue, but our current foreign aid system is a vestige of the Cold War and ill-equipped for the challenges of today,? said panelist Jim Kolbe, senior transatlantic fellow at The German Marshall Fund of the United States and former Chairman of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations in the US Congress. ?The United States must help build institutions, rule of law, and economic development in places like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and the Horn of Africa. Making our aid more effective and increasing international cooperation will be critical to addressing such threats in the next U.S. administration.?
The panel, The Future of US Foreign Assistance: Effective Development and National Security, was part of the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs? America?s Future series during the Republican National Convention. A panel discussion examined options for the fundamental reform and modernization of United States? approach to international development and security. It addressed 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.
Other panelists included: US Rep. John Boozman (R-AR), House Committee on Foreign Affairs; Hon. Vin Weber, chairman, National Endowment for Democracy; Hon. Michael Wilson, Canadian ambassador to the United States of America. The moderator was Matthew McLean, vice president, Millennium Challenge Corporation. The event was hosted by the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs at the University of Minnesota.
]]>?The stage is set for important improvements in the way aid is delivered. But the Accra Agenda needs to be backed by urgent action if it is to live up to its name. It won?t have any impact on the lives of people living in poverty unless its promise is put into practice,? said Robert Fox, head of the Oxfam International delegation in Accra.
?This agreement must be a floor, not a ceiling. We encourage all donors to go further in accelerating the pace of reform. Oxfam knows that when aid is delivered well, it brings real results for women and men living in poverty. If governments north and south match their words with action, we could see real progress in tackling poverty.? said Robert Fox.
The Accra accord calls for donors to make longer-term aid commitments and sets a new target for donors to deliver aid through developing countries? own systems. This will be a challenge for donors, said Oxfam, citing a recent survey showing only 46 percent of aid went through recipient country systems. It also includes measures to make aid more accountable.
?We are pleased to see a stronger commitment to transparency, showing what donors fund and how recipients spend,? said Fox. ?And we welcome the recognition that citizens and their organizations have a vital role in defining development priorities and holding governments to account.?
A compromise agreement was reached among official negotiators on Wednesday, without any time-bound targets. But developing country and European ministers arriving in the Ghanaian capital Wednesday night argued for specific commitments and dates for action.
Developing countries and non-governmental organizations have pointed to the urgent need to reform aid to prevent waste and give developing countries more control. Uganda, for instance, had to deal with 684 different aid agreements, from 40 different donors between 2004 and 2007.
?There is much more that can and must be done to improve quality, but equally important we need to boost the quantity of aid if we are going to end poverty and improve access to health care, education and clean water,? said Fox. ?At the UN meetings later this month on the Millennium Development Goals and the November meetings on development finance, donor countries have to get serious about scaling up aid to meet the enormity of the challenge. With more and better aid, we can make a real difference.?
]]>At a recent event at the US Global Leadership Campaign, Defense Secretary Gates led the call for greater balance when he remarked, ?It has become clear that America?s civilian institutions of diplomacy and development have been chronically undermanned and under-funded for far too long?relative to what we spend on the military, and more important, relative to the responsibilities and challenges our nation has around the world.?
?Defense Secretary Gates is advocating for a smart power approach to US foreign policy, and we cannot have smart power unless we have smart development,? said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. ?Smart development means the US must prioritize long-term poverty alleviation alongside defense and diplomacy concerns.?
According to Oxfam, America?s glaring lack of investment in development is evident when one considers that in the 1990s, 37 percent of the US Agency for International Development?s (USAID) workforce left without being replaced. USAID, which has traditionally led US foreign assistance efforts, also saw direct hires working in the field drop by 29 percent from 2002 to 2005. Oxfam states that while some strides have been made to increase and restructure overseas aid, much greater reform of US foreign aid is needed to ensure that the long-term needs of the poor?not politics?come first.
?The next president and his administration have a chance to put smart development in practice to create a better foreign aid system?a better international face for the US?that will help lift millions from poverty and re-establish US global standing,? said Offenheiser.
Oxfam recently released Smart Development: Why US Foreign Aid Demands Major Reform. In it, the agency outlines its approach to smart development including implementing development in the context of the other forces at work in various societies, helping states govern effectively, creating markets that function fairly and working with poor people to achieve the basic tools to generate their own wealth over time.
]]>"Given the context of rising food and fuel prices, a fair trade deal as promised could make a massive difference to people living in poverty around the world," said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. "But what's currently on the table falls far short of what is needed and continues to prioritize the interests of rich countries, as locking in big tariff cuts without adequate safeguards in place will only expose poor farmers to more shocks."
As trade ministers from 35 countries gather at the World Trade Organization in another attempt to forge a trade deal, Oxfam is calling for a clear and transparent process that involves all members and gives formal opportunities to respond to proposals.
If current offers are accepted, the US may not have to cut a penny from current spending on agriculture, and the EU will only have to cut around $2.6bn, from a total of $30bn, according to Oxfam. The proposals on non-agricultural trade will lock poor countries into low-value economies by preventing them from building up infant industries through strategic trade policy.
"High prices certainly present the opportunity to reform, but with current proposals, this opportunity looks set to be squandered," said Offenheiser. "A trade deal that only accommodates vested interests could be destructive for development and efforts to reduce poverty."
The recently passed US Farm Bill has landed like an unwelcome guest at the negotiating table. In a new analysis released today, Oxfam outlines how the Farm Bill undermines progress in the Doha Round. Despite the fact that US farmers are enjoying very high prices and record farm income -- an average of $89,000 per farm -- the US Congress actually expanded government farm subsidies in the 2008 Farm Bill and reinstated cotton subsidies previously ruled illegal at the WTO.
"Not only do provisions in the 2008 Farm Bill go against previously agreed to obligations at the WTO, but they maintain -- and in some cases, increase -- precisely the subsidies and market protections that developing countries entered the Doha Round to stop," said Offenheiser.
Europe has also not done enough to ensure a pro-poor deal. The EU continues to insist on exemptions for its sugar, beef and dairy farmers, while simultaneously denying poor countries the space to safeguard their own farmers' livelihoods. In recent weeks they have proposed resurrecting the controversial 'peace clause' which would protect them from challenge at the WTO.
"A fair trade deal would mean significant reform of trade distorting subsidies in rich countries coupled with flexibilities for poor countries to promote food security, livelihoods and rural development," said Offenheiser. "But what we're looking at now would only entrench existing advantages for rich countries and vulnerabilities for poor countries."
]]>“U.S. government foreign aid is broken, limiting our country's ability to effectively reduce global poverty,” said Raymond C. Offenheiser, president of Oxfam America. “Over 22 months of hearings and interviews, and not one person appeared before the HELP Commission to defend the foreign aid status quo. Now is the time for the presidential candidates to declare aid reform as a foreign policy priority.”
The Foreign Assistance Act and the agency it authorized—the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—came into being in 1961.
“The original Act was less than 100 pages, now it’s over 2,000 pages. If the US is to be a global leader in helping to build strong economies and alleviating poverty, we need legislation, capacity and an organization that can respond to the humanitarian and development challenges of the 21st century,” continued Offenheiser. “But nothing will happen without presidential leadership. Our presidential candidates need to put aid reform at the center of their foreign policy platforms if the US is to reestablish its global standing.”
While Oxfam embraces the Commission’s call for major reform and most of its specific recommendations, the agency says the Commission did not go far enough in advocating for a cabinet seat for international development alongside defense and state.
“We believe the interests of the world’s poor are best served by giving department level clout to development, on par with the Departments of Defense and State,” concluded Offenheiser.
In its new report, the Commission argues for a new foreign aid business model, based on eight core principles:
Oxfam supports the following recommendations put forth by the HELP Commission to meet its eight core principles: