Author: DFID

In 2013 we are asking everyone to Go Further For Fairtrade. This is the message during Fairtrade Fortnight (25 Feb – 10 March). In particular we will be focusing on food and the crucial role of smallholders, so that together, we really can make 2013 a game-changing year in food.

Smallholders grow 70% of the world’s food. They are critical to the production of many of the tropical agricultural commodities we take for granted – 80% of our coffee is grown by smallholders and 90% of the world’s cocoa. But many farmers are trapped in a cycle of poverty, made worse by decades of price volatility and underinvestment in agriculture, and now facing new threats from a changing climate. This phenomenon is threatening the very sustainability of many of the products we enjoy on a daily basis. Our global food system is unbalanced. It doesn’t work well enough for consumers – horsegate has shown that. And it is wasteful – consumers in rich countries waste as much food as the entire net food production of sub-Saharan Africa. Recent World Health Organisation research reveals that, for the first time ever, the number of years of healthy living lost globally as a result of over-eating outweighs the number lost by people eating too little.

We know there is enough food for everyone, but everyone is not getting enough food. 2013 is the year that we need to find better solutions. The UK is hosting the G8 Summit for the first time since 2005 and the week before the G8 the UK government will host a summit on food and nutrition. This is an unprecedented opportunity for leadership to tackle the challenges to the future of our food system; challenges that will need changes from all of us – farmers, the public, and companies as well as governments.

Fairtrade has made real gains in the last few years, bringing lasting benefits to more than 1.25 million producers in over 60 developing countries. This has been supported by DFID through a Programme Partnership Agreement of £12 million over four years. The grant was given to Fairtrade globally to help scale up our work supporting farmers in developing countries to access better terms of trade in global markets. And over the life of this grant Fairtrade has continued to buck the trend by growing well even in the teeth of recession. In the UK, Fairtrade sales grew 19% in 2012, to £1.56bn. Britain now leads the world in Fairtrade.

This support has enabled Fairtrade to reach more people, but it has also helped us bring the benefits of trade to more fragile communities and to begin to target our interventions more. Through this Fairtrade now works with olive farmers in Palestine, raisin farmers in Afghanistan and coffee smallholders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We are also able to support women’s groups, like the dynamic entrepreneurs of the Akoma Women’s Co-operative in Ghana, who have begun marketing Fairtrade shea butter.

That is a great start, but it is not enough. We need to step up the pace. We need to reach more farmers and workers in ways that matter to them and that are relevant in today’s volatile climate. We need to identify the circumstances under which Fairtrade can be truly dynamic, which producers can use as a springboard to a stronger future.

Last month I visited two projects in Kenya which are helping producers do just that. In the tea growing region of Kericho, in Western Kenya, Finlays Beverages and the Co-operative Group – with support from DFID – have been working with the Fintea Growers Co-operative Union, which has a membership of around 15,000 smallholder tea farmers, to develop its business. Fintea Growers gained Fairtrade certification in 2011 and this Fairtrade Fortnight they are supplying 50% of the tea The Co-operative’s new 99 Tea Gold. Similarly, in the foothills of Mount Kenya, the 8,000 smallholders of the Iri-Aini Co-operative used the confidence that Fairtrade has given them to develop their own packing facility, working in partnership with Marks and Spencer, with support from DFID’s FRICH fund. This enabled the smallholders to capture 60% more value at source and has spurred them on to start selling their tea locally as part of an exciting new move to launch Fairtrade to the domestic market in Kenya.

Smallholder farmers are not a ‘problem’, neither are they passive ‘beneficiaries’. Indeed, FAO figures show that smallholders themselves already invest US$170 billion a year into their own farms, four times more than investment from all other funding sources put together. With the right support they will build better businesses and make lasting change happen in their communities. And of course we need to ensure the voice of smallholders is heard as we look for lasting solutions to our unbalanced food system. As Beatrice Makwenda from the National Association of Small Farmers in Malawi (NASFAM) once told us, “the person wearing the shoe knows best where it pinches”.

—————————————————————————————————-

Please note, this is a guest blog. Views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of DFID or have the support of the British Government.

 

This blog comes directly from a UK aid-supported project on the frontlines. The Ni Nyampinga project is a magazine and radio show for teenage girls in Rwanda that focuses on empowering young women. It reports on issues and stories that matter to them and enables women to become journalists themselves. It is now one of Rwanda’s largest media organisations. This report comes from a Ni Nyampinga journalist.

KIGALI, RWANDA – A thin woman hunches over in a marshland near the river in Kigali, the capital of Rwanda. One by one, she washes a pile of clothing and blankets.

The 28-year-old woman, who requested anonymity for fear of her safety, says she suffered many years of harassment and violence at the hands of her husband. Money problems were usually the trigger.

“Every time I asked him for money to buy foods for our kids, he responded by beating me up and hurling insults at me,” she says.

She says she decided to find employment so she wouldn’t have to rely on her husband for money.

“I maintained a wise silence and decided not to ask him for anything so that our kids sometimes spent a day without food,” she says.

Today, she works as a casual laborer washing clothes. She earns 3,000 francs per day ($5) to buy food and clothing for her children.

Women say they accepted domestic abuse by their husbands as gender-based violence was long considered the norm here. But now, community members are breaking this cultural silence as government-trained mediators resolve domestic disputes as part of a multipronged initiative. Up to 93 percent of victims of physical and psychological abuse in Rwanda are women, according to 2011 statistics from the Isange One Stop Centre, a government centre that provides free services to survivors of domestic abuse.

“I am old, but I will never forget the violence I experienced when I was living with my husband,” Therese Nkirankima, 96, says.

She became the victim of violence for the simple reason that she had given birth to all daughters in a culture that favored sons.

Nkirankima says it used to be that a woman couldn’t report domestic violence. “A woman was treated as an object or a slave,” Nkirankima says. “She had no say in her life and was deprived of her rights.”

But this culture of acceptance and silence toward gender-based violence is changing.

Antoinette Nyirasafari, 41, is a member of one of the anti-gender-based violence committees set up by the government, called Abahuza, which means “mediators” in Kinyarwanda. Nyirasafari says that violence against women was rampant some years ago, but it is declining each year. Most of the cases reported to the committee involve physical violence, with drunkenness as a routine culprit.

Claudine Iribagiza, a 32-year-old mother from Kicukiro, says that her husband used to physically abuse her and her daughters. “He returned home whilst drunk and attempted to beat up our first-born child, so that I personally intervened to prevent him from doing it,” she says, “and he broke my arm.” Iribagiza says a Abahuza committee member in her area intervened and helped her to reconcile with her husband. “I am on good terms with him now,” she says, “There are no issues with him.”

In 2010, the Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion established a team to develop a national policy against gender-based violence, says Christiane Umuhire, a gender mainstreaming officer with the ministry. “Gender-based violence and child-protection committees have been put in place from grass roots to the national levels,” Umuhire says. Police throughout the country have also received training on domestic violence prevention and response.

The Girls’ Voices blogs series is a platform for young women to voice their opinions about issues girls face in their country. All the young women have been trained by the Global Press Institute. The series is produced by DFID and Girl Hub. Girl Hub is a collaboration between UK aid and the Nike Foundation to help transform the lives of adolescent girls living in poverty by engaging girls themselves to be part of leading that change. You can learn more about how UK aid works with women and girls here.

 

 

My name is Vida W. I am 19 years old. I am the middle of 8 children. I should be in form 3 but at the moment we don’t have the fees for me to continue secondary school. I have been helped by Family Health Options Kenya (FHOK) to build the strength to tell my story. I was first approached by their community mobiliser and received counselling because of what happened.

My father is a drunkard. He comes home drunk and will beat our mother. He chases us out of the house. This is how it was and has been for a while. But then one morning, after breakfast, mum went to town. Her entire body was swollen from the beatings. She said she would be back soon but after 3 days we found out that she needed space and healing from this last beating she’d had.

While mum was gone my father became a terrible monster. One morning I was unwell so I stayed home from school. I was watching cartoons and he was in his bedroom. He angrily called me. When I went in he told me there is something he wanted us to do but I have to promise never to tell anyone else about it.

I was scared. He told me to undress. I refused but then I was naked on the bed with him on top of me. He covered my face with an orange cloth. Afterwards I was bleeding so badly. He went away leaving me in great pain.

I cried myself to sleep and woke up at night. My sister was waiting for me to have dinner. I couldn’t stop crying and she asked me why. I told her that I was crying because I missed mum but it was really because of the pain. I will never forget that day in 2002. I was 7 years old. A week passed and dad started doing it again, anytime he would feel like doing it. Then one day my sister peeped inside the room and saw my dad on top of me. She came with me to tell grandmother what happened. But she said her son would never do such a thing.

Mum came home a few weeks later and I was happy. But I never told her what happened. I was scared she would also defend my father like grandmother had done. I just loved her so much and I didn’t want to do or say anything that might make her leave. So I said nothing.

Eventually my sister told my mother what happened. She was so upset and she asked my dad if it was true. He said I was only his step-daughter so there was nothing wrong with what he’d done to me. That night he beat me until I was unconscious.

We reported it to the police and my father was arrested but then he was freed and our lives were hell. My mother got depressed because my dad and grandmother bribed the police officer. We never got any help. I went to a nearby hospital where I found out I was HIV positive.

Our family started discriminating against us. We lived on our own. Mum struggled to send us to school because she didn’t have the fees for me or my siblings. My father refused to pay my final exam fee in primary school. He said it would make no difference because I was a dead person.

I had no friends. They all ran away from me. I felt like nobody in the world loved me. But I was introduced to a support group and they introduced me to Family Health Options Kenya, the organization has really helped me and my mum. I have overcome the stigma through continuous counselling, acceptance by the youths at the centre despite of my status and treatment. This has enabled me live positively.

So I speak about my life twice a week for 40 minutes. Coming out of stigma is not an easy thing. You have to do it over and over again. I’m trying to show them the positive side of being positive – that you can smile every day.

Most women are scared of speaking once they are violated because of the stigma associated with it. The UN women should educate the women about Gender Based Violence.

The advice that I would give to women who are in similar situation is that everything happens for a reason. They should also be strong for their children as my mother stood by me and that’s why I came to accept everything that happened to me. I have my mother as my role model having the heart to forgive her husband despite what she and I have gone through.

I have moved on with my life, I have forgiven my dad and forget what he did to me. I have friends again – a lot of friends. The counselling I’ve had has helped a lot.

DFID is backing a campaign to call on the UN to take action on violence against women and girls. You can add your voice by taking the pledge here. UK aid supports the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), which funds Vida’s support group, Family Options Kenya. IPPF is the second biggest NGO in the world and provided sexual and reproductive health services to 33 million people in 2011 alone. You can learn more about DFID’s work on women and girls here.

I’m posting this from a chilly New York, where I’m attending the UN’s Commission on the Status of Women (CSW).  It’s a sight to see so many women in colourful national dress, queueing in snow flurries to get past security at the UN General Assembly on 1st Avenue.

One of the reasons I’m here is because the theme this year is “the prevention and elimination of all forms of violence against women.” Orchid Project is a London-based NGO with a vision of a world free from female genital cutting (FGC) so this year’s CSW is particularly relevant.

FGC has been discussed at the UN level for years. We’ve had all sorts of instruments and tools debated and signed up to. However, recently there’s been renewed energy and discussion around this issue. In fact, you might call it a “perfect storm” of events that have led to a groundswell of opinion changing and moving towards action.

These have included a recent UN General Assembly resolution “to intensify global efforts for the elimination of female genital mutilation” in December 2012, updates from UNICEF that prevalence figures of FGC are dropping globally and our own experience with our partner at country level, where communities are choosing to abandon the practice at an exponential rate.

Yesterday, an event was hosted by UNICEF, UNFPA and the Missions of Burkina Faso and Italy to the UN. With quite a line-up of speakers including the First Lady of Burkina Faso herself and DFID Minister Lynne Featherstone, it was a hot ticket for anyone involved in work on ending female genital cutting, and the room was packed.

We heard from representatives from Niger and Kenya as well as UNICEF, UNFPA and UNESCO and then the UK Minister, Lynne Featherstone, began by telling us about how she came to learn about the issue of FGC. She talked about her ministerial role as Champion for Ending Violence Against Women and Girls Overseas, a position she held before joining DFID. She also said that in her former portfolio as Home Office Minister, it had proven very difficult to get a prosecution for FGC.

This made finding out about the work of our partner Tostan in 2011 all the more important; she said that she really began to understand more about behavioural change and that she was inspired to hear that communities were choosing to abandon the practice. The Minister also mentioned that she will be visiting some of Tostan’s projects in Senegal later this month.

She then paused, looked up at the room and clearly and slowly said: “I want to support work in Africa. This is why the UK government has chosen to play a leading role and will now invest £35 million to help end this practice.” It was actually a breathtaking moment. A small silence followed, then, as the news sank in, people started to applaud.

We have been aware for some time that DFID was considering a large scale investment in ending FGC, but it was incredible for me and others in the room to hear just how sizeable this support will be. I was invited to make a short comment and was able to say on behalf of civil society organisations how much we welcomed the announcement of resources.

The Commission on the Status of Women was the ideal venue for the Minister to make this announcement, witnessed by and paying tribute to a room packed with women, who have been working tirelessly towards ending this practice.

We hope that DFID’s funding injection will encourage other donors to join this movement, and will make a considerable impact on reducing the prevalence of female genital cutting.

Ending FGC is a huge goal, but with the support of governments, donors, civil  societies and communities themselves, it begins to feel like the vision of a world  free from female genital cutting within a lifetime, could  well be on its way. I feel privileged to have been in the room in New York yesterday, to be one of the first to hear this news.

This year’s CSW is not set up to be easy, given the controversial topic of violence against women, the lack of Agreed Conclusions last year, and the potential for regression. But it gives me hope for the Commission that the UK government is now choosing to invest in a previously taboo and hugely under-resourced human rights issue that has affected over 130 million women alive today.

Democracy in Africa – is it worth the effort? And why should foreigners help a country like Kenya to run its elections?

It’s Monday 4 March, and millions of Kenyans are already standing in long queues – many in intense heat – so they can vote. Democracy clearly means something to them. Many are first-time voters, in a country where well over half the population is under 25. Some Kenyans are cynical about their entire political class, writing them off as a corrupt, self-interested elite (a charge not unique to Kenya). Many will vote purely by tribe – though a new generation reject the ethnic maths of previous elections and want to choose based on personality and values, if not yet policies. Some might vote because they have been paid to (an electoral offence, yet still common). But for whatever reason, most Kenyans care enough to vote – and to throw the rascals out. In 2007, over two-thirds of MPs lost their seats.

This is a historic election – the first under Kenya’s progressive 2010 constitution – with voters having six choices: President, County Governor, Senator, MP, County Assembly Representative, and Women’s Representative in Parliament. That makes for a complicated voting process (and long queues). But it also gives Kenyans a big set of choices on who they want to run their country.

The six ballot vote represents a further step in Kenya’s journey away from its political past. Power is being spread and devolved from an all-powerful Presidency and a centralised government to a bicameral Parliament and 47 county governments. Particularly for Kenyans who lived through the less democratic presidencies of Daniel arap Moi (1978-2002) and Jomo Kenyatta (1963-1978), this is progress. The chair of the Kenyan Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission, Ahmed Issack Hassan, is a big fan of Winston Churchill, who observed that “democracy is the worst form of government, except all those others that have been tried”.

So what have aid and poverty reduction got to do with democracy? On the one hand, Kenya is a terrible example of what can happen when democracy goes wrong. In 2007-8, over a thousand people were killed and 600,000 became homeless, over a billion dollars of damage was caused, and economic growth fell from a promising 7.1% in 2007 to a sluggish 1.7% (below population growth) in 2008. World Bank analysis shows that from 1980-2010, growth averaged 3.9% in non-election years and only 2.4% in election years. Most of those elections have been marred by violence. Democracy should increase stability, not reduce it.

On the other hand, there’s strong evidence across Africa and elsewhere that not only do people want democracy (see eg Afrobarometer’s work), but that when it works well, it’s an important part of what drives growth and poverty reduction (see eg Radelet on Emerging Africa). This informs British Prime Minister David Cameron’s development thinking – that there is a “golden thread” of conditions enabling open societies and open economies to thrive, and address the root causes of poverty and under-development. Supporting this is a better exit strategy for aid than addressing the symptoms for ever more. Cameron recognises that democracy is not just about holding elections: “it’s about establishing the building blocks of democracy, the independence of the judiciary and the rule of law, with the majority prepared to defend the rights of the minority, the freedom of the media, a proper place for the army in society, and the development of effective state institutions, political parties and wider civil society”.

And poverty? Poor people in Kenya are less likely to vote. In Turkana, Kenya’s poorest county (with over 90% of the population under the poverty line), less than a third are registered to vote. Poor people are also more vulnerable to having their votes bought, or suppressed. When you’ve got seven hungry children and someone offers you a few quid for your ID card, what do you do? When you’re young with no hope of a job and someone offers you money to join an armed gang, what do you do?

Democracy should be delivering for the poorest people in Kenya. And the more stable Kenya is, the more elections are about candidates’ policies and spending plans and the less they’re about tribal alliances and mudslinging, the more candidates will have to focus on meeting the needs of the poor. Reducing poverty should also make democracy work better. All the analysis of the 2007-8 violence pointed at underlying causes that are intimately connected to poverty – unemployment, land disputes, corruption.

So there are good reasons why foreign donors committed to reducing poverty, such as the UK Government, should offer support to elections in countries like Kenya (without even considering the benefits to the UK of stability in Kenya). And that help is usually warmly welcomed, by people and organisations who don’t just want our money, but want to be part of the international community of democratic countries. DFID’s aid includes funding and advice to the election commission, voter education, domestic observation, training of judges to deal with election disputes, local conflict prevention, and other measures to reduce the risks of violence.

We’re working with Kenyans who are determined to see a peaceful election today, and want all the help they can get. They’ve achieved a huge amount in the last five years. There’s more to do. Whether it’s been worth the effort may be decided in the next two days. Polling has got off to a good start this morning – there are the inevitable technical problems with an exercise of this scale, and a couple of nasty but relatively minor security incidents. Some results may be challenged – hopefully in the courts, not the streets. But Kenyans are out in large numbers, voting patiently and peacefully. They deserve a successful election. They believe in democracy, warts and all. So should we.

What comes to mind when you think of Kenya? Lions and elephants on the plains of the Maasai Mara, the world’s best marathon runners, innovation in mobile phone technology? Or tribal hatred, political crisis, and running battles in desperate slums?

Kenyans go to the polls on Monday 4th March. It’s their first general election since the tragic post-election violence in December 2007, in which over 1,000 people died and more than 600,000 became homeless. I’ve lived in Nairobi since January 2009, enjoying the safaris and running the odd marathon (slowly) – while leading DFID’s contribution towards helping Kenyans out of poverty. I’ve never blogged before, but have a sense I’m about to live through a minor moment of African history. So over the next few weeks I’ll be sharing some personal thoughts on why people choosing their own leaders is so important in emerging African economies like Kenya, and why foreign aid donors should help Kenyans to make democracy work. It’s hard to predict how the next few weeks will turn out. But I think it will be interesting.

Back in early 2008, while the post-election violence was raging across Kenya, I was living and working in New York. My wife Lucy was newly pregnant. We watched with dismay from afar as the country we’d just agreed to move to started going up in smoke. We visited later that year (Lucy by now heavily pregnant – with twins), and found an uneasy political truce, but a typically Kenyan determination to get on with life – and making a living. And when we moved here in early 2009 with our three month old babies, we arrived in a country where much of daily life was normal.

In the last four years, our babies have grown into feisty young kids who call Kenya home. And Kenya has evolved too, reforming several of the institutions which failed in 2007-8 – notably the election commission, the judiciary, and the police (though there’s more to be done). DFID has supported all that, and the passage of a new constitution in August 2010 – one of the most progressive in Africa, and indeed the world. I was an election observer on the historic day Kenyans voted in a referendum by a 2:1 margin for that constitution. I’ll never forget the dogged thoroughness of the Presiding Officer supervising the vote count in the polling station where I observed, a chilly village primary school classroom north of Nairobi. Lit by gas lamp as day melted quickly into night, he was determined to get this absolutely right – and for everyone to know he had got it absolutely right. Three weeks later, Kenyans proudly promulgated their new constitution, in a euphoric spirit of celebration and optimism.

In the two and a half years since, Kenyan politics have got more complicated. Some of that euphoria has faded. The International Criminal Court cases against the alleged instigators of the 2007-8 violence have divided the country. Old tribal rivalries have resurfaced. Guns and money are swirling around the country in dangerous combination. Nearly 500 people were killed in political violence in 2012 alone. The polls are too close to call, and the stakes are very high for some candidates and their supporters who cannot contemplate losing.

But millions of Kenyans remain determined to get these elections absolutely right – or at least good enough. They want peace. They want any disputes over the results to be fought out in the courts, not the streets. And they want the stability that will allow them to get a job, plant and harvest their crops, and send their kids to school safely. Most of them also want the international community’s friendship and support, and for Kenya’s reputation as a stable country to be restored. Our job is to help the Kenyan institutions running the elections make them as credible and peaceful as possible. We don’t interfere in the politics. Who Kenyans elect is entirely up to them.

British diplomats usually stay for a maximum of four years in a country. I’ve made a commitment to see through these elections (twice postponed), so will sneak to four and a half years. The safaris and the running are certainly an incentive to stay longer. But what really makes this country wonderful is the Kenyan people – their friendliness, their humour, their energy and innovation, their determination to get on. And whatever the next few weeks bring, I’m proud to be bringing UK aid to help the Kenyan people ensure these elections are as peaceful and successful as the 2010 referendum, so the terrible events of 2007-8 are never repeated.

Watch out for my next blog, explaining how DFID is helping with Monday’s elections, and why the stability successful elections can bring should help reduce poverty.

I was privileged to participate in a fascinating debate on the future of learning, in the somewhat surreal futuristic setting of downtown Dubai, under the lofty spire of the Burj Khalifa – the tallest (currently) manmade structure on the planet. I spend most of my days in more modest African settings discussing the fundamentals of very basic school systems, so the Arab Emirates was a real eye opener.

DubaiCares is major emerging development funder, with an already impressive array of primary education programmes across 25 developing countries. They were generously hosting a global task force meeting on Learning Metrics; what all children should learn and how it can be measured globally. The education Millennium Development Goals set in 2000 have helped to get many more poor children into schools and decrease gender gaps. However the rapid expansion of school systems in many low income countries has resulted in appallingly low levels of learning. I recently posted on exam and UWEZO test data in Tanzania, the inconvenient truth is that many children are leaving school unable to read and hence learn, evolve and prosper. Last week Tanzanian secondary Form IV (O level) results also shocked the region with low and falling pass rates, in contrast to the rapid recent growth in enrolment.Current international tests such as PISA and TIMSS help to benchmark, diagnose and compare the learning of teenagers, but very few developing nations participate as most of their children would drop off the scale. At the task force meeting more fundamental levels of learning – such as being able to read with comprehension and perform arithmetic were proposed, together with possible new composite measures of 21st century learning in technology and citizenship for all young people. Gauging basic learning might sound simple, but to compare across diverse national systems and languages is not straightforward. Take a glimpse at the erudite reports emerging from the Brookings Center for Universal Education if you’re not convinced!

Even more difficult will be to convince the political leaders in 2015 to agree to global measures that commit nations to reform and improve their school systems and be graded by the demonstrable skills of their children, not just the volume that can be crammed into bare classrooms. Some countries rightly feel apprehensive about such comparisons, just as children get sick with nerves prior to examinations.

High level political meetings are already being convened on the post MDG agenda, with the UK, Liberia and Indonesia currently co-chairing. The learning metrics group aim to provide technically and politically feasible solutions; if and how they will be taken up remains to be seen.

Before flying out I rose before dawn to be At The Top – the 124^th floor viewing platform of the 828m high Burj Khalifa. An eerily silent futuristic lift whizzed me up vertically over half a kilometre in just one minute. I watched the sun rise over the desert, gleaming spires and artificial world island map that have made Dubai famous. However the morning paper announced a new pretender – the 1.2km Kingdom Tower in Jeddah, which may eclipse the mighty Burj Khalifa by 2018.

A more important competition is to raise the excellence and innovation of our children’s learning, so all may reach their full potential. In the champions league table of learning we see the likes of Finland, S. Korea, Hong Kong and Shanghai competing to develop the best global talent, with the direction of travel, like the global economy, drifting east – as Sir Michael Barber has reminded us.

Meaningful learning for all children matters especially in the developing world, to provide a strong foundation for poverty alleviation. Global learning metrics and targets can potentially provide a powerful tool to reduce the huge and growing gap in achievement that currently exists. I hope our political leaders can put learning at the heart of the post 2015 agenda: Education First! – as proudly proclaimed by the  UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon.

Leaders from 11 countries met yesterday (Sunday 23rd Feb) in Addis Ababa and signed a Peace, Security and Cooperation Framework agreement intended to bring peace to the eastern provinces of the Democratic Republic of Congo. After nearly a year of renewed fighting in eastern DRC between rebel groups and the Congolese Army, the number of internally displaced people increased by one million to 2.7 million. This comes after months of negotiations and was welcomed by the UK Government in a statement  by the Foreign Office Minister, Mark Simmonds.Meanwhile, last week another peace agreement was signed, at a much more local level, reminding us that conflict in the DRC is not just about the east of the country. Last Monday, following a two year peace process, members of four communities met in Equateur province to sign non-agression accords.

The inyelle rebellion

In 2009, long-standing socio-economic and political tensions between two tribal groups, exacerbated by local tensions over access to fishing ponds, exploded into a conflict that caused 200,000 people to flee their homes. The initial burst of conflict rapidly drew in local politicians and businessmen and the dispute was rapidly transformed into an armed rebellion that became a platform for others to vent political grievances, including troops loyal to Mobutu living in neighbouring Republic of Congo. The rebellion and the impact on thousands of families demonstrates how fragile peace in the DRC really is and how important it is for us to understand the local political economy and conflict drivers. More than that, it illustrates the potential for instability way beyond the headlines of eastern DRC. A local peace accord

Last week,  I accompanied the UN Secretary General’s Deputy Special Representative, the national Minister of Interior and the diplomatic corps to Gemena in northern Equateur to witness the signing of the peace accords between these communities. After two years of reconciliation work and repatriation efforts, the ceremony brought together the four communities. Despite my heart dropping as I was bundled into one of a 25 car convoy from the aiport to the ceremony (maybe I should just get over my dislike of the idea of these jamborees), it was a fascinating day and in fact an interesting example of senior political engagement in a province that is often ignored by national and international press.

The ceremony itself  – arranged by the UN peacekeeping force, MONUSCO and the national government, was an interesting insight into local conflict resolution. It was also surreal at times, particularly the smoking ceremony, where the men from each of the four communities – having handed over their weapons to the interior minister – chain-smoked together as a sign of their new-found solidarity and brotherhood. More disturbingly, this was followed by a ceremony designed to demonstrate the invincibility of the tribes represented, that included young men from the four communities jostling in line to be whipped.This local peace process was a practical illustration of the importance of action on local conflict in the DRC, the subject of Séverine Autesserre‘s book “The Trouble with the Congo”.

It struck me, watching the violent display of strength and personal resilience in Equateur last week, how different this ceremony would have been from the pomp and ceremony of the events in Ethiopia, but also how important it is that we focus on the local causes of conflict and ensure that our diplomatic and development interventions go beyond the east.

The 12^th February was a busy day. In addition to a meeting with a delegation of Ugandans (see here), who were in the UK to launch an Alliance with Health Institutions, I spoke at a meeting on Neglected Tropical Diseases, held at the Wellcome Trust.

The meeting was organised by the International Society for Neglected Tropical Diseases, and focused on  co-infections between neglected tropical diseases and other diseases.The Neglected Tropical Disease link above gives a list of this group of diseases, which includes things like worm infections, river blindness, and guinea worm. Many of these diseases, which are most common in tropical climates co-exist in areas where diseases such as HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria are also major problems (there is a link to a European Commission site on the three diseases here). It has been suggested that we need to develop rapid intervention packages to treat neglected diseases as part of the response to HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria (here). A highlight of the meeting was a video address from the Minister of Health of Rwanda, Dr Agnes Binagwaho.

An effective response to any disease requires political ownership and leadership, and it was really good to see Dr Binagwaho’s presentation and then hear from Emil Ivan, on malaria and helminthic (worm) co-infection in HIV positive pregnant women. In Rwanda, there is clearly a recognition of the need for integrated services to tackle the full range of health problems, using targeted funds in ways which strengthen the overall capacity of health services.

My interventions at the meeting highlighted this important issue of strengthening the health system as part of any targeted disease response. I highlighted in my blog on the Global Fund New Funding modality (here), that resources mobilised to fight the three diseases also need to invest in human resources and the key building blocks of good health services. The same is true for interventions which aim to tackle any of the neglected tropical diseases, the final push to eradicate guinea worm will be far more cost effective if it also addresses issues of water and sanitation and strengthens the capacity of health workers more generally. Unless we build health services which can meet the most pressing health needs of the whole population, the interventions being delivered will not be sustained over the long term, which is essential if we want to improve health.

Much of my first three months at DFID were spent on the build up to and organisation of the OpenUp! Conference, and event organised between DFID and the Omidyar Network,  in association with Wired magazine. Coming relatively fresh to development I initially did not quite recognise the weight and scale of the event. Writing the profiles for speakers and glancing at the long list of attendees made me swiftly realise my naivety, and having met development professionals at conferences and the like since, I have come to realise that this really was no everyday affair.

‘Open Up!’ brought together almost 200 development and tech professionals from around the world to share best practise and discuss how citizens can have a say in the decisions that affect their lives. Mobile and web technology can be powerful tools in enabling governments to become accountable and transparent to their citizens. Technology can provide a cheap way to disseminate information to all citizens and provide them with a tangible way to engage, respond and take actions that can be seen by governments and those in power.

During the ‘show and tell’ section of the event I found one speaker particularly memorable. Mideast Youth, who are supported by Omidyar Network, presented their open source platform Crowd Voice to draw together a global community of voices of dissent and protest from around the world. I had never before heard of such platforms and they appear to create a safe haven for those who wish to challenge the decisions or actions of their governments. The online platform itself is worth a look, it’s interactive, engaging and is self-moderated by other members on the site as well as a small team from Mideast Youth. The platform is open source and is used by various other organisations which have adapted it to their needs – open source technology is revolutionising the way that the web works and is a model which is both transparent and innovative.  Mideast Youth’s other incredible projects include Mideast Tunes, a platform for underground musicians in the Middle East and North Africa who use music for social change, and Ahwaa.org, an open space to discuss LGBTQ issues in the Middle East. Having a limited experience of programming and website design myself I was really taken aback by the innovative and interactive way the platform works, something for fellow tech enthusiasts out there. They also have an incredibly cool iPad app, if you’re lucky enough to own an iPad! This really did open my eyes to what’s out there in the international development world that, although often considered niche, can be used for great things.

Another memorable example for the day was Digital Green. Digital Green provides a YouTube and Facebook style network for farmers around the world to share lessons in agriculture called ‘Farmerbook’. The first questions asked by those watching the videos produced by farmers themselves and posted on the database tend to be about the individual – what village they are from and what family. This I found particularly interesting as I myself prefer to learn from real people than from the written word, I found trying to learn to knit from a complex series of pictures, numbers and cryptic text was much more of a hassle than watching a nice elderly lady on YouTube run me through it step-by-step.  Both these examples made me think more about technology as an enabler – it provides a toolkit of devices and methods that can be tailored to individual needs with endless possibilities. Harnessing these opportunities is something that we seem to only just be getting a grip on.

There are more specific examples where technology can be used as a practical tool to delivering aid objectives. Elections are a clear place for technology to triumph in enabling transparency. During the Nigerian elections, UK aid funded a programme that used SMS messaging to enable Nigerians to hold their government to account for a free and fair election. Observers were deployed to polling stations, reporting the voting results for each station via SMS messaging and comparing the vote tabulation with the officially announced results. Radar used a similar technique to report violence and challenges at polling stations across Sierra Leone in the November 2012 elections which they combined with a programme to train young journalists in mobile reporting in conjunction with Leonard Cheshire Disability. Radar is a great example of how technology can promote accountability mechanisms at the same time as helping achieve other development aims/goals, something that I’ve been discovering more of as I look into innovative ideas in more detail.

Clearly there has been great support for the ideas and messages coming from the Open Up! conference. The man behind the internet itself and founder of the World Wide Web Foundation , Tim Berners-Lee, fully endorsed the Open Up! euphoria in his blog post. DFID’s own Justine Greening announced the launch of the Making All Voices Count challenge fund at the event which will provide $45 million to support innovation, scaling-up, and research that will deepen existing innovations and help harness new technologies to enable citizen engagement and government responsiveness – clearly stating DFIDs commitment to using technology to give voice.

Stephen Fry, Tim O Reilly, Rakesh Rajani and Ethan Zuckerman, tweeted throughout the day alongside a string of other big names. In total almost 5 million twitter accounts were reached with the #OpenUp12 hash tag which trended on Twitter in London, Nairobi, Lagos, Paris, Berlin, California, Boston and Washington during the day.

All in all I have concluded that for my first three months with DFID this has been a pretty fantastic experience. Despite not being able to tell my friends that I have met the man who invented the web I can still say that he, Stephen Fry and others talked about an event I took part in organising. Throwing in that I met the Queen of Jordan at the High Level Panel Meeting on the post-MDGs helps too, even if they still have no idea what post-MDGs are nor what international development really is. I will keep my fingers crossed for the invitation from Sir Tim.

Clearly these issues are at the forefront of development thinking both within the area of governance and as a cross-cutting theme and are a main priority for DFID. What’s important is that DFID is taking these issues seriously, having announced the Making All Voices Count fund and supporting many programmes such as Laptop Ladies (which I will discuss next time) as well as exploring opportunities for using technology in the humanitarian field.  There are too many examples to share here but I hope to shed some light next time on how my investigations into the use of technology for empowering and providing services for women have been even more rewarding and exciting.

I attended the launch of the Uganda UK Health Alliance on 12^th February, which was held near the Houses of Parliament in the very grand council chamber of One Great George Street. I had met many of the speakers at the meeting the previous evening, at a reception in the Houses of Parliament hosted by Lord Nigel Crisp, a strong advocate of international development (here). I am always impressed by how effectively the public spaces in the Houses of Parliament are used to bring people together and stimulate discussion and networks on a wide range of important issues.

The reception hosted on behalf of the Uganda UK Health Alliance provided time and space for those agencies and individuals based in the UK and committed to health improvement in Uganda to form closer links. (A link to the site of some of those organisations that are forming the Alliance is posted here). Chief Nurse, Ms. Enid Mwebaza, Assistant Commissioner for Health for Nursing, and Dr. George Mukone, Senior Medical Officer in the Ugandan Ministry of Health, pictured below, spoke of some of the challenges of improving health in Uganda and of the value they place on the partnerships that have been established with UK health institutions.

Another key group at the meeting were representatives of the Ugandan diaspora. These are Ugandans or UK citizens of Ugandan decent based in the UK who have maintained strong links with Uganda. There has been an interesting on-line discussion in The Guardian on the value of the diaspora in supporting development (here) and the interest and enthusiasm of the representatives at the meeting was testament to the potential of Ugandans overseas to support the country’s development.

In my presentation to the meeting, I highlighted the support that the UK is providing to improve health in Uganda. Between 2011 and 2015, the UK is committed to improving family planning, helping prevent AIDS, increasing access to bed nets to prevent malaria and providing support to strengthen health services. However, our discussions with the Government of Uganda have also highlighted the importance that the UK attaches to establishing stronger systems of accountability, to reduce the risk of corruption and to ensure that the human rights of all Ugandans are respected. British support directly to the government of Uganda is currently suspended whilst the Government of Uganda explores how to improve its financial management. These were messages that were well understood by those present at the meeting.

One of the main benefits of the Uganda UK Health Alliance will be much better coordination of the support provided to health institutions in Uganda. Currently multiple small scale initiatives have built good relationships, but can be quite demanding on the time of Ministry of Health officials. Coordination through the Alliance will help reduce transaction costs, and help to make the support more strategic. Rather than training individuals, the Alliance could help to ensure that training inputs are strengthening national curriculum development and training trainers, so that the benefits of inputs will be felt across the country, rather than just in individual institutions.

Lord Crisp made a point of highlighting that the lesson learning is a two way process. UK health workers visiting Uganda learn a huge amount from their experience, they have grown to respect and admire the work of many of the dedicated professionals that they meet, and they bring that learning and enthusiasm back in to the NHS. He highlighted that this ‘co-development’ is a two way process from which we all benefit.

No one would dare to suggest that every international development programme or policy has been a resounding success, yet finding the space to acknowledge and learn from instances of failure is still hard work. Happily though, there are signs that this is changing. Through this blog I’d welcome a conversation about how we can use these changes to increase our impact on the lives of the poorest.

Justine Greening, DFID’s Secretary of State’s speech at the Open Up conference in November 2012, set the tone: “We need to be really honest with ourselves and others about why it didn’t work. And we need to share those results, not hide them away.”

The aspiration for both funding agencies and implementers to be more open about learning from failure is mirrored in the mainstream media. The Guardian recently carried a story about How to talk about failure  and the need for more humility: “We are working in some of the most challenging environments on earth – it’s our mission to go where others have failed to make a difference and help create lasting change. By the very definition of our calling, we should expect that we will fail, and fail often. If our work were easy, someone else would have solved the problems of poverty, pollution, corruption and the like long ago”.

Last week, the New York Times set out how “success stories are rarely the whole story … projects frequently go off course, and it’s not unusual for them to fail outright. What is unusual is for researchers to openly discuss their failures.” And there are many others: a very frank TED talk on the implications of admitting failure; an entire edition of the Harvard Business Review dedicated to on failure full of articles and follow-up blogs on the importance of failure. The list goes on…

There are also a growing number of proactive initiatives to encourage this debate. A few of my favourites are:

• The World Bank Institute’s Fail Fairs;
• The annual day for failure;
• Engineers without Borders’ Failure Report;
• admitting failure.com

Global international institutions are joining in: The World Bank President, Jim Kim’s latest blog, Big idea 2013 – learning fast from failure, sets out plans for hubs to collect and distribute case studies of both success and failure. The IFC’s smart lessons initiative, The Asian Development Bank, the Head of the UK Civil Service, Sir Bob Kerslake all echo the sentiment. Is there a chance that failure is going global?

What about in DFID? It is unlikely that there is anyone in DFID who doesn’t recognise how important it is to learn from failure. We have all seen the hugely impressive results we can achieve (check out our website and other DFID bloggers) but we know we can do better. We are here to succeed for the world poorest people but we know that failure is – and will continue to be – a reality.

Even then, it is hard to talk about failure. DFID’s Director General for Policy, Michael Anderson, spelled it out at the Open Up Conference:

“there’s a real temptation if you’re working for a government department to portray everything as a victory. And, if there is a failure a real temptation to cover it up. We need to find a way to find the confidence to stand up to external criticism that comes with failure”

There could be many potential reasons for this: personal pride, fear of undermining the case for aid, an optimism bias and career incentives all play their part. In the complex world of international development (Owen Barders’ recent work on complexity theory) developing the skills to diagnose and analyse failure is a real challenge.

But there are some simple things we can do to get started. DFID’s transparency commitments as part of the International Aid Transparency Initiative mean that anybody can review any project document, monitoring report or evaluation report and see for themselves what’s working and what’s not. Internally, the 2012 annual meetings of our Senior Civil Service and our programme managers from around the world both agreed that failure is a part of our business and that a more pragmatic and open approach will make us better at fulfilling our global objectives.

We are starting to encourage our partners to study and publicise not just the stories of success but to also be prepared to talk about – and learn from – the bad news too. The newly announced code for our suppliers explicitly expects partners to accept “responsibility for their role, including being honest when things go wrong so that lessons can be learned”. It works the other way too: in the DRC we run an annual survey of our partner organisations to find out what is good and bad about working with DFID, reinforcing the message that we are serious about learning and serious about improving the impact of our investments. Our public dissemination of the Tuungane evaluation is a good example our willingness to be open about what has not worked, an openness that has surprised a number of our partners.

But failing is still very hard work and we know there is much more to do and are in the market for ideas…

Local governance in Afghanistan is full of acronyms – PDP, DCC, DDA, PGO to name just a few – and SPAD is the latest addition. Admittedly, UK civil servants when they hear “SPAD” will not think of a programme that helps local government work more effectively, but of special advisers to ministers. However, the name encapsulates exactly what the programme stands for: Strengthening Provincial Administration and Delivery. It delivers services such as health and education to local people and does this in a way that strengthens government systems, so that, when donors leave, the government can deliver these services itself.

SPAD is the first donor programme that uses the government’s “normal” budget procedures. Whilst we make sure that our funds are safe, this gives the government and local people much more of a say on what the money should be spent on. In Helmand where the programme has been running for a while now, every year the authorities and local people get together to plan how best to spend their budget from SPAD.

For example, in Nehr E Seraj district, the district authorities and the elected district councillors decided to prioritise the refurbishment of Abo Al Fathi Bosti School. The reasons for this being that the school is considered one of the best boys high schools in Gereshk, has a large number of students (434), sufficient teachers and is in a secure area. Before, the school building was in very poor condition with broken windows and doors, but with the SPAD funds, the education authorities were able to contract a local firm to undertake the repairs. The procurement process was televised and transparency was ensured with public signing of the contracts. The building is now in good condition and open.

Other projects that SPAD has paid for included building a major health clinic, setting up a blood bank and improving the main irrigation canal in the province. For this year, 26 ministries in Helmand have been allocated funding to improve service delivery, including some initiatives to improve women’s rights.

As the programme has been so successful in Helmand, we wanted to expand the programme in order to reach more people. I therefore travelled to Uruzgan and Bamyan to see for myself what the needs are in these provinces and whether SPAD could make an impact there.

More about that in my next blog post!

I mentioned in my last blog that I would be attending a meeting in Geneva to discuss the New Funding Model (NFM) of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, well I am just back from a fascinating couple of days getting to understand the new model. The meeting was a great opportunity to mix with a wide range of individuals and agencies and community representatives who are committed to ensuring that the Global Fund remains a major source of strategic investment in the fight against malaria, tuberculosis and AIDS.

For those not familiar with the Global Fund, the website (here) provides a huge amount of useful information, including links which allow you to see how money has been used to good effect in the past. Since its launch, there have been 10 rounds of funding which have allowed countries to bid for resources in support of their national response. There was a high level of concern when Round 11 funding was cancelled in November 2011 (see here).

The Partners Consultation meeting was an opportunity to hear more about how the Global Fund will operate in future and to understand better the transition process from the previous funding mechanism to the new.  The NFM is intended to ensure that the poorest countries and those with the greatest burden of disease have more chance of securing crucial funds to support the fight against the three diseases.

The Board of the Global Fund has been discussing new ways of providing funding which respond to past criticisms of the funding rounds based system of grant allocation. Of particular concern with the previous mechanism of funding was the huge amount of effort and time put in to developing funding bids which, if they didn’t meet the required standard, would fail to secure needed funding. The process could be a major distraction for hard pressed health planners struggling to use limited resources to provide a wide range of health services. Another criticism was that the very high level of ambition expressed by some countries could lead to significant funding and a welcome scale up of some services, but with negative consequences for other parts of the health service. For example, if staff were drawn away from maternity and child health services in order to staff HIV services, or to attend training on malaria or TB. With many of the countries most affected by AIDS, TB and malaria having limited numbers of doctors, nurses and other health workers (see here and here),  increasing activity in one area can easily led to a decrease of activity in another key service. This opportunity cost of different programmes competing for limited human resources, was sometimes over looked. Mark Edington and Abigail Moreland (pictured above) are two of the key members of the Global Fund team working to ensure that the New Funding Model addresses those concerns. They did a great job fielding questions about the new model and noting down ideas which could help strengthen the approach.

The Partner Consultation drew together a number of individuals and agencies who are equally keen to ensure that the new model works. There was very strong representation from the communities affected by the three diseases, and the meeting opened with a statement from Civil Society groups, who had met the previous week in Amsterdam (here) and had developed a clear list of asks for Mark Dybul, the new executive director of the Global Fund. The Global Funds has significantly improved the lives of many poor and marginalised groups, and these communities want to protect the gains made and ensure further progress.

There is a very tight timeline for rolling out the new funding model, and the production line of new guidance documents is only just beginning to deliver the first papers that will guide the process. The draft documents shared at the meeting give an early indication of some of the key elements of the new approach.

I have tried to summarise my views on the New Funding Modality (as I understand it) in terms of the good news, and potential challenges, and have set these out below:

The Good News

Those countries facing funding shortfalls for their national response to the three diseases in the period 2013-2014 will be able to apply for new funds or to re-programme existing commitments. This could mean new money for up to 50-60 countries.

A maximum of 9 countries will test out the new funding modality (these countries will be known as the early applicants). These countries will be able to bid for a set level of funding, indicated at the outset, but will also be able to express what their full demand for funding would be if they were able to secure more funding than is initially on the table. This element of the approach is intended to keep levels of ambition high.

In addition, a set of 40 to 50 ‘interim applicant’ countries will be identified who will be able to apply for bridging funding to cover anticipated shortfalls in funding for current Global Fund financed programmes. Additional funding might include things like replacement insecticide treated bed nets for malaria prevention, when nets previously provided by the global fund are nearing the end of their functional life.

For other countries, not in these groups, there will be no new funding until after the next replenishment of the Global Fund, however there will be scope to negotiate reprogramming of existing funds, and they will be encouraged to develop national strategic plans to address the three diseases, in preparation for future bids.

Each country will be given an ‘Indicative Funding level’ which is the volume of funds they might reasonably expect to apply for based on their level of need (disease burden) and on the capacity they have to fund a national response. There will be more money available for poorer countries. This is really good news in terms of promoting greater equity in access to funds to fight the three diseases and will favour poorer countries with higher disease burdens.

Indicative funding will provide a guaranteed minimum level of funding for a 3 year period, which countries know should be approved subject to a sufficiently robust application. This will remove the risk of significant time wasting in grant applications which has been a problem in the past.

The move away from the round based application process should allow more time for grant applications and allow them to be synchronised with national planning cycles. Having said that however, for the ‘early applicant’  countries, tight deadlines set for the completion of the concept notes is likely to mean that the process of application will still feels highly pressured and demanding in this early phase.

The Concept note application process is intended to lead to ‘grant ready’ funding – avoiding the problem of funding being approved subject to lots of conditions, which was a fault of the previous system. If this can be achieved, that would mark significant progress.

But there will inevitably be challenges with any new funding mechanism. The ones that I identified include the following:

The concept note process still seems to encourage single disease applications, although combined applications for all three diseases will certainly be possible. The problem with lots of single disease applications, each requiring its own application process, will be the same as for the previous funding mechanism, in that the opportunity to address some of the key system challenges, such as lack of doctors, nurses and health workers and limitations of the drug purchasing and distribution systems in ways which will benefit the whole health service may be lost. This is a problem that it should be possible to resolve and the Global Fund team are working on solutions.

The requirement that the concept note include a ‘Full Expression of Demand’ in addition to the bid for the indicative funding is intended to maintain a high level of ambition in countries response to the three diseases. Whilst ambition is good if we want to develop and expand services, it is also important to plan realistically, bearing in mind the limited resources available to deliver the wider range of health services that populations need. We do not want countries to bid for so much funding that it will draw health workers away from other critical areas of healthcare. Any tendency to encourage countries to bid for more than they can realistically and effectively spend is something to guard against.

There will inevitably be teething problems with the new funding model. However, the Global Fund is consulting and listening, and this is a real opportunity to improve on what has been a hugely important funding instrument for tackling the scourges of AIDS, TB and malaria. I, like many others at the meeting, will be keen to find out which countries volunteer and are selected for the early implementer phase. I hope that these countries can demonstrate how the new model can help build stronger health services which tackle the three diseases but also strengthen capacity to deal with the many different health challenges that every country faces.

Until I arrived in the desert-like terrain of Chad, West Africa, and had driven the eight hours to the region of Guera, an area that sits on the periphery of the Sahel belt, I was struggling to visualise how the incredible amount of money raised through Soccer Aid was already changing children’s lives here.

The first time I really saw the impact of the money raised – a staggering £4.9 million thanks to the incredible generosity of the UK public and UK Aid Match – was at a hospital in the capital of the region, Mongo. I was shown around the children’s wards: two large tents and two concrete buildings, the latter being the intensive care units. These units hold the children who arrive here with the most extreme conditions, suffering from severe malnutrition with serious complications. Many with death in their eyes.

Thanks to money raised by Soccer Aid though, these children are being treated with life saving nutrition supplies and medicines, which means that within weeks it’s possible to bring even the most severely affected child back to health again, and give them the hope of a brighter future. And this isn’t the only place that this critical nutrition intervention is happening thanks to UK aid; since 2010, the UK has more than doubled resources for tackling undernutrition, with a commitment to reach 20 million pregnant women and children under five with nutrition interventions by 2015.

However, the difference that Soccer Aid money has made in Chad reaches much further than the country’s hospitals and out to a multitude of health centres that operate across the region, which work to prevent children from even getting to this severity of illness in the first place. The health workers at these centres are trained by UNICEF to identify and treat malnutrition, which, as a result of an ongoing food crisis caused by periods of extreme flooding and prolonged periods of drought, affects well over half the children living in Guera, Chad.

Another change that is now in place thanks to the support of the UK public and vital UK Aid Match, is the presence of the humble mosquito net. During my second day in Mongo, I visited a family whose youngest child had been extremely ill with malaria. The child was treated at the health centre and the family was given a mosquito net, paid for with money donated by UK aid, and now the entire family is safe from the life-threatening disease. We saw how they construct the net inside their home, which was a round mud hut with a roof made from sticks, carefully designed to keep the heat out. A mosquito net is such a simple thing, and yet it saves and changes lives.

In the last year the UK government has delivered more than 12 million bed nets to protect against malaria transmission, preventing over 66,000 child deaths. I’m very pleased to say that thanks to the UK aid matching Soccer Aid, amongst that incredible statistic are the children I personally met, who are now safe from this deadly disease.

Not having a mosquito net also means a child is at risk of serious wider health complications. Malaria causes diarrhoea. Diarrhoea means that the few nutrients the child is consuming aren’t absorbed and malnutrition sets in, worsening the child’s already fragile health. This in turn means the mother has to care for the child and therefore can’t earn a living by collecting fire wood or growing produce and the poverty deepens. 75% of the world’s poor – 3 billion people – depend on agriculture for their livelihood. Women make up almost half of the agricultural workforce in developing countries and often their contribution to a family’s income is a vital one. By simply providing a net – a simple net – this domino effect of destruction could be halted before it even starts.

Possibly the most unforgettable time for me during my trip to Chad was the afternoon I spent with a women’s group that runs awareness raising campaigns that promote good family practices, such as hand washing, making sure families are drinking clean water and using nets and ultimately learning how to keep their children safe from illnesses such as diarrhoea. I walked into a courtyard to find a sea of women, covered head to toe in a riot of colour. They were listening attentively to a UNICEF trained volunteer (who was also a nurse) explaining simple ways to adapt to the continuously changing and extremely challenging surroundings, where environmental factors are getting more extreme due to the effects of climate change. The women learnt about how to prepare and store food, what food to buy, how to treat water and how to use rehydration salts if their child does get ill. I learnt a lot myself – not only about protecting children from the every day challenges and dangers that this country presents, but also about the sheer strength of community in this region and the desire to change things, something that they can do with the help of a little bit of money and support, thanks to you.

—————————————————————————————————-

Please note, this is a guest blog. Views expressed here do not necessarily represent the views of DFID or have the support of the British Government.

 

It’s an ingredient you’ve probably never heard of, but it features in thousands of everyday items – from biscuits to beauty products. Palm oil is an edible vegetable oil refined from the reddish fruit of palm trees which originated in West Africa. Always a staple part of West African cooking, it first became a sought after commodity in the UK in the second half of the 19^th century during the industrial revolution, when it was used as a lubricant on the railways and in other machinery, and later in soap, margarine and candles. As production in countries like Nigeria, Cote D’Ivoire and Ghana fell during the 1970s, Indonesia and Malaysia took the tree native to West Africa and starting producing palm oil on an industrial scale. They created huge plantations and their production soon dwarfed that of all the other West African countries combined; the region where palm oil originated became a net importer of the product.  Producing on this scale in Asia had a major environmental impact, as vast swathes of rainforest were cut down to provide land for plantations and endangered species were being threatened. There were also accusations of human rights abuses made against palm oil producers. There have been calls for boycotts of palm oil products, and demands that multinationals find an alternative ingredient to use in their products.

The sleepy town of Asuom in Ghana’s eastern region seems a far cry from the globalised market. As I’m shaken from side to side as we drive down a track that’s more pothole than road, it’s no surprise to learn that West Africa is the home of the palm tree, and in Ghana, the eastern region is its heartland. Everywhere I look we are surrounded by the trees, and no forests have been cleared here to plant them – they’ve grown here for hundreds of years.I’m here to visit Fulwell Mill, a company working with Serendipalm and Traidcraft, which has just received a UK aid Retail Industry Challenge Fund (FRICH) grant to help scale up and expand its production of palm oil.

They first opened the palm oil mill around six years ago, when Dr Bronners, an American luxury soap company, was looking for somewhere to buy organic, fair trade palm oil for its products. When they realised they couldn’t find a source they were happy with, they decided they had to make it themselves.I arrived around 9am, just after the latest batch of palm fruit had been delivered. The women working at the mill carry large bowls of the brownish-red palm fruit and deposit them on the floor of the mill.  These are divided up and distributed between the groups of local women working there, who carefully peel the fruit off the stalk by hand, and check the quality. In high season 250 women are at work – perched on stools, they sit in circles, laughing, joking and singing while they pick away the palm fruit stalks. I talked to Gladys, who has been working at the mill since it opened – she tells me it’s now the biggest employer in the area. When the women finish their shifts, many will stay and sit around – keeping their friends and colleagues company.

The mill also employs around 300 smallholder farmers who supply the palm fruit.  Each has about two hectares of palm trees, with each palm tree producing around three to five bunches of fruit every two weeks during the high season. The mill has helped the farmers to achieve organic status – not many were using pesticides in the first place, but being organic is as much about helping to increase yields – the mill provides organic ‘sludge’ left over from the palm oil producing process to the farmers so that they can use it to fertilise the trees. Farmers are offered training and interest free loans (in the form of hybrid seedlings), and the mill also assists with other local community projects.

Once the fruit has been separated from its stalks, it is steamed in big vats to soften the flesh, then put through a digester, pressing out the oily liquid, and filtering out the ‘sludge’ which is used as fertiliser. The liquid left over is then put through a clarification process, heated like in distillation, and the oil layer rises above the water and overflows through a pipe into a second tank. This is then stored, before being shipped to Europe where it is further refined, and eventually used in the manufacturing of all kinds of different products. DFID’s support through the FRICH grant is being used to help expand the mill. This includes building another processing facility which should allow it to increase annual production around seven-fold, helping to add value by doing more refining on site, and exploring opportunities to market secondary products like cocoa. Of course small projects like this are never going to be able to rival the size or scale of the plantations in Asia. But they should be able to help create a demand for palm oil that is created in a sustainable way and that benefits the community and the environment. It’s good to see production of palm oil finally coming back home to West Africa. 

Welcome to my blog! In September I got my first break into the world of development and stepped inside the walls of the Department for International Development (DFID) in London as part of their first intake of Graduate Placements.

I’ve made DFID’s walls the theme of this blog. Whatever the organisation, their organisational website is usually a promotional tool to share the organisation’s three A’s – ambitions, activities and achievements – with a worldwide audience. They are rarely a gateway to the people, skills, and decisions that exist within the organisation’s walls and power these vital As.

I became acutely aware of this as I prepared for my DFID interview and assessment centre. Like every keen applicant, I trawled through every page of the DFID website, amassing as much information as possible about DFID’s varied workload – trying to uncover how I could fit into and add value to an organisation doing and achieving so much.

Despite reading everything the website offered, I remember walking into the interview feeling very blind. I had not been able to unpack how DFID achieves such impressive results as supporting 11 million children to have an education, 10 million women to access family planning, and 13 countries to hold freer and fairer elections. How does UK Aid get translated into education, health, growth, good governance and, most importantly, poverty reduction? I was thinking: if I don’t know this how can I add value and support these objectives?

Fortunately, the graduate scheme has given me the opportunity to pass through DFID’s walls and explore the answers to these questions myself. New to the development, graduates have been tasked with not only working hard but keeping an open mind, providing a fresh perspective and asking challenging questions. Will DFID measure up to our expectations of the vital, value-adding role we believe it plays in reducing poverty?

As the UK becomes the first country to meet its commitment of spending 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) on overseas development, I hope to use this blog to share my experience of what is happening within the walls of DFID: Who are the people, what are they doing, how are these results achieved and what are the challenges that have to be addressed along the way.

I couldn’t resist posting this picture of the snow that is currently covering the UK, marking a cold start to what promises to be an exciting year.

2013 is the year in which the UK will achieve its commitment to spend 0.7% of the UK’s Gross National Income on development aid. There has been a huge amount of work going on in DFID over the last year, identifying areas where careful use of development aid can make the biggest difference to poor people’s lives. The discipline of developing business cases, which consider different options for spending and assess the relative value for money of these options, has driven much of this work. There is a huge commitment within DFID to ensure we get maximum value from UK aid. The work on gathering the evidence for effective investment and monitoring the impact of programmes will continue this year as we track progress and demonstrate how UK aid is translating into real results for poor people.

2013 is also a year in which there will be a major focus on what should follow on from the Millennium Development Goals, the targets that are set to reduce poverty by 2015. A High Level Panel will be assessing progress and discussing what comes next. I mentioned in a previous blog, some of the inputs that will inform these discussions, and other DFID bloggers have also posted on the ongoing process.

Clearly there will still be a need to continue to invest in many of the areas that were prioritised by the Millennium Development Goals. Poverty and gender inequity remain major challenges, people the world over want better education for their children and this needs to make sure that girls have the same access to an education as boys. Whilst there has been progress in reducing maternal death and improving child health, there is still an unacceptable toll of infant, child and maternal mortality, with continuing high levels of under nutrition contributing to the burden. Poor people in many countries still need better sanitation, improved hygiene and access to water and the threat of climate change and resulting severe climate events needs to be managed.

Some of the things I am hoping to focus on this year will feed into this agenda. My first big meeting this year will be to discuss the new funding mechanism of the Global Fund to Fight HIV/AIDS, TB and Malaria. The large investments made through the Global Fund have had significant health impacts. One of the key challenges going forward will be to make sure that continued investment to combat these three diseases also helps to build more accessible health services that are better able to meet the health needs of all people, rather than just those with specific diseases. The article posted here, highlights some of the health system challenges of achieving the Millennium Development Goals around health.

I hope to be reviewing a number of UK aid programmes throughout 2013, and to be able to highlight some of the innovative work that is being supported by DFID Health Advisers around the world. I will also be meeting with a number of the researchers and research programmes that DFID has been supporting. The new knowledge being generated by this research and reviews can help make sure we invest in the right things. Systematic reviews of key areas of health policy have been helping to identify what the evidence base is for many of the investments we make, challenging existing practices as well as identifying key gaps in our knowledge and highlighting evidence which can inform new ways of working.

The snow will be gone in a few days, leaving just a memory of the additional struggles of getting into work. The Millennium Development Goals highlighted a long term challenge that will not disappear so readily. Our efforts and investment will need to be sustained to 2015 and beyond in support of some of the most hard pressed governments who are struggling in the face of limited resources and fragile or weak systems to improve the wellbeing of their populations. A key challenge that will extend beyond 2015 will be to make sure that the benefits of development and economic growth reach the poorest, and help narrow the health gap that exists in many countries between rich and poor.

Andrew J. Coulson

A Monday New York Times story (“Backed by State Money, Georgia Scholarships Go to Schools Barring Gays”) repeatedly claims that the scholarship funds used in Georgia’s education tax credit program are “tax money,” “state money,” and “public money.” The entire article depends on this characterization—a characterization that is demonstrably false. Here’s why:

In its 2011 ACSTO v. Winn decision, the United States Supreme Court flatly rejected the claim that donations under a similar Arizona tax credit program were public funds, stating that:

In [the respondents’] view the tax credit is… best understood as a governmental expenditure. That is incorrect.

The Court elaborates on the next page:

When Arizona taxpayers choose to contribute to [Scholarship Tuition Organizations],they spend their own money, not money the State has collected from respondents or from other taxpayers. Arizona’s [tax credit program] does not “extrac[t] and spen[d]” a conscientious dissenter’s funds in service of an establishment [of religion],… or “‘force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property’” to a sectarian organization…. On the contrary, respondents and other Arizona taxpayers remain free to pay their own tax bills, without contributing to an STO. — emphasis added

Because these scholarship donations are private and voluntary, the central point of the New York Times story is false. Under an education donation tax credit program, no one is forced to support schools whose teachings violate their convictions. Note that the same cannot be said of public schools, which all taxpayers must support regardless of their beliefs. For those of us who truly value freedom of conscience and individual liberty, education tax credits are a superior means of funding education to the status quo system. For over a decade, I have advocated education tax credit programs precisely because they do not do what the Times story wrongly claimed.

Two years ago, I shared the ACSTO v. Winn ruling with the standards editor of the Associated Press, who ultimately agreed that it was a misrepresentation for journalists to call these private donations “public money.” I sincerely hope that the New York Times will rise to the same journalistic standard as the AP, publish a correction to its story, and take steps to prevent future occurrences of this error.