POVERTY: MYANMAR: ODA shrinks post-Nargis

 hoto: NASA: Cyclone Nargis, as photographed by NASA here, boosted the country's ODA, but only momentarily

YANGON, 24 January 2011 (IRIN) - Overseas development assistance (ODA) to Myanmar has dropped to pre-Cyclone Nargis levels, leaving millions needing food, shelter, health and education, warn aid agencies.
More than 138,000 people lost their lives and 2.4 million people were affected by the category 4 storm in May 2008.
According to the latest data available from the Organization for Economic Development and Co-operation (OECD), ODA to Myanmar has fallen since 2008, despite a worldwide ODA increase.
Myanmar received US$357 million of ODA in 2009, a 30 percent cut from the previous year.
Now that the humanitarian component of the ODA has decreased to pre-Nargis levels, the estimated ODA in 2010 is as low as $5 per capita, said Andrew Kirkwood, head of Save the Children Myanmar.
"Nargis was just a blip," he said. In 2008, the humanitarian response to Nargis marked a 170 percent increase in ODA from the year before when Myanmar's ODA was $198 million, according to the OECD.
However, while the humanitarian aid component of the ODA increased in 2008, core non-emergency funding remained low in 2009 at $127 million or $2.50 per capita, according to the OECD.
In the same period Cambodia received $208 million in non-humanitarian funds, despite having a population approximately three times smaller.

Sanctions
"There is [definitely] an ODA boycott going on, though not on paper," said Frank Smithuis, founder of Medical Aid Myanmar, a local NGO specializing in HIV care, and former director of Médecins Sans Frontières Holland in Myanmar.
"It's no coincidence that the countries that have imposed economic sanctions on Myanmar are also the countries that give the least development assistance," he said.
For the past two decades, donor governments mostly from the west have levied various trade, travel, investment, arms, development and data embargos against the military regime in protest at its human rights and anti-democracy record.
From visa restrictions against its leaders to precious stone import bans, sanctions have been tightened following massive anti-democracy government crackdowns and various extensions of house arrest for the now-released opposition leader, Aung San Suu Kyi.
Speaking after the September 2007 crackdown by the military regime on Buddhist monks, former Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Berniere said Canada had the "toughest sanctions in the world" on Myanmar.
In 2009, Canada gave Myanmar $2.7 million but it gave Laos 10 times more ODA per capita, despite the country's higher gross national income per capita.
"Whenever I approach a donor for funding they're always keen, right up to the point when I say 'Myanmar'," said Smithuis.
When I approach a donor for funding they're always keen, right up to the point when I say 'Myanmar'
But the US government - which has budgeted $36.9 million for ODA to Myanmar in 2011 - defends its commitment to the Burmese people even in the face of rules against assisting their government, except with humanitarian aid.
"Considering the lack of a USAID [US Agency for International Development] mission presence [in Myanmar], Burma's budget is actually quite robust, at approximately six times the level of the Laos budget [$6 million in 2011]. Burma assistance levels have risen beyond those of Laos since the international community, including the [US government], responded to the devastation of Cyclone Nargis in 2008, with humanitarian assistance to the people, not the government, of Burma," said a USAID spokesperson.

Teachers and midwives
But not all the people can benefit from this largesse, said Kirkwood.
The US administration considers teachers and midwives government workers, so organizations accepting government funding cannot help them, Kirkwood added.
"It's absurd that developed countries have money earmarked for development, but don't allow organizations to work with the government... That is the function of politics. The international community [is] penalizing the children of a country for a government that they don't have any say in. It's playing politics with children's lives," he said.
The USAID spokesperson told IRIN that due to counter-narcotics and anti-trafficking agreements, which the US government deems Myanmar to violate, the US cannot fund any government entity except for labs or offices fighting communicable diseases. Meanwhile, the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid Department (ECHO), explained why sidestepping the government by giving money directly to NGOs was necessary.
"As a donor distributing public funds, we have to be accountable to the European taxpayers and ensure that every euro is being spent effectively," said ECHO's regional information officer covering Myanmar, Mathias Eick.
Meanwhile, aid agencies say it is the Burmese people who must bear the impact of donor manoeuvring to avoid dealing with the government.
"Of course, sanctions are not why children die or don't go to school, that's down to the government, but they certainly don't help," Kirkwood added.
Outside sub-Saharan Africa, Myanmar is second to Afghanistan for child mortality rates, according to UN Children's Fund (UNICEF). Almost 10 percent of children in Myanmar died before reaching the age of five in 2008.
http://www.irinnews.org/report.aspx?ReportID=91702

POVERTY: USAID to have website "Dashboard"

29 December 2010 (IRIN)
USAID intends to give agriculture in Southern Africa a big boost in 2011, according to the new US aid websiteJohannesburg, - In its bid to become more transparent, the US government has launched a new “Dashboard” website to show foreign aid flows.
The US government spends more than US$58 billion a year in foreign assistance through more than 20 agencies. Total government expenditure is over three trillion (thousand billion) dollars annually.
Though the USA is the world’s largest aid donor, it devoted only 0.2 percent of its Gross National Income (GNI) to Official Development Assistance (ODA), according to 2009 figures released by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development - far short of the 0.7 percent of GNI commitment made by rich countries in 1970.
The “Dashboard”, still incomplete, only provides details of aid managed by the state and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) amounting to $37 billion. Peace and security tops the list of sectors which receive foreign assistance - nearly $11 billion. Humanitarian aid gets the fourth highest amount - just over $4 billion.
http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?Reportid=91481

POVERTY: It's time to focus on poor people – not poor countries

  Andy Sumner 27 December 2010 : guardian.co.uk

It's time to focus on poor people – not poor countries
A new approach to reducing poverty is needed in 2011 if people are not to be left behind while their countries get steadily richer


A child stands in a lane of a slum settlement in the northern part of New Delhi, India. Photograph: Amit Bhargava/Corbis

One little noticed story of 2010 was that five more developing countries officially lost their "poor" status.
When the World Bank carried out its annual reclassification in July, Senegal, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vietnam and Yemen all graduated to middle-income status – countries that have reached the $1,000 (£644) or so GDP threshold.
Taken by themselves, not big news perhaps, but add to that 22 other countries which, since 2000, are no longer considered officially poor, then a quite profound global change is under way: in short, most of the world's poor no longer live in "poor" countries.
China was upgraded in 2001 (based on 1999 data) and India, Pakistan, Nigeria and Indonesia are among the other states that have become middle-income countries (MICs). Only 39 states are still considered to be low-income countries (LICs).
As we enter 2011, it is likely that more will follow. Ghana, for example, looks set to graduate in 2011, particularly in light of its new GDP figures unveiled last month. The country will join Senegal, Cameroon, Angola and Sudan, which are among the growing number of African MICs.
On the other hand, given the lingering reverberations of the global economic crisis, there is also a risk that some countries might drop back under the threshold, slipping once again into low-income status. Pakistan or the Ivory Coast might have cause for concern in 2011, for example.
On the whole, this is a good news story, but with an underside. Yes, there are fewer poor countries but poverty remains high in terms of absolute numbers in the MICs.
The news raises some pressing and difficult questions for aid and development policy. As developing countries get wealthier and are reclassified, many are still characterised by persistently high levels of poverty. Indeed, roughly three-quarters of the world's poor now live in MICs – 960 million, or a new "bottom billion". And this isn't just about China and India. Even if they are removed from the equation, the share of the world's poor living in MICs has still tripled since 1990.
In light of the above, how should global poverty reduction be done differently in 2011?
First, the LIC/MIC binary: If the focus is poor people not poor countries then the LIC/MIC way of looking at the world needs a rethink. The new UN multidimensional poverty measure might be one alternative tool. But there are many others.
Second, the end of aid and the equity elephant: overseas development assistance (ODA) is becoming less important and equity more important. More equitable countries reduce poverty faster, and stubborn asset, gender or identity inequality (ie caste systems) might begin to explain persistent poverty amid wealth in the new MICs. This entails some thinking on what ODA is for. Any attempt to discuss inequality will be viewed as an infringement on political sovereignty but is domestic inequality solely a domestic issue if it hinders the effectiveness of aid?
And could there be a case for a new multilateralism based on putting resources from donors and new MICs together? Keep an eye out in 2011: the fact that the world's poor are increasingly found in MICs has the power to shake up the entire aid and development industry.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/poverty-matters

POVERTY: Africa Progress Panel Report

Who is to blame for poverty in Africa?
In the forward to this year's Africa Progress Report, Kofi Annan puts the emphasis on African leaders to improve poverty levels and meet Millennium Development Goal commitments. But will his words have impact?
"Good governance and accountability will determine Africa's future."This is the standout statement in the Africa Progress Report 2010 (APR), published by the Africa Progress Panel (APP) last week.
Formed in 2005 in the wake of the Gleneagles G8 summit, the APP seeks to promote "Africa's development by tracking progress, drawing attention to opportunities and catalysing action".
In terms of Africa's progress, the report had much to boast about: the last decade ushered in economic growth across much of the continent. Kofi Annan, former UN secretary general and chairman of the APP, described Africa as "a new economic frontier", thanks to continued discoveries of natural resources, an ever-growing list of new partners, such as China and the steady rise in domestic revenues, foreign direct investment, remittances and official development assistance (ODA) – or aid.
But these achievements have not eradicated Africa's ills and the report set out to address why.
"Why does progress on achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) remain so low, so uneven? Why do the absolute and relative numbers of people living in poverty remain so high? Why do so many people face food and nutrition, joblessness and minimal access to basic services such as energy, clean water, healthcare and education? Why are so many women marginalised and disenfranchised? And why is inequality increasing?" Annan asked in the forward to the report.
He concluded that the root causes of Africa's problems were a lack of political will and the inability of the continent's leaders to use revenues to benefit the people.
"Responsibility for driving equitable growth and for investing in achievement of the MDG targets rests firmly with Africa's political leaders," Annan added.
It's not the first time this sentiment has been expressed, but will Annan's words and the central message of this report have more impact because of who they are being directly aimed at? This report is written with African leaders - in government, business and civil society – very much in mind.
Support for development and Africa's economic success have both been hit by the economic crisis. The crisis, says the report, "highlighted a number of worrisome trends... such as growing inequality, setbacks in achieving MDGs, vulnerability... concerns that economic contraction squeezes out commitment to human development". In the downturn, the need for good governance to mitigate the damage becomes essential and Africa leaders have been shown to be wanting.
While the report continues to call on donors to uphold their MDG commitments and the Gleneagles declarations (speaking of which, the point about aid commitments appears to have been left off the draft communiqué for this month's G8 summit) and emphasises the numerous agreements signed by the continent's leaders to improve transparency, accountability and pro-poor growth in Africa, the key message is that there needs to be greater political will to achieve long-term success.
But if development is a question of political will, then Africa needs political transformation fast. But this won't be easy.
No easy task
Of the 33 founder member countries of the Organisation of African Unity, now the African Union, who Annan credits with "the vision... to promote a poverty-busting development agenda", 16 are among the least developed countries on the United Nations Development Programme's (UNDP) Human Development Index. Many of these countries have been governed by the same person for more than 20 years.
The report suggests that mutual accountability and monitoring are part of the solution, but implementing schemes to do just that hasn't been straight forward.
The African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) is supposed to promote good governance through self-monitoring. Some 29 countries have joined the APRM, but the voluntary nature of the mechanism has raised questions about its effectiveness for bringing about any real, lasting change.
Even the report seems unable to forcefully convey the need for African leaders to change their priorities for the good of their citizens, evidenced in the wording it uses to chastise. While the report tells Africa's partners in no uncertain terms that their "bloated subsidy regimes and unfair trade rules" leave African countries "heavily disadvantaged," it goes on to assert, in something of an understatement, that "Africans beyond elite circles are not benefiting sufficiently". It would seem that even the language of the report shows precisely who its authors feel prepared or perhaps able to reprimand.
For Africa's development partners, the report makes clear their incentive to support change: climate change and the impact of rising temperatures are straining resources, meaning "necessity rather than altruism will compel politicians to persuade their publics... of the imperative to invest in sustainable global development".
What remains unclear is what the incentive is for Africa's autocrats, many of whom lead some of Africa's most resource-rich and populous countries. These are places where the death of a leader perhaps provides the only chance there is to change lives for the better.

MALNUTRITION: Agricultural economy in Africa

FAO Director-General Jacques Diouf6 May 2010 – The head of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) today appealed for greater attention to be focused on the food security situation in sub-Saharan Africa, where nearly one third of the population is hungry.
With nearly 270 million people malnourished out of a total population in the region of more than 800 million, “this situation clearly demands our urgent and undivided attention,” Jacques Diouf, FAO Director-General, told government ministers at the agency’s regional conference in Luanda, Angola.
He attributed under-investment in agriculture as the core reason for hunger and malnutrition on the continent.
Only nine African countries have allocated at least 10 per cent of their budgets to agriculture, while official development assistance (ODA) from wealthier countries earmarked for farming in developing countries has dropped off from 19 per cent in 1980 to around 5 per cent today.
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=34616&Cr=fao&Cr1=africa