« BACK TO FORUM
 Author |
 Post
|
 |
|
Mike Cartier
Joined: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 155 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Colorado
City: Aspen
|
Africa
July 2, 2003 - 07:40 AM
|
|
Africa
Africa is one of the most diverse continents on the planet. It has vast expanses of desert, savannah, and rainforests, and hosts some of the world's most complex ecosystems. However, that area is in crisis. Across the continent, there are hunger, poverty, conflict, overpopulation, and disease issues. What the solution will require, is a massive effort by all of the international community, through nation to nation support, the UN, and other international as well as regional organizations. The recently developed African Union will have a very distinct role in this effort. The global private sector will also play a large part, as both a facilitator, in building houses, roads, plumbing, etc, and a future employer. The international community can make sure that all are treated fairly in the privatization process.
One of the most difficult options to solicit support for, is monetary aid. Often, when developed nations give financial support to developing countries, they are confronted by the fact that they themselves have poor, homeless, and hungry, and even though their situation may not be as bad as in the recipient nation, large amounts of money are needed to fund national support programs to help these people, and their nation is not being paid back for the aid that they give. As a result, 1st world nations are often reluctant to send financial aid when they know that they will never receive the money back to help pay for their national programs. They must have an incentive.
So, the ideal structure for a monetary support program would be that 1st world nations, would be paid in return for their financial efforts in developing countries. The problem is, often the returns occur before the developing nations can afford the payback. So this places them into further debt. Solution: Structure the payback, at a specified time when the developing nation's national budget is at an ideal level, where it can begin to support itself, and then pay back the aid, with interest as an incentive for further monetary support.
Helping Africa to become a developed continent will require many people, money, and time. However, I am fully convinced, that with the right support, we can help Africa to reach a level of peace, and prosperity.
Michael Cartier
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
asdf
Joined: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 222 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Israel
Province/State: Yerushalayim
|
Re: Africa
July 3, 2003 - 03:30 AM
|
|
I think the idea behind 'aid', or rather the incentive which already exists, is developing nations receiving help will eventually become markets though which doners can sell their products.
This is the reality behind IMF deals and many other deals, and the chief reason why nations in development remain bound to open and tailor their markets before it is both in their interest, and approprite for their structural development.
A better question to be asked would be at what point should aid doners manipulate and coerce the economic environment of their aid recipients?
That is, of course, assuming that there is an imperative for donating aid and assisting nations' development apart from those serving self-interests.
If everyone is fed, healthy and happy, everybody wins.
The reasons this is not widely believe and acted upon have a lot to do with the structure of power in the very nations which possess the wealth, and the ability to execute change.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Elizabeth
Joined: Jul 1, 2003
Posts: 90 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Massachusetts
|
reply
July 3, 2003 - 04:22 AM
|
|
Those nations considered to be among the richest often want to stay at the peak of theior game. Knowing you are walking into a bad business deal, such as lending millions to a developing country, is like a suicide attempt. Though I don't personally believe this it can be true. Having a developing nation payback lended money in full is hard enought let alone requiring interest to follow. I agree that to help these nation it will take time, money and a positie attitude, but I have yet to see enought people inspired enough to do so. There is change and change is slowly coming about. But it needs to come about swifter with a noticable change.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mosa
Joined: Jul 3, 2003
Posts: 2 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Tongue-tied
User is
Offline
Country: South Africa
Province/State: Gauteng
City: Johannesburg
|
Re: Africa
July 4, 2003 - 08:34 AM
|
|
Monetary aid from an international communities to developing countries does not always guarantee that everyone is healthy and fed. I think one of the main problems that developing countries face is the bad management of such funding. The man on the street is hardly affected by these funds and remains in the same situation of poverty. Leaders in some developing countries are more interested in fattening up their own pockets and this is not very attractive to potential investors or countries willing to aid such developing countries.
Better financial management skills are a necessity, especially in africa, before the financial aid can have a positive impact in developing these countries.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
asdf
Joined: Apr 4, 2003
Posts: 222 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: Israel
Province/State: Yerushalayim
|
Re: Africa
July 4, 2003 - 09:11 AM
|
|
You're very right, about the consequences of poor financial management, etc.
A number of years ago the World Bank set thier sights on eliminating hunger in parts of the world. Maybe the entire world I'm not sure.
They recently released a report on their progress in Bangladesh, where many hundreds of millions have been invested already and more are on the way.
The report highlighted the enormous failure of efforts to relieve hunger, based on poor ideas on how to help effectively, and the growth of the nations' debt while the expected changes fail to occur.
I can't seem to find any links right now, so maybe someone who has one can post it. A google search might prove successful as well.
I realize the financial management problems you had in mind were of the government recipients of aid, but it goes to show that money is not in itself a solution to problems regardless of who controls it.
Management is key, and acting upon knowledge and information that is validated locally goes much farther than any predetermined conception of the path to change.
Wealty countries need to first contribute the dollars, which they have largely failed to do, then focus on making impacts with greater consideration for local understanding of the communities they work with.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ha Thi Lan Anh
Joined: Dec 5, 2001
Posts: 483 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: Canada
|
Re: Africa
July 4, 2003 - 10:12 AM
|
|
I think financial management and evaluation precedure is not only problem in Africa but the developing world at large.Poor financial management often go together with lack human resource (financial expert and strategist),corruption,and uneffective evaluation process.
I just went across an article by Warren feek@ the communication iniative had an interesting article on development by and for the most affected and international, large scale development initiatives which raise some useful questions.
Money makes the..?
It is difficult to have a discussion with people in international development without the refrain of 'if only we had more money we would be a lot more effective' being sung - loudly on most occasions. It is a song that communication for development folks sing with particular gusto. For some reason we are [or think we are] the bottom of the funding fund chain.
Well, as the saying goes - 'be careful what you wish for...' It will be very interesting to see what happens with the substantial - of course never enough, almost by definition, never enough - investments by The Global Fund for AIDS, TB and Malaria [The ATM Machine as some refer to it - assuming it gets its next tranche of funds], The Gates Foundation, the recent announcement by President Bush of USD 15 billion for AIDS and other large scale funding processes that are underway.
Not that we have not had a lot of money to spend on overall development. One recent report I read estimated that the World Bank and IMF had spent and/or loaned and/or invested 30 trillion dollars [is that right?] since they commenced operations. Likewise the total spending over the last 30 years by the 20 largest bilateral agencies must be massive. Does anyone know that total? How about spending over the same time frame by the 50 largest international not-for-profits or non-governmental organisations? The numbers are huge - and still we are really struggling: 20 years of growing HIV; terrible stats for people living on less than 1 dollar a day; hardly a dent in the maternal mortality rates; growing environmental degradation; and child immunisation rates heading the wrong way. You can pick your issue and feel the migraine quality pain.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Mike Cartier
Joined: Aug 7, 2002
Posts: 155 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Country: United States
Province/State: Colorado
City: Aspen
|
Financial Regulation and Advisory
July 4, 2003 - 10:14 AM
|
|
All aid, not only in the form of money, but goods, jobs, and other services, cannot be given effectively without the help of advisors from developed nations, who can make sure that the money is distributed in the most efficient way. If this money is indeed an investment in the future, then the investors will want some say as to how that is accomplished. The lending nation would also train certain screened, qualified individuals, so that eventually, the developing nation can become less reliant on donor sources.
In terms of interest, governments and organizations that give aid should eventually be paid back. After all, the money that is given is not from some magical government fund, it is coming out of the pockets of regular people, who have their own food, shelter, education and other bills, to pay for. However, this return of funds should not be expected until the developing nation is at a level where it is considered self-sufficient. Frequently when people, or nations, feel indebted to another, then often times resentment will build: the country does not want to feel like it must be the constant receiver of charity, since they, too, have value and a strong sense of pride. It then works less like charity, and more like the investment you talk about. It can be a win-win situation in the long run.
Michael Cartier
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ha Thi Lan Anh
Joined: Dec 5, 2001
Posts: 483 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: Canada
|
Re: Africa
July 4, 2003 - 10:17 AM
|
|
Recently we featured on The CI web site a very brave report from The Panos Institute, which is a CI partner organisation. The paper can be reviewed at [HTML - click here] or [PDF - click here] Focusing on HIV/AIDS communication, Panos argued not only that money is not the problem but that too much money may be part of the problem.
"With levels of spending on HIV/AIDS increasing year on year, donor personnel are under intense pressure to keep transaction costs down, and to prove maximum impact of the funds they spend. Institutional constraints generally require relatively short project funding cycles. Projects with concrete deliverables, like posters, leaflets or high-profile events, are invariably favoured. As those within the donor community are testifying...these constraints are becoming more intense, not less. In-country, small scale partners are often used to funnel resources, although their capacity to do this while also remaining accountable and responsive to the local community maybe questionable..."
It is not just the amount of money available for funding that is an issue but how that money is spent. Take the following two communication examples that have been brought to our attention. Following the Panos lead both are related to HIV/AIDS but they could be on any development issue or priority. They are presented anonymously as the point here is the implication of these strategies for introducing large levels of funding not a critique of individual development initiatives. There is no value in finger pointing when we could all be the target for the extended digit.
The first illustrative example relates to matching funds. A supposed central tenet of development is that communities and governments should determine national priorities. This is also a central principle for most development communication practice. Though we may all seek to influence those priorities it is the role of national and local government and community processes to decide on the national and local priorities and the subsequent allocation of national and public resources. But, what happens when matching funds - a seemingly increasingly prevalent funding strategy - are introduced into the equation?
A high HIV/AIDS prevalence country's government faced this dilemma with its HIV/AIDS communication strategy. Priorities were established. Partnerships were built. Strategies were developed. Resources were allocated. Then an external international funding agency put 10s of millions of dollars on the table for a new, large communication activity that they had developed. There was a catch. In order to receive these funds, the government had to provide matching funds - not one-for-one but a considerable amount of money from a budget already under severe strain. A new organisation had to be created with these funds. So, national priorities were re-jigged and planned partnerships were down-graded. Under pressure from the people in government who desired increased influxes of very hard currency and a significant boost to their budgets, the HIV/AIDS communication strategy was 're-formulated'. Not surprisingly it was the local and national organisations with deep national and local roots that ended up having their partnerships 'downgraded'.
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
Ha Thi Lan Anh
Joined: Dec 5, 2001
Posts: 483 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Blabbermouth
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Female, 27
Country: Canada
|
the need for a debate on strategy not money
July 4, 2003 - 10:23 AM
|
|
The more external money that is available and the louder the cry for 'sustainability' the more matching funds arrangements will be sought. But they can back-fire. The result may be governments increasing the extent to which they adopt international priorities and agendas, and decreasing the extent to which international funds support national and local priorities. Does the increased level of funding make these concerns irrelevant or more important than ever?
Before moving onto our second illustration - not exclusively communication but with a significant communication component - I'd like begin with some observations on what makes for effective development communication practice:
I am not sure how many people share this perspective on what make for effective development communication practice. Effective communication action on development issues is a bit-by-bit, piece-by-piece process. There are no large, big fixes and panaceas. Village to village, shanty-town to shanty-town, women's group to women's group, policy change to policy change, Presidential intervention to family meal chat, radio report to song lyric, drama script to elders meeting - it is the whole tapestry of processes that make for effective action. No one process can or should dominate. It should resemble a patch-work quilt rather than a designed carpet. Essential to this process is local leadership - committed local people providing the drive, vision and inclusion required for effective action. Which brings us to our second example.
What happens when that dispersed and grounded leadership is enticed from a number of those local and national indigenous processes and placed in one well funded, externally created organisation? This happened in a small developing country. Again the issue was HIV/AIDS. External funding sources provided many millions of dollars for a new organisation, which then went about recruiting all the best people in the country. The existing local and national groups suffered significantly. One cannot blame any individual for seeking better remuneration but was this a sound investment strategy by the external funders?
Of course, the issue here is not the value of substantial increases in the overall amount of money available but the best way to invest resources. I am neither arguing for less money nor less emphasis on getting more money. But the reality is that big resources often come with ropes rather than strings. And the nature of these investments, mirrored in many many other cases, heightens the need for a debate on strategy not money.
It is the strategy that really matters. No amount of cash or loans can cover a bad strategy. Let's continue with HIV/AIDS. We can invest all the funds we like in a vaccine - and let's hope we develop a vaccine very soon - but we had better also be investing in parallel action to dramatically improve our ability to address the issues of stigma, discrimination, gender and other significant issues that will otherwise undermine the efficacy of vaccines. These are communication roles and it is very difficult to see such investment at present.
We had also better think long and hard about how to ensure that vaccine availability is long term not short term. To witness how this can become a problem, just look at the child immunisation trends. With blame being laid at the door of donor fatigue, competing development priorities, disintegrating health systems in the face of government restructuring and other issues, child immunisation rates appear to have stagnated and in the opinion of many are falling. In the rush to get as many people immunised as possible in the 80s and early 90s, the children of the 2000s and 2010s appear to have been compromised.
We also need to think equally hard about who makes the core strategic decisions on fighting HIV in the future - when the funders move on to other issues, when HIV is no longer flavour of the decade and when the realities of what it will take to get wide-spread vaccine coverage become apparent. When these and other issues come to pass who will argue for HIV action - who will be it's best advocates - who will ensure long term focus and action? The answer of course is those most affected - and they are the ones who should be guiding the strategy now. But that does not appear to be happening. There does not appear to be a significant investment strategy to support building those alliances and networks. So that when an announcement is made of a USD 200 million investment in scientific HIV research we see no equivalent [even half or a quarter - please!] investment for addressing stigma, putting in place long-term structural systems and significantly engaging and building networks and alliances of people affected by HIV so that they can drive the strategic development and implementation process. These are communication tasks and the absence of them will significantly undermine the value of a vaccine.
Such arguments can be equally applied to other development priorities and issues. This is not just an HIV issue but HIV does significantly illustrate these concerns.
Or maybe it is unrealistic to expect the processes described above - ones that draw local resources into internationally determined programmes and priorities - to be resisted in the face of access to significantly increased funding. After all if you were the Government Minister making the decisions in each of these cases what would you have done? Does the availability of the resources over-ride development principles that probably appear remote and theoretical when the cash is in the bag?
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
redmamba
Joined: May 2, 2004
Posts: 90 (view all)
Poster Rank:
Chatterbox
User is
Offline
Gender & Age: Male, 29
Country: Kenya
Province/State: Nairobi Area
City: Nairobi
|
Re: Africa
May 4, 2004 - 05:51 AM
|
|
aids help africa alot but they to a great extend lead to the detriment of africa. when you are given something with one open outstretched hand and the other folded behind the back, it is technical. many countries give donations and aids but they expect the money to be used according to how they feel it should be used. this is important as it helps curb graft but at times it misplaces the helped countries' priorities.
when this big countries help, they need favours in return. america might give uganda aid but expects uganda to be its base for other malicious interests or to buy its arms among other useless commondities. and also once you get aid for some project then inevitably expatriates will follow in the name of overseeing. these expatriates have to be paid and have interests like after finishing a certain project, they will still want some shares or renumerations
the problem of african economy should be looked at from a cultural perspective. many focus on cities when surveys are done, yet, africa is mostly village like. investing in people and capitalising on cultural aspects can be an added development.
alot should also be done in terms of the world market. who determines the prices of commondities from africa? un less african countries are helped on the global market, then it is useless to think of development in africa. they are poor and as such, many of their commondities are priced by the tycoon countries who act to the best of their interests.
the multinationals help africa but again how will african industries develop. most industries in uganda are multinationals. they drain the recipient countries of every opportunity of development. may be just out of good will, this should be looked into.
this people who sell and produce arms should also be sanctioned. how do this arms reach the poor peasants that become rebels in many african states. some rich countries with egoistic interests support leaders of some of this rebellions
|
|
back to top |
link to this post
|
|
|
Display posts from:
|
|
Home
Community
