This blog has moved

As of August 2009, this blog has been moved to a new location. Please visit http://www.penelopemc.wordpress.com

If you have subscribed to this RSS feed, you will have to update it - RSS subscription here

The high stakes of the Taylor trial

A fascinating new phase in the trial of Charles Taylor, Liberian warlord and President of his country from 1997 to 2003, is underway. Following 18 months of proceedings, the defense case for Taylor - charged by the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL) with 11 counts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and other violations of international humanitarian law, to which he pleaded non guilty - began on July 13.  This has been getting some international media attention. As noted by contributors to the Trial of Charles Taylor blog, a project of the Open Society Institute:

“[Taylor] is the first sitting African head of state to be indicted and prosecuted for his alleged responsibility for some of the worst crimes known to humanity, the laser beam of international attention will zero in as he tells his side of the story.”

International attention, however, has been more like a faint gleam than a “laser beam”, and I have yet to find commentary that focuses on what, as far as I'm concerned, seems to be the most significant aspect of these historic proceedings - the fact that, if Taylor is found guilty, this trial will set a critical precedent in international law. Indeed, while there have been past indictments - and even convictions - for war crimes and crimes against humanity, no head of state has yet to be found personally responsible for atrocities committed during his or her tenure.

In this post, I won't be discussing the history and specifics of what led to Taylor and a dozen other war criminals to be indicted by the SCSL - suffice it to say that there is ample evidence (in spite of Taylor’s pleading not guilty and his vehement denial of charges during his opening statement) that these individuals committed unbelievable atrocities in the context of the Sierra Leone conflict. (A key prosecution witness, Joseph Marzah, described how Taylor allegedly encouraged - even ordered - the killing of women and children or the eating of human flesh). 

Above all else, I believe it is crucial to highlight the importance of Taylor’s trial not only for Sierra Leone, and more generally the West African region, but also the implications for international law and the international criminal justice system specifically.

In the case of Charles Taylor, the fact that the charges against him are explicitely linked to his involvement in the conflict in Sierra Leone - and not Liberia, the country he presided over for 7 years - complicates the picture. Stephen Rapp, the prosecutor of the SCSL, has to prove Taylor’s personal, criminal responsibility in the events that unfolded in Sierra Leone between 1996 and 2002, when the civil war came to an end. Including Taylor’s, the court has brought 13 indictments against individuals who “bear the greatest responsibility for serious violations of international humanitarian law and Sierra Leonean law committed in the territory of Sierra Leone since 30 November 1996.” 

So far, three guilty verdicts have been pronounced against former rebel leaders, with sentences ranging from 15 to 52 years - out of the three judgments, one may still be appealed. It should also be noted that four of the 13 indicted have either died or are presumed dead, leaving nine individuals in the custody of the SCSL. 

One might wonder, then, what purpose might the conviction of Charles Taylor and a dozen others serve? Particularly as so few of those who perpetrated atrocities in Sierra Leone are being tried, will all these lengthy, costly legal procedures provide any solace for the victims of the conflict? Will justice be served? What, if anything, would the sentencing of war criminals achieve for Sierra Leone? for West Africa? for international justice? 

The Special Court for Sierra Leone prides itself on contributing to the re-establishment of the rule in law in the country - in addition to court proceedings, the SCSL also facilitates capacity-building for judges, legal experts and lawyers. And, indeed, the judicial institutions of Sierra Leone are being strengthened thanks to the SCSL. Beyond this, of course, the main objective of the SCSL is to bring justice to the people of Sierra Leone. Already, legal proceedings have yielded a number of firsts and have established important precedents. The Special Court:

• Was the first to rule that national amnesty does not apply to the prosecution of international crimes, and was the first court to adjudicate the limitations of immunity by a head of state before an international criminal court.   
• Was the first to enter convictions for the forcible recruitment and use of child soldiers for acts of terrorism in a non-international armed conflict and for the crime of attacks on UN peacekeepers.   
• Also pronounced the first-ever convictions on the charge of sexual slavery and forced marriage as crimes against humanity. 

However, despite this important jurisprudence and the benefits to the local judicial system, many argue that the SCSL - as well as other international criminal courts - can make the process of reconciliation much more difficult and that, ultimately, convicting and sentencing war criminals achieves little for the victims. 

I, on the contrary, believe that the sentencing of war criminals and perpetrators of crimes against humanity is fundamentally important. In addition to the signifcant advances for Sierra Leone’s judicial system listed above, should Taylor be found guilty, it would set the standard for accountability and send a clear signal to current and former heads of state that a culture of impunity will not be tolerated by the international community. As prosecutor Stephen Rapp notes, “this is an enormous test for international justice.”

With Taylor's trial, the stakes are high - the former president still has a strong following in West Africa, and no clear popular consensus has emerged around the man who (in)famously ran for president in 1996 with the slogan “He killed my Ma, he killed my Pa, but I will vote for him.” A conviction would at least contribute to the delegitimization of movements supporting him - which, in a still fragile Liberia, will be critical to the country’s long term political stabilization. 

Particularly as heads of state like Bashir in Sudan, Mugabe in Zimbabwe or even the military junta in Burma, continue to oppress and victimize their populations, the ever growing jurisprudence reinforcing the international justice system would receive an adrenaline shot should Taylor be sentenced. 

As with the prosecution by the ICC of Thomas Lubanga for his crimes in the Democratic Republic of Congo, many claim that the international media and public attention detract from the validity of the proceedings. As Catherine Mabille, Lubanga’s head defense lawyer notes: “In the press he is already convicted, convicted before being tried. And in the eyes of a vast majority, as soon as there is an arrest warrant and as soon as the charges are confirmed and the matter is committed to trial, the presumption of innocence disappears.”  

However, all those indicted by international criminal courts, including Taylor, are presumed innocent until proven guilty, and given a chance to present their side of the story. For all intents and purposes, they are guaranteed a fair trial. This is especially true, given that, as mentioned previously, the media and public opinion are not nearly as mobilized as they could be - frankly, even searching for material to compose this blog post, I was surprised by how little analysis and commentary Taylor’s trial has generated (leading me to conclude that Lubanga’s defense lawyer may be slightly delusional.)

Considering how many times throughout history leaders have abused, oppressed, manipulated and murdered their own populations, the need to establish a standard for accountability is of paramount importance. For now, even as the International Criminal Court has issued a warrant for Bashir’s arrest, he remains free to roam around the African continent (having already made several trips abroad since the warrant was issued), as the African Union decided not to honor the warrant for his arrest... 

(In an interesting twist of fate, it's worth noting that Taylor's son, Chucky Taylor, was convicted of torture last year, in the first prosecution under the United States’ Extraterritorial Torture Statute.)

Of course, the evolution of institutions - such as the international justice system - is always complex, and for every achievement, there are set-backs. But there is no doubt in my mind that if Taylor is convicted and sentenced for his crimes, entrepreneurs of violence, warlords and other small or big tyrants the world over will hear the message loud and clear: the culture of impunity is coming to an end. 

"Post-bureaucratic" effectiveness?

There has been a bit of a buzz around the recently released British Conservative Party Green Paper on international development, and David Cameron's party is getting a little bit of heat for some of their policy prescriptions. 

The report begins by announcing the Party's good intentions:

As well as highlighting the amazing achievements of aid, we are candid and open about the difficulties and problems involved in turning money and good intentions into real outcomes on the ground. We identify both the systemic problems that beset the whole official aid industry, and the specific mistakes that Labour politicians have made in running our aid programme. And we set out how we will put these problems right, increasing British aid, while injecting a new post-bureaucratic focus on effectiveness and outcomes. Our aim is to spend more on what works, and end funding for what doesn’t.

What caught my eye was the notion of “post-bureaucratic” - which is in fact repeated throughout the report. At first, I thought it was probably another euphemism for increased coordination among agencies or more flexible funding and disbursement timelines. Interestingly, the Conservatives take the concept in an unexpected direction; as The Independent reports, their suggestion is to give British citizens a say in where their tax dollars/aid money goes. Through the intelligent use of “post-bureaucratic” modern technology (the internet, who would have thought), David Cameron is considering asking British citizens to decide which international development projects they want to fund:

The site will include a history of each project, the impact it has achieved, details of how the additional money will be spent and a short film by the head of the project, setting out why they deserve to be backed. The £40m pot will be divided in proportion to the percentage of the vote for each initiative.

The point of this being two-fold: a), it would allegedly increase the quality of project results,  by creating new incentives for effectiveness, b) it would give tax-payers a say in how their money is spent, leading to increased popular support for aid programs. However, as critics note, this would inevitably lead to some “unpopular” programs being cut, and surviving ones spending more time trying to cater to the needs of an ever changing public opinion than addressing issues on the ground. 

Many are calling this “populist gimmickry”. I can understand that, especially when phrases like “Every time the candle of life is snuffed out by disease, we all suffer” are thrown around (page 8 - some beautiful prose, highly recommended). And indeed, some of the Conservatives’ policy prescriptions seem a bit “naive”, like the “MyAidfund” initiative described above. 

Nonetheless, they deserve some credit for at least attempting to be creative in their solutions to address the issue of aid effectiveness. And, while the vigorous debate on the topic continues to further polarize opinions (see the Boston Review recent “Development in Dangerous Places” for a brilliant installment on the subject), while the same old promises are being made by the G8, the Conservatives are at least taking a crack at finding a solution to the deadlock. 

For instance, while everyone’s attention is focused on the “MyAidfund” program, I think some of the ideas below - also suggested in the 64 page policy paper - are at least worth debating:

We will ensure the impartial and objective analysis of the effectiveness of British aid through an Independent Aid Watchdog. This will gather evidence about the impact and outcomes of different British aid projects and programmes, allowing the Secretary of State for International Development to make informed, evidence-based decisions about where spending should be directed [...]

We will publish full information about all of DFID’s projects and programmes – including the results of impact evaluations – on its website, and have them translated into local languages. This information will be published in a standardised format so that it can be freely used on third-party websites [...]

We advocate a more far-sighted approach. DFID should where possible make three-year rolling commitments and give indicative ten-year projections for aid. However, such a commitment on our part will require something in return. Projects and programmes must demonstrate that they are performing, delivering what they said they would deliver.

The last recommendation listed here is contentious for critics: for some projects, where measuring objective impact is challenging because of the lack of quantitative indicators, it will be difficult to retain funding. This would create an unnatural skew towards “delivery” programs which can effectively measure their results, but are not always the most transformative or sustainable. That said, the current lack of indicators shouldn’t preclude us from searching for new, creative ways to measure impact... Which a lot of researchers are doing already. It’s definitely time for the development industry to become accountable (much in the same way that the private sector is being held increasingly accountable for their social and environmental impact.)

Finally, one of their more praiseworthy suggestions, in my opinion, is the following:

There is a wealth of talent and energy in the many ‘little platoons’, small charities and NGOs who are making an impact on poverty in a thousand different ways all across the world. We want to support and bolster these organisations. Yet Labour ’s current funding rules are restrictive, with money earmarked for specific but limited sectors. 

In addition to the existing funding structures which exist, we will establish a demand-led, performance-based Poverty Impact Fund, worth £40 million in its first year. 

The Fund will be open to British NGOs and charities, working alone or in partnership with local organisations in developing countries. The Fund will invite submissions for projects and programmes to reduce poverty in developing  countries. Fund managers, drawn from DFID, NGOs and the private sector, will assess the applications, and allocate funds on the basis of their anticipated effectiveness in reducing poverty. 

The Fund will maximise innovation and enterprise, letting ‘a thousand flowers bloom’,tapping into a wide range of NGOs and supporting a wider range of projects than the current structures allow. To balance risk in the portfolio, the Fund will also support projects which are well-established and have a demonstrable performance record. NGOs will have a clear incentive to maximise the effectiveness of their work in order to secure and retain funding. 

So there are proposing to work more closely - and fund! - grassroots organizations that deliver results. Without seeing the details (how exactly would the portfolio be “balanced”? Will 50% of funding go to well-established projects? More? Less?), it’s hard to say whether this idea can really work. But we should at least appreciate the effort to bring some new ideas to the table - Cameron and his party probably haven’t cracked the complicated issue of aid effectiveness, but their notion of “post-bureaucracy” might not be such a poor conceptual starting point. 

Full disclosure: I am not a fan of David Cameron.... Not a detractor either, but definitely not a fan

Obama and Africa

Following a G8 meeting where leaders announced a $20 billion commitment to help alleviate hunger and improve food security in the developing world, and a short stop-over in the Vatican to exchange pleasantries with the Pope, Barack Obama traveled to Ghana for his first presidential trip to the African continent.

Obama’s visit generated a wave of enthusiasm across the region, and he was welcomed in Ghana by a huge government delegation, as well as throngs of electrified Ghanaians. Needless to say, the president’s choice of Ghana elicited feelings of national pride for its people and its government – as noted by Cadman Atta Mills, the Ghanaian president’s brother and chairman of the National Economic Advisory board, “Ghanaians have extremely high expectations for this visit. A lot of it is sentimental and personal.” Knowing Accra, I’m sure the vibe there must have been incredible.

In spite of the historical nature of the visit, the speech delivered by Obama didn’t represent any dramatic shifts in the American position toward Africa. Some critics were disappointed that it didn’t represent more of a “shakeup of U.S.-Africa policy”; others lamented that it did not address the tougher issues such as the protection of human rights or how to deal with the continuing tragedies in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Still, l believe that Obama’s speech sent the crucial message-in no uncertain terms-that good governance is key to solving the continent’s chronic underdevelopment issues.

While this position does not represent a departure from previous administrations, who also touted democracy and good governance as fundamental elements of peace and prosperity, I think it’s important to take note of the concrete implications of Obama’s speech and visit.

Obama sends a powerful message by choosing Ghana over Kenya (his father’s homeland), Namibia, Botswana (both stable, democratic countries), South Africa (arguably the continent’s most successful nation), or, most significantly, Nigeria, Ghana’s resource-rich neighbor and the world’s fourth largest nation (and, by the way, also America’s biggest trading partner in sub-Saharan Africa; the U.S. imports about 20 percent of its oil from Nigeria…)

Obama explained that he chose Ghana, a nation of 23 million that has had two peaceful democratic transitions, to “highlight” its adherence to democratic principles and institutions, ensuring the kind of stability that brings prosperity. Nigeria, in contrast, is notorious for its entrenched corruption and chronic lack of effective governance – indeed, in spite of tremendous oil wealth, poverty rates are still alarmingly high (70% of the population fell under the poverty line in 2007.)

His words were quite stern:

“This isn’t just some abstract notion that we’re trying to impose on Africa […] The African continent is a place of extraordinary promise as well as challenges. We’re not going to be able to fulfill those promises unless we see better governance”

“No country is going to create wealth if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves, or police can be bought off by drug traffickers […] No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top, or the head of the port authority is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy, that is tyranny, and now is the time for it to end.”

By “snubbing” Nigeria and pointing to Ghana as an example of good governance in the region, Obama is probably also hoping to signal to the Ghanaian government that he is expecting them not to mismanage the profits from the country’s new-found offshore oil. A well-timed message, as large oil deposits were recently discovered off the coast of Ghana, with production slated to come online in the next couple of years – and along with it, a steep increase in government revenues. There is reason to hope that the country will be stepping up to its responsibilities. Ghana’s energy minister,Joe Oteng-Adjei, recently declared: “We are committed to doing the right thing for investors and for the country … our concern is that we bring in a third party to deliver the synergies that we expect.”

Human Rights Watch recently released a grim report on Equatorial Guinea, reminding us that the “resource curse” is still very much a reality to contend with in Africa:

“Since oil was discovered there in the early 1990s, Equatorial Guinea's GDP has increased more than 5,000 percent, and the country has become the fourth-largest oil producer in sub-Saharan Africa. At the same time, living standards for the country's 500,000 people have not substantially improved. Here is a country where people should have the per capita wealth of Spain or Italy, but instead they live in poverty worse than in Afghanistan or Chad."

Additionally, many countries in Africa face a common challenge of having to address the creation or strengthening of institutions that guarantee the rule of law and enforce respect for the constitutional rights of citizens. Ghana has done well on that front, especially relative to most other countries in the region, and it’s clear to all of Ghana’s neighbors (particularly Nigeria) that to win the favor of the U.S. and its charismatic president, a proactive stance on good governance is necessary.

In spite of Obama's strong and meaningful message, I don’t think this is a watershed moment in the U.S.-Africa relationship. First off, for all the verbal commitments to being “a friend and a partner every step of the way,” let’s get real about what the current recession implies: a bit of turning inwards for rich countries who will again not deliver the necessary policy changes to really make a difference; the lowering of tariffs for African products; a complete overhaul of agricultural subsidies - these are among some of the critical areas for policy intervention. In this climate of fiscal constraint and tightening credit across the globe, access to finance is also a key issue for African development. Despite their significance for the continent, Obama failed to speak about the aforementioned issues.

Probably because he knows that in one brief (albeit historical) visit, and one speech, one can only deliver so much.

Bono’s assessment is that “presidential attention would be a shot in the arm for these [anti-corruption, rule of law improvement] efforts — an infusion of moral and political amino acids that, by the way, will make aid dollars go further.”

I’d like to believe that a one-day visit to West Africa and a speech before the Ghanaian parliament could truly galvanize country-level efforts in promoting effective democracy. But, at the risk of stretching Bill Easterly’s Man in Charge argument, I think we need to have a humbler understanding of what this speech means for America’s relationship with Africa. Efficiently dealing with issues as varied as corruption, nonexistent infrastructure, protracted conflicts or subpar education, will require significant – if not dramatic – shifts in policy and attitudes. While Bono seems to believe that Obama’s words inevitably produce change, African commentators are (surprisingly?) far more sober in their assessments. An editorial in the South African Daily News notes that “even the most devoted Obama fans are aware of the fact that the first black American president - whom they love to call a 'son of Africa' - cannot solve the continent's many problems.”

I agree with David Rothkopf, who discusses the natural limitations of presidential influence and power: “It's time recognize that it really does take a big team of empowered leaders to make the complex foreign policy of the U.S. work and evolve in the right directions. It's time to recognize that it does not reflect badly on the president if we all agree he cannot transform the world single handedly, that however different he may be from his predecessors, that alone is not enough.”

No fire without smoke

From Nextbillion.net, a piece entitled "The Dark Side of Remittance Economies" asks:

In Development and Base of the Pyramid circles, we often discuss remittance economies and innovative ways to send remittances home; what we don't always think or talk about is what forces people to leave their home countries in the first place and what they experience when they go abroad. In the case of Nepal, as I've written about before, migrant laborers most often

 travel to the Middle East and Southeast Asia, often having their passports taken away from them upon arrival and not getting paid for months at a time. So would systems that facilitate sending remittances home actually encourage and facilitate such an unjust ecosystem? 

First off, having your passport taken away and not getting paid for months at a time constitutes slavery (Article 1 of the Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery). Incredibly, slavery remains a major issue today, as more than 27 million people "live their every day in slavery or slavery-like conditions." And while not all enslaved persons are migrant laborers (and of course, vice versa), it is true that many economic migrants end up in terrifying situations. As noted by the UN Special Rapporteur, "Some of the most traditional forms of slavery such as debt bondage [have] evolved and now manifests [themselves] in the plight of some migrant domestic workers."

Remittances from migrant workers, however, are one of the most stable, largest sources of capital for many developing countries, more so than official development aid (ODA) or foreign investments. Moreover, remittances are actually more reliable and tend to be counter-cyclical. While remittances are going to decline this year, along with ODA and private investments, they will decline less. According to the Migration and Remittances Group at the World Bank, "despite the prospect of a sharper decline in remittance inflows than anticipated earlier, these flows will remain more resilient compared to many other types of resource flows such as private debt and equity flows and foreign direct investment, which are expected to decline or, in the case of portfolio flows, perhaps become negative in 2009 as foreign investors pull out of emerging markets."

To be clear: the most sustainable form of capital flows to the developing world is not only in decline, but in its current form, relies - at least in part - on modern forms of slavery and forced labor. Indeed, for these flows to remain stable, millions of people have to endure harrowing trips across, and sometimes between, continents. There are more than a few stories about boat loads of migrants that capsize, end up shipwrecked, with their occupants arrested, and often deported. 

It's an incredible shame that there aren't better systems in place to promote a much healthier form of migrant labor - in Spain, for example, the government used to run a program to recruit foreign workers in Morocco and Latin American countries, based on the labor needs expressed by industry groups. These people were given temporary work authorizations and were subject to quite strict verifications - nonetheless, their conditions of employment were far, far better than what most can expect when immigrating on their own. 

Mustafa, 26, Somalia:  « The travel took me one year through the desert and Five days of sea. The sea was unstable, twenty-five people where on the boat at the beginning, but only fifteen people arrived in Malta. » Février 2008. © Pierre Le Tulzo  

Getting it wrong

A recurrent theme in international development is the issue of measuring and reporting aid effectiveness - this topic gets a lot of buzz, and rightly so. Especially in an age of fiscal constraints, it is ever more important to deploy funding to projects that work. There's a lot of debate about whether official development aid is more effective than chanelling funding through small local NGOs, big international ones, or something in between. What I find baffling is that a lot of people are willing to say that one is the better alternative - personally, I think that there are some government agencies, some NGOs (large/small) that are good at handling aid money, and others that aren't. Dismissing one model for the other doesn't make any sense, given how heterogenous the group is. 

As the excellent blog Good Intentions are Not Enough points out, one of the main problems with aid agency/NGO reporting is the fact that negative findings are often swept under the rug, or spun into a positive narrative because these agencies are afraid of jeopardizing their sources of fuding. The problem is that funders often don't have the capacity to closely monitor/evaluate the impact of their donation, and rely on reporting from their grantee... Which is obviously problematic, for a number of reasons. Even if the grantee outsources evaluation to a third party, the results that filter back to the donor aren't always guaranteed to accurately reflect reality. There's also the issue of overstating a crisis or situation to attract funding, another dangerous and unsustainable practice. Organizations and agencies that receive aid are all actually competing for resources - they are, after all, entities that employ staff etc. and whose own existence depends on the existence of a need, a crisis, a situation that has to be addressed. It's no wonder that they tend to overstate, spin, or misreport the facts to their donors - for some, it is a matter of organizational survival. 

It makes it complicated to evaluate the effectiveness of aid in this context: not only do you generally have to contend with insufficient monitoring mechanisms at the project level, which make it difficult to know whether any quantifiable objectives are met, but there are also all these qualitative dimensions that come into play. The straightforward elements of evaluating aid effectiveness can sometimes be overshadowed by subjectivity - the reputation of an organization, who's on the board,  its ability to serve beneficiaries at scale...etc. And let's not forget the highly political nature of official development aid - the fact that Israel, Egypt, Colombia and Pakistan are the countries which receive the most American official development aid (ODA) is a telling fact (not counting Iraq and Afghanistan.) To genuinely evaluate the effectiveness of aid, we shouldn't just be looking at the glossy quarterly and year end reports. For some well-entrenched organizations and agencies, the validity of their model, of their projects is barely questioned.

Interestingly, when it comes to ODA, there seems to be a correlation between the degree of aid dependency and lack of transparency and accountability on the part of the recipient government. ("The Open Budget Survey reveals that those countries performing least well in terms of budget transparency practices share certain characteristics, including lower income levels, dependence on foreign aid, reliance on revenues from hydrocarbon extraction, and weak democratic institutions.") For a lot of these countries, ODA is their principal lifeline, and to stop the flow of funds would probably have catastrophic consequences for the population (actually, that is an assumption - would be interesting to find out what impact lower levels of ODA would have on a country like Liberia)

The whole "aid effectiveness" debate is rather obscured, in my opinion, by political and subjective factors - how can we effectively evaluate the impact of aid when aid disbursements themselves aren't based on genuine levels of need, but rather on how well the agency, organization or government is able to convince donors of that need. Whether one looks at ODA, or funding for agencies/NGOs carrying out development activities in low income countries, we're never going to be serious about "aid effectiveness" until we look at the full process, from needs assessment to expost evaluation. 

Until we are able (willing?) to do so, we'll have to accept a certain degree of inefficiency when it comes to aid. It's not a perfect system, far from it, but the fact that such vigorous debate exists around development aid - in all of its forms - is a hopefully a sign that, as time goes by, we'll be much more sophisticated when it comes to efficient aid allocation, monitoring and evaluation.

Apparently, World Vision in Liberia didn't get that memo.

A disturbing example of large scale corruption within NGOs just emerged in Liberia. Astonishingly, 90% of World Vision's aid to Liberia went missing - they lost $1mm as their project managers were selling food and using construction materials that were supposed to benefit Liberians (World Vision was a sub-grantee for food distribution and food-for-work projects.)

World Vision calculated that $884,681 worth of food was missing, with a total loss, including ocean freight expenses to ship the food to Liberia, of $1.45 million.

The United States spent an additional $300,000 for construction materials, most of which were never used on the intended projects.

Unfortunately for World Vision, it means that their fundraising will suffer as a result - while this is obviously too bad for them and the beneficiaries of their other, functional projects, there is no reason why donors should not sanction World Vision for its lack of oversight. World Vision apparently employs 250 people in Liberia, which is quite significant - besides other international organizations or the government, there are few employers of this size in Liberia (hence the 85% unemployment rate...) and they've been operating there since the early 80s - it's quite unbelievable and unacceptable that it took them 2 years  to uncover this massive fraud. 

I honestly have no idea how something of this scale could have occured - how is it possible that no one realized that 34 of the towns intended to benefit from this project didn't exist? It really says a lot about WV's management capacity and how (un)rigorous their internal monitoring mechanisms are. In addition, in a context of poverty, how could over a million dollars disappear discreetly? 

Quite apart from the fact that their Community Resettlement and Rehabilitation Project ended up being a massive failure because of this fraud, it's also worth noting that their model of importing food from the United States for aid is a flawed approach - why not purchase locally and support the Liberian agricultural sector and its small-holder farmers? Owen Barder recently wrote  that instead of importing food aid to Ethiopia, cash transfers would be more effective in combating hunger (which makes a lot of sense, by the way: in doing so, you would reduce the cost of providing food aid). I suppose the risk here is that people may not use the cash for its intended purpose - but the counter-argument is that if the person would naturally use the cash for whatever is their greatest need, which hopefully doesn't involve getting drunk at the local bar...(more about purchasing food aid locally here, and more about untying food aid here)

 I have serious beef with this World Vision drama: not only did they fail the people of Liberia by botching the design and execution of its CRRP, but this is also going to contribute to increasing the distrust for organizations doing similar work. The "public relations disaster" mentioned by Kleinman is not limited to WV, but will have repercussions for other NGOs. Shame. 

---

Warning: shameless plug

As for The Niapele Project's School Nutrition Initiative in Liberia, we just received a small grant from the GO Campaign to cover the start-up costs of the project. While we certainly don't have the ability to operate at a scale quite like a large INGO, we're still planning on feeding 600 kids/day during the upcoming school year. And we take monitoring seriously - in addition to having trustworthy program coordinators, we track the impact of the program through regular medical assessments. We'll also be sourcing food items for the project from an agricultural co-op in Central Liberia which is run by a local grassroots organization, Malaya. While we don't have the enormous budget, staff and long standing experience of World Vision in Liberia, Niapele's work in Liberia is guided by an honest assessment of needs at the community level, and we believe that our small-scale impact will be long lasting. 

This 'n' that

Amazing conversation/fight between Bill Easterly and Jeffrey Sachs going on right now over at Huffington Post - the "Cliffs Notes" of it are available here. I'm pretty amused by all of this - it seems so very modern for two of the world's most renowned development economists to duke it out via their blogs and columns. And Easterly just joined Twitter: 

penelopeinparis@bill_easterly vs. J. Sachs: http://ow.ly/aInw.amusing - although I wonder if this is sorta lowering the standards of educated debate.

bill_easterly@penelopeinparis @saundras_s u mean that educated debate that includes Bono&Angelina?

penelopeinparis@bill_easterly - touche. Still, 2 bad muck raking takes over the constructive discussion,& thats what ppl will focus on,instd of real issues

I'm so very entertained by modern media and information exchange. 

In other news, I just finished reading Tears of the Desert, the memoirs of Dr. Halima Bashir, a woman doctor in Darfur. In spite of the fact that I spent most of the second half of the book swallowing my tears, I really enjoyed her story. The horror... Goodness. We have all seen, read or heard accounts of rape as a weapon of war (in Liberia, in the DRC, in Sudan....), but the personal nature of her account made it even harder to bear. It almost makes me in favor of celebrity advocacy - how could you not want to be outspoken if you knew you could draw media (and potentially, political) attention? 

Paradigm shift, maybe

In spite of what David Rothkopf has to say on the subject, I am really hopeful that the crisis that has been shaking the world economy since last fall will not have been in vain. Given all that has happened, and the intense amount of media scrutiny and public debate on the outcomes of the "Crash of 2008" (however you want to call it - does it even have a proper capitalized name yet?), you would think that this would have created some space for a healthy discussion regarding the future of our civilization... We live in a world of gross overconsumption, excess and waste. While I'll be the first to admit that I'm firmly part of this system, I see the need to adopt a system that doesn't promise to drive us straight into the wall as an urgent one (Lula said it best.)

Yesterday, I came across a TED talk by Ray Anderson, the CEO of a carpet company. Now you might think - as I did - that hearing Mr. Anderson's take on the "business logic of sustainability" would probably not be the most enlightening and thought provoking experience (again: carpet company.) Well, that is a misguided impression, dear reader, and I invite you to check out his 15 min talk in the video below. Personally, I'm a huge fan of the Environmental Impact Equation (min 4:40), and particularly of his re-writing of it (min 11:18). 

Obviously, developing a "new civilization" is no easy feat, and you can't draw a fancy road map for completing this task. Nonetheless, the notion that Anderson introduces in his speech, that we must decrease the importance of "Affluence", and increase the importance of "Happiness" in our calculation of the impact of production really appeals to me (watch the video, really). Sure, it's a pipe dream - and for working with (and not for) the private sector on a daily basis, I know that the notion of the triple bottom line is far from being a central tenet of modern business.

However, stories like these instill a little bit of hope:

The video [The Story of Stuff] is a cheerful but brutal assessment of how much Americans waste, and it has its detractors. But it has been embraced by teachers eager to supplement textbooks that lag behind scientific findings on climate change and pollution. And many children who watch it take it to heart: riding in the car one day with his parents in Tacoma, Wash., Rafael de la Torre Batker, 9, was worried about whether it would be bad for the planet if he got a new set of Legos.

Of course, no one wants their kids (or other people's kids, even worse) becoming staunch and unwavering advocates of the environment at home - I can already picture children across America going through their mothers' cosmetics and hiding/throwing away (I mean, recycle) all of the products that don't meet their high standards. Regardless - and seriously - I do believe that tackling the question of how to adapt our modes of production/consumption to current realities (more people, more pollution, less resources) will require some efforts on the educational front. Leaders of tomorrow (it's apparently too late for today's leaders) will need to view the world through the filter of sustainability - and that can only happen if we educate and shape our young generation to respond appropriately to the challenges of their time. 

The Story of Stuff is an amazing video, which I highly recommend you watch - similarly to the Anderson TED talk, it shows how modern means of production are outdated. I'm not surprised that it's being used in classrooms across the US to teach students about the environment and climate change. Living in Vancouver, I sometimes feel like I live "in the future": few people still use plastic water bottles, taxis are almost all hybrid, buses are electric, electricity comes mostly from hydropower... etc... There are so many signs that we are turning a corner in terms of how we approach consumption/waste - but not nearly enough, in my view. And I suppose it will take time. And that, to a large extent, it's the millions of small, everyday paradigm shifts that really make a difference (recall Rafael de la Torre Batker who was worried about the effect of a new set of Legos on the planet). 

The Economist published a story about money growing on trees. Wait. What? 

When forests vanish, people suffer. That is why many believe that there is an urgent need to bring forests onto the global financial balance sheet. Last year Pavan Sukhdev, an economist at Deutsche Bank, reported that the world was losing natural capital worth between $2 trillion and $5 trillion every year as a result of deforestation alone. If money could be made by selling these ecosystem services, then the financial equation for forests would change.

So a London-based firm, Canopy Capital, is taking up the challenge with Iwokrama International Center (Iwokrama is 370,000 hectare forest in Guyana). They are creating an entirely new class of asset management, by analyzing all of the "services" the forest offers and putting a price tag on it: carbon sequetration, soil regulation, oxygen production... Possibilities are endless, seemingly. I think the conclusion of The Economist piece captures it: "For a few bright sparks out there, financial innovation and engineering combined with science will let them generate wealth in a whole new way."

Brilliant! I'm already imagining the answers we'll hear when we ask a child, ten years from now, what he or she wants to be when they grow up: "I want to be a financial scientist!" 

Dead Aid Bandwagon

If you are a development nerd, you have probably read ad nauseam about Dambisa Moyo's new book, Dead Aid. In the last few months, there has been an interesting debate happening between different schools of thought. Essentially, Moyo argues that foreign aid to African countries is one of the preeminent root causes of Africa's underdevelopment (for lack of a better word), and that instead of throwing billions of (wasted) dollars into the hands of dicators, African governments should instead be given access to more private finance. 

Having worked at the World Bank and Goldman Sachs, Moyo - who hails from Zambia - offers a refreshing perspective on the aid debate (which is typically dominated by white males... no surprises there, right?)

Her book unleashed an outpouring of commentary - some condemning her views, others wholeheartedly agreeing, and everything in between. I have been tempted to throw in my two cents, but the more I read about it, the more convinced I am that a) everything that could be said, has been said and, b) the debate over whether aid should be stopped or not is such a macro discussion that, ultimately, we're getting stuck at the "50,000 foot" view - and that doesn't really help move the debate forward constructively. Because, as we all know, foreign aid will NOT end - even if you were able to show by a+b=c that aid caused most of Africa's problems, Official Development Aid (ODA) is still a critical foreign policy tool, and to call for its halt is unrealistic.

Anyway.  

Most recently, Francis Fukuyama voiced his opinion on the matter in Slate. He compares Moyo's argument with another prominent African scholar's views, Wangari Maatai. His piece, I thought, actually touches on a couple of really key issues, which most commentary on "Dead Aid" have failed to focus on. Excerpt:

Both women see sub-Saharan Africa's fundamental problem not as one of resources, human or natural, or as a matter of geography, but, rather, as one of bad government. Far too many regimes in Africa have become patronage machines in which political power is sought by "big men" for the sole purpose of acquiring resources—resources that are funneled either back to the networks of supporters who helped a particular leader come to power or else into the proverbial Swiss bank account. There is no concept of public good; politics has devolved instead into a zero-sum struggle to appropriate the state and whatever assets it can control.

This view actually echoes what one of the most prominent French African scholars, Jean Francois Bayart, writes in his book "L'Etat en Afrique: La politique du ventre". In this book, he writes that the "politics of the belly" - which is to say the political culture that is prevalent in Africa whereby rulers seek to accumulate power and possessions -  is not only the fundamental issue that has been plaguing the continent, but also a product of its very particular social, political and economic history. In his book (which I unfortunately don't think has been translated into English), he describes how complex social and political networks arose in the context of colonial and post colonial sub-Saharan Africa, and how the polity that emerged is defined by an intricate interplay between foreign dependency, reliance on local (and often socially constructed) tribal or ethnic identities and leaders' destructive desire to selfishly accumulate resources. 

Of course, given that we're talking about a whole continent, generalizations are very hard to make - so while one can certainly find counter points to Bayart and Fukuyama's argument, there is an element of truth to it, which to me captures the most powerful criticism of Moyo's book: it's not aid per se that's the problem - it's what's being done with it, and how it's being managed. And of course, Moyo knows this. But, as Owen Barder notes:

It seems to me that Dambisa Moyo has set up a false dichotomy between aid and entrepreneurship. Many of the things Moyo would like to see - better access to financial services, a better business environment, lower tariffs - can be (and are) supported by aid. 

It's been frustrating to read Bono's response to Moyo, as well as the reactions from a lot of people "shocked" that Moyo would call for an end to foreign aid. But, if (like me...) you subscribe to the Easterly school of thought that holds that most ODA ends up being horribly wasted and that an entirely new ODA regime needs to come about, then her argument, while virulent and, frankly, aggressive, makes sense. 

Just recently, from (of all places) USA Today:

Two United Nations agencies spent millions in U.S. money on substandard Afghanistan construction projects, including a central bank without electricity and a bridge at risk of "life threatening" collapse. 

In the current context, I think it's great to debate the virtues (or lack thereof) of ODA - however, focusing on that macro question shouldn't be a reason to turn our focus away from the real issue: today, there are millions of aid dollars at work - how do we actually make them work, with a view to incrementally decrease countries' dependence on foreign assistance? 

Oh, aid effectiveness... You are hella elusive. 

Meandering again

It's been a while.... Lots of things happening professionally, personally, all across the board, it's been a rather eventful Spring. Except it's not *really* Spring here in Vancouver - the weather gods have been particularly ungenerous, save for the few nice days that they kindly (and I'm pretty sure begrudgingly) bestowed upon us. 

In any case, my Google Reader is finally under control - reading (or skimming through...) the 1000+ articles that have been accumulating in there, in addition to catching up on all the reading and informing myself I have failed to do in recent times was a bit daunting, but here I am again, ready to contribute. 

Before diving back into my favorite topics, I think a Niapele update is in order. 

For the past 9 months or so - basically since the financial crisis and the resulting meltdown occured - we have seen a sharp drop in donations. Truth be told, this also coincided with Celina, my co-director, and myself getting full time jobs (girl's gotta eat!), and we weren't fully prepared to cope with dwindling spontaneous donations. In spite of our success as a small start-up organization (feeding 100s of kids for a school year... providing for 20+ abandoned children for nearly 2 years..... supporting a small organization for handicapped children...), we have been struggling to mobilize the funding that we would need to make all of the aforementioned projects true successes.

For instance, the School Nutrition Initiative which we ran during the 2007-2008 school year - we served daily meals to over 600 kids and 30 staff and teachers at the only tuition free school in the Buduburam refugee camp. [Note: After more than 2 years being involved in this project, I have yet to wrap my mind around the concept of private, costly education in a refugee camp as the "best" alternative for schooling for refugee children.] The program cost about $2,000 per month, including salaries of kitchen staff, and had start up costs of about the same amount (pots, utensils, stoves, renovations to the cafeteria space which we rented....). Over the course of the school year, we worked in close cooperation with the Carolyn A. Miller School, its donors and supporters, as well as with an incredible, dedicated Ghanaian nutritionist, Adam Sandow, to develop, implement and continually refine the School Nutrition Initiative. The program delivered positive results, which you can read about here.

Now, we are trying to recreate this same initiative in Liberia, where our partner, the Carolyn Miller School, is now operating out of. While a refugee camp setting was a challenging environment for us to succeed in, Liberia is a whole different story - essentially demolished by the war, Liberia is still reeling. And despite advances on many fronts, there are still some core challenges that need to be seriously taken on. Our very own - and very brave - Megan Sullivan just arrived in Monrovia to act as our Country Director, and assist our Program Manger, Henry Snyder. We are really hopeful that, with her presence, we'll be making strides towards improving the sustainability of our partner organizations - as well as our own. 

Raising funds for the School Nutrition Initiative in Monrovia is a priority for us at this point. We've carried out a needs assessment exercice at the school, and we drew up a budget with them - for $2500, we can restart the program. That's probably something we can achieve in the next couple of months - however, what's much, much more difficult is to secure the funding to actually run the program every day of every week.... We feel that starting up the program without the guarantee of funding to make it last would be suboptimal - that goes against our principle of sustainability, and would be devastating for the school, and its students. 

So Megan is initiating a series of meetings with donor organizations and agencies at the country level - hopefully, we will be able to secure the support of a reliable funding partner for our activities. The model is simple and replicable, and by cutting costs and having a lean operation, you can feed A LOT of children, all the while stimulating the local economy by purchasing from local food producers, by employing staff for to run the program. That's really the beauty of working at the grassroots level, with community-based organizations - with relatively small amounts of money, you can have a significant impact. 

One of my favorite new blogs, Aid Watch, ran a piece (a post?) about aid effectiveness in Nepal - excerpt:

Doing an inventory of small NGOs working in the various districts, then giving out small amounts of funding ($10,000-$20,000 a year) probably gets the most done. Skip the audits and heavy-duty report writing and verify with a small team equipped with a camera. A picture is worth a thousand words (or reports) it's there or it isn't and the camera tells you. NGOs with barely enough budget to survive have little motivation and opportunity to corrupt the process. They are community members themselves and the community can police its own quite effectively. Nearly anyone living in a small community in Nepal can tell you in short order who is working for the good of the community and who is lining their own pockets. Snap photos, ask the locals and you'll know for sure that your aid dollars did something.

I feel confident about Niapele’s ability to make a difference – with Megan in Liberia, I have a renewed sense of optimism. Celina and I are also going to continue finding new ways to raise funds, and, in an effort to be transparent, I’ll be posting updates about our progress. In fact, this is part of our broader attempt to revive our online presence as an organization – new Facebook public profile, new Twitter account, and a new resolve to make things happen.

 

For those who might have missed it, here is the video that Ayoka Productions made for us last year: