The New York Times Magazine is running this article on Plumpy'Nut. Which in theory I have a pretty soft spot for. I'm not in health policy or practice, but in terms of its success rate it's pretty damn amazing.
Because it's so amazing, it's also become popular amongst other producers. Right now a French company, Nutriset, owns the patent to make the product (as well as off-shoots). They have relinquished rights to the developing area producers as well. The product promotes growth in the peanut producing industries in the global south through sourcing many of Plumpy's ingredients there instead of say... the US. However now others want in, including Pepsi and peanut farmers in the US. A powerful company and a powerful lobby may hurt whatever positive gains economically this product has for producer Nutriset, who has faced complaints of monopoly, but also for developing nations.
Article: Could a Peanut Paste Called Plumpy'nut End Malnutrition? - NYTimes.com
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label USA. Show all posts
Thursday, 2 September 2010
Tuesday, 10 August 2010
NGO's Pawns in Terrorism?
This is a pretty comprehensive- yet cynical view - of international NGO activities in conflict and post conflict areas from The New Republic. I wrote a post last May introducing the SPOT requirement on all US government funding in Iraq and Afghanistan (and possibly to be implemented in Somalia... and everywhere?!). It stands for Synchronized Predeployment and Operational Tracker This requirement requires all US contractors (including INGOs) to provide the US government and the military with the GPS location of all programs and the names, positions and nationalities of all staff so that the military can keep tabs on all activity and movement (including movement in, out and around the country).
There are some major points of concern here. The first is the close association this put INGOs in with the US military. It runs counter to a lot of impartial and neutral stances of many of the major players. Close association with the US government can put beneficiaries in danger of attack from non-us friendly actors. Secondly, it reduces the capacity of donors like USAID to collect information effectively. This has been highlighted by the GAO. I know that despite a concerted effort from NGO consortiums like InterAction, a few INGOs have signed contracts (whether they knew it was in there or not) which include SPOT. Contributing further to the bleak situation David Rieff paints.
A good point that is brought up in the article is the fact that in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the goal is not really development but national security. The budgets are simply not high enough to actually conduct development per say. Moreover, one needs to look at the types of civil society and governance programs that are actually funded here. In Iraq, programs such as the Community Action Program (CAP) which was in its third incarnation during my time, was in all matter of fact a way for the government to provide lots of material stuff to communities so that they would not hate what is happening to the country - Despite what the NGO (or development company in some cases) intended it to be. Another gem included a 2 year nation-wide peacebuilding program (peace in Iraq... in 2 years!) that was intended to be a front for counter insurgency information.
I wouldn't go as far to say that NGOs are pawns. Many know exactly what is going on and fight it continuously with lobbying. In regards to SPOT it may actually work (inshallah). The US administration is reviewing how USAID operates and SPOT seems to be on the list for review after it was blasted by the GAO. However the cynicism is warranted.
There are some major points of concern here. The first is the close association this put INGOs in with the US military. It runs counter to a lot of impartial and neutral stances of many of the major players. Close association with the US government can put beneficiaries in danger of attack from non-us friendly actors. Secondly, it reduces the capacity of donors like USAID to collect information effectively. This has been highlighted by the GAO. I know that despite a concerted effort from NGO consortiums like InterAction, a few INGOs have signed contracts (whether they knew it was in there or not) which include SPOT. Contributing further to the bleak situation David Rieff paints.
A good point that is brought up in the article is the fact that in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq, the goal is not really development but national security. The budgets are simply not high enough to actually conduct development per say. Moreover, one needs to look at the types of civil society and governance programs that are actually funded here. In Iraq, programs such as the Community Action Program (CAP) which was in its third incarnation during my time, was in all matter of fact a way for the government to provide lots of material stuff to communities so that they would not hate what is happening to the country - Despite what the NGO (or development company in some cases) intended it to be. Another gem included a 2 year nation-wide peacebuilding program (peace in Iraq... in 2 years!) that was intended to be a front for counter insurgency information.
I wouldn't go as far to say that NGOs are pawns. Many know exactly what is going on and fight it continuously with lobbying. In regards to SPOT it may actually work (inshallah). The US administration is reviewing how USAID operates and SPOT seems to be on the list for review after it was blasted by the GAO. However the cynicism is warranted.
Monday, 7 September 2009
Changing face of child protection
The UN's SRSG for Children in Armed Conflict released a report on changing affects of armed conflict on children, particularly noting the increase use of sexual violence against children. Topics such as child soldiers and the effect on a child's education wer discussed as well, but this report takes yet another move at highlighting the use of rape as a common tool of warfare - particularly against girls.
The relese date of the report to the General Assembly (August 6) coincided with Hillary Clinton's trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo where rape is endemic. It has been estimated that 3,500 women have been raped in the DRC this year alone. Men and children are not immune from this either. Attrocities are carried out by all sides, leaving the general population with nowhere to turn and few to trust. But will Clinton's outspokeness towards the Congolese government on the topic of sexual violence or papers released by the UN calling on the world to protect children from this form of abuse change anything?
Unlikely.
Rape was first declared a war crime after the Bosnian war in 1996 with the indictment of 8 Bosnian Serb Military Policemen for their connection with the rape of Muslim Bosnian women. It was the first time a sexual assault case was brought to the Hague as a war crime in its own right. Since then, rape has been included in war crime indictments, including that of Omar al Bshir's. This hasn't changed anything, in fact, the widespread use of rape as a weapon or even as a effect of conflict may be increasing.
Many of my female colleagues here in Iraq report that the lawlessness of the past few years has contributed in a rise of violence against women. What is more frightening is the number of deaths of young women due to sexual violence, either from honour killings, suicide or homocide. One former colleague, who splits her time between Mosul and Kirkuk, stated that because of the lack of rule of law men rape and kill women just because they are good looking. Coupled with a sexually repressive society, where shame for sexual violence falls on women and girls, one can only imagine the restrictions now placed on daughters, sisters and wives.
In the report, the UN calls on greater involvement of children in the peacemaking process and more importantly to mainstream child protection into all activities. But more is needed. From a young age education on gender equality is needed, and less separation of the sexes is reqired (I'm not a huge cultural relativist). Young women need to be encouraged into non-traditional roles such as the police force, law making, and even the army - such as in Liberia. Sex education is needed for children and young adults. And finally, and most importantly - gender-based violence programs are needed for everyone - children, adults, front-line workers such as police and health care workers - to remove the stigma of reporting and talking about sexual violence. To stop blaming victims and to empower survivors. This may just put a dent in the problem.
The relese date of the report to the General Assembly (August 6) coincided with Hillary Clinton's trip to the Democratic Republic of Congo where rape is endemic. It has been estimated that 3,500 women have been raped in the DRC this year alone. Men and children are not immune from this either. Attrocities are carried out by all sides, leaving the general population with nowhere to turn and few to trust. But will Clinton's outspokeness towards the Congolese government on the topic of sexual violence or papers released by the UN calling on the world to protect children from this form of abuse change anything?
Unlikely.
Rape was first declared a war crime after the Bosnian war in 1996 with the indictment of 8 Bosnian Serb Military Policemen for their connection with the rape of Muslim Bosnian women. It was the first time a sexual assault case was brought to the Hague as a war crime in its own right. Since then, rape has been included in war crime indictments, including that of Omar al Bshir's. This hasn't changed anything, in fact, the widespread use of rape as a weapon or even as a effect of conflict may be increasing.
Many of my female colleagues here in Iraq report that the lawlessness of the past few years has contributed in a rise of violence against women. What is more frightening is the number of deaths of young women due to sexual violence, either from honour killings, suicide or homocide. One former colleague, who splits her time between Mosul and Kirkuk, stated that because of the lack of rule of law men rape and kill women just because they are good looking. Coupled with a sexually repressive society, where shame for sexual violence falls on women and girls, one can only imagine the restrictions now placed on daughters, sisters and wives.
In the report, the UN calls on greater involvement of children in the peacemaking process and more importantly to mainstream child protection into all activities. But more is needed. From a young age education on gender equality is needed, and less separation of the sexes is reqired (I'm not a huge cultural relativist). Young women need to be encouraged into non-traditional roles such as the police force, law making, and even the army - such as in Liberia. Sex education is needed for children and young adults. And finally, and most importantly - gender-based violence programs are needed for everyone - children, adults, front-line workers such as police and health care workers - to remove the stigma of reporting and talking about sexual violence. To stop blaming victims and to empower survivors. This may just put a dent in the problem.
Sunday, 6 September 2009
Delayed Doom and Gloom
I may or may not have on here, or amongst friends, predicted that things will intensify in the north. I still hold my ground, although its taking longer than expected. Not to make that sound like I want things to intesify. I'm just mearly stating a fact. The US Army is moving more troops up here to hopefully reduce tensions between the Iraqi Army and the Kurdish Peshmerga, Kurdish leaders have walked away from the governing council in Mosul claiming that the Arab council members are allowing Al Qaeda to flourish, Al Qaeda may be flourishing in Mosul (altough most information has been pointing to a reduction in their presence in the country... however Mosul seems to buck the trand on all accounts), and now there is a severe drought in the north increasing tensions.
Now I'm being told that Aid-Workers' resilience is beng put to the limits the field... Al Humdeliliah Eid is coming! In the mean time... this is the picture I always look at whenever I'm stressed.
Gets me every time.
For more information on this, please refer to people who write better than I do.
- On US Army plans for northern Iraq
- On the problems in Mosul
- On the water shortage
- On Aid workers' mental health
Now I'm being told that Aid-Workers' resilience is beng put to the limits the field... Al Humdeliliah Eid is coming! In the mean time... this is the picture I always look at whenever I'm stressed.
Gets me every time.For more information on this, please refer to people who write better than I do.
- On US Army plans for northern Iraq
- On the problems in Mosul
- On the water shortage
- On Aid workers' mental health
Thursday, 20 August 2009
Mixing Aid with Military
An interesting article in Slate Magazine from the Washington Post appeared this week, and continues my discussion on the mixing of military and civilian organizations in humanitarian aid work.
As per previous posts (namely the one where I went on and on about the humanitarian code of conduct vs. the USG plans to implement SPOT), I do not agree with the blurriness that continues between where military ends and the humanitarian work begins. This article, written by Anna Huskarska from the International Rescue Committee in Afghanistan further highlights the problems facing aid agencies in even receiving credit for their work or their committment to the communities and countries in which they operate.
Huskarska writes of a school opening of the CAI (famous from the book "Three Cups of Tea") depicted by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in Aghanistan shows how the hard work of agencies can often be used as a means to show the "good donations" (=work) of the donors - and now in many cases in post-conflict settings, the military. This associations leads one to believe that without the US government (or any other donor agency)secular schools for children would not be built (and everything will go to hell in a handbag!), ignoring the longstanding relationships and commitment of the community and the aid agency to the project and the area.
This is not to say that some credit for donation is not due to a donor. However, activities such as this should be more of a celebration of the community rather than the aid aganecy or the donor agency - and it should most certainly not include the military.
The Afghanistan experience parallels that of Iraq, where military representative from Provincial Reconstruction Teams are often present at events. This gives the impression to the local community that none of this was possible without "us giving you freedom". If the military goes away - so do all these nice projects. Scary.
To move away from this, strict policies can be put in place to ensure that this association is not made. Low profile security in dangerous areas, strict rules about "no guns" (which are also applied to your donor), and refusal to work with the military (including PRTs). This helps to distance an agency from these associations, and to quote the title of the article - give "credit where credit's due".
As per previous posts (namely the one where I went on and on about the humanitarian code of conduct vs. the USG plans to implement SPOT), I do not agree with the blurriness that continues between where military ends and the humanitarian work begins. This article, written by Anna Huskarska from the International Rescue Committee in Afghanistan further highlights the problems facing aid agencies in even receiving credit for their work or their committment to the communities and countries in which they operate.
Huskarska writes of a school opening of the CAI (famous from the book "Three Cups of Tea") depicted by Thomas Friedman of the New York Times in Aghanistan shows how the hard work of agencies can often be used as a means to show the "good donations" (=work) of the donors - and now in many cases in post-conflict settings, the military. This associations leads one to believe that without the US government (or any other donor agency)secular schools for children would not be built (and everything will go to hell in a handbag!), ignoring the longstanding relationships and commitment of the community and the aid agency to the project and the area.
This is not to say that some credit for donation is not due to a donor. However, activities such as this should be more of a celebration of the community rather than the aid aganecy or the donor agency - and it should most certainly not include the military.
The Afghanistan experience parallels that of Iraq, where military representative from Provincial Reconstruction Teams are often present at events. This gives the impression to the local community that none of this was possible without "us giving you freedom". If the military goes away - so do all these nice projects. Scary.
To move away from this, strict policies can be put in place to ensure that this association is not made. Low profile security in dangerous areas, strict rules about "no guns" (which are also applied to your donor), and refusal to work with the military (including PRTs). This helps to distance an agency from these associations, and to quote the title of the article - give "credit where credit's due".
Monday, 18 May 2009
Do no harm?
Arg. There are certain principles that we (the collective we of aid workers) need to live and act by. Below is the ICRC Humanitarian Code of Conduct, signed by pretty, much every major NGO has signed up to:
ICRC Humanitarian Code of Conduct
I put this up because I have dealt with two episode this week that reflect a flaunting of these principles. One major... one a bit more minor.
1) Major - the SPOT
Good old US gov trying to get aid agencies to tell the military in Iraq where we're working (GPS location), who are staff are (?!?!?), if any major events happen in the area, and whether we have to evacuate or not (?!?!). It will become a requirement for anyone signing a US grant.
It's suppose to be for security - which in theory you may think - hey! having the military know where you're working may not be a bad thing... which in general... it's not. But staff names? numbers? exact locations? if there is a security incident? What happens if there is an incident - you report, then the military carries out an operation directly afterwards. Then community x goes... those NGOs are all working with the occupiers... lets make their life hell.
The blurring of military and aid work is a serious issue that will make any humanitarian work more difficult in any volatile country - having an even bigger impact on those most vulnerable. Let's hope this doesn't happen...
2) More minor but with a big impact...
One of my friends on facebook has joined one of those - click and feed a child groups. I was drawn to this because the profile pic of the group is a horrid image of an emaciated child near death. Now... I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that's nearing 80's World Vision infomercial exploitation levels of target beneficiaries. Something any humanitarian knows... i hope... is a no-no. We pledge that we're suppose to use any images of our beneficiaries that are exploitative - they should depict resilience and respect the dignity of humans.
I was going to let the thing go, but I opened up the group and saw that it had 3 MILLION MEMBERS!!!! I had to write something to the group organizer - saying I thought the picture he chose was exploitative, and I respect his cause, but its promotion wasn't done in a very dignified way. He actual wrote back - but stated that all pictures were posted to show the state of the problem around the world - which may be - but there are only a few pictures posted... and they are all by him... and they are all exploitative. He can also monitor and remove any exploitative photos as the moderator of the group. What is more... I was referring mainly to the profile picture, something he has put up.
I'm very skeptical of these click and food goes to hungry child sites anyways - i think it's pretty dubious (where do they get this food/money from the click?). Moreover, I have mixed feelings about food aid unless in the most extreme cases. But to display these photos to so many people makes the public think this is ok! To exploit people is ok!
It's not.
ICRC Humanitarian Code of Conduct
I put this up because I have dealt with two episode this week that reflect a flaunting of these principles. One major... one a bit more minor.
1) Major - the SPOT
Good old US gov trying to get aid agencies to tell the military in Iraq where we're working (GPS location), who are staff are (?!?!?), if any major events happen in the area, and whether we have to evacuate or not (?!?!). It will become a requirement for anyone signing a US grant.
It's suppose to be for security - which in theory you may think - hey! having the military know where you're working may not be a bad thing... which in general... it's not. But staff names? numbers? exact locations? if there is a security incident? What happens if there is an incident - you report, then the military carries out an operation directly afterwards. Then community x goes... those NGOs are all working with the occupiers... lets make their life hell.
The blurring of military and aid work is a serious issue that will make any humanitarian work more difficult in any volatile country - having an even bigger impact on those most vulnerable. Let's hope this doesn't happen...
2) More minor but with a big impact...
One of my friends on facebook has joined one of those - click and feed a child groups. I was drawn to this because the profile pic of the group is a horrid image of an emaciated child near death. Now... I'm not an expert, but I'm thinking that's nearing 80's World Vision infomercial exploitation levels of target beneficiaries. Something any humanitarian knows... i hope... is a no-no. We pledge that we're suppose to use any images of our beneficiaries that are exploitative - they should depict resilience and respect the dignity of humans.
I was going to let the thing go, but I opened up the group and saw that it had 3 MILLION MEMBERS!!!! I had to write something to the group organizer - saying I thought the picture he chose was exploitative, and I respect his cause, but its promotion wasn't done in a very dignified way. He actual wrote back - but stated that all pictures were posted to show the state of the problem around the world - which may be - but there are only a few pictures posted... and they are all by him... and they are all exploitative. He can also monitor and remove any exploitative photos as the moderator of the group. What is more... I was referring mainly to the profile picture, something he has put up.
I'm very skeptical of these click and food goes to hungry child sites anyways - i think it's pretty dubious (where do they get this food/money from the click?). Moreover, I have mixed feelings about food aid unless in the most extreme cases. But to display these photos to so many people makes the public think this is ok! To exploit people is ok!
It's not.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)