Fin ob o ers

j
d n p .in
ca

jo
yo a t
re

ur ge er
July 2010 • Vol. 28 • Issue 7

ne 30 ac
bsxt o t
de r o io
ve nl n.
lop ine or
me at g
nt
Monday Developments Magazine
The Latest Issues and Trends in International Development
and Humanitarian Assistance

2010 DATA Report:

A Conversation with The Final
USAID’s Ruth Levine Report Card

The Value of

ME
The Ongoing Crisis
for Pakistan’s IDPs

Forming a Crisis
&
Management MONITORING & EVALUATION
Team

www.mondaydevelopments.org
Brain Drain:
Training and Retaining
Health Care Workers
Washington, DC 20036
1400 16th Street NW, Suite 210
InterAction
 Where do YOU find the latest issues and
trends in international development and
humanitarian assistance?

Monday Developments Magazine provides in-depth news and commentary on global trends that affect relief,
refugee and development work. Monday Developments also describes new resources for humanitarian workers,
professional growth opportunities, upcoming events and employment listings.

Subscribe now at
Monday Developments Magazine
www.mondaydevelopments.org
Monday Developments Magazine

THIS ISSUE
24 Brain Drain Departments
Training and retaining health
care workers where they are 4 Reflections from
needed most. the President
By Barrett Prinz, Betsy Kovacs and
July 2010 Vol. 28 • No. 7 Peter Ngatia
5 Feedback
5 Washington Update
26 Limiting Devastation:
10 Crisis Management
Teams
7 InfoBytes
27 Projects
Advance planning contributes to
29 Events
success in handling emergency
situations. 30 Job Opportunities
By Sula Bruce

19

Cover photo by Elizabeth Whelan

Features
10 Moving Beyond
Indicators and Funding
Debates
Why do monitoring efforts
fall short?
By Edward D. Breslin
12 Conflict and
Evaluation
Recognizing and meeting the
challenges of M&E in crisis
situations.
By Scott Ruddick and Leah Katerberg
15 DATA Report:
The Final Report Card
Will the G8 meet its Gleneagles
commitments to Africa and what
is needed beyond 2010?
By Erin Thornton and Nora Coghlan
21
18 An Ongoing Crisis for
Pakistan’s Displaced
Agencies face possible large-scale
program closures despite critical
need.
By Bakhtiar Ahmed
19 Haiti from the
Inside Out
An inside view of how the
reconstruction process looks and
what needs to be done to bring
about real, lasting change.
By Meryl James-Sebro
21 A Conversation
with USAID’s Ruth
Levine
A new series of conversational
interviews with influential people
affecting the NGO community.
24
By Monday Developments staff

July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 3

 Reflections from the President

Monday Developments Magazine

Hope in a Managing Editor/Art Director

Time of Change Chad Brobst

Advertising/Subscriptions
Katherine Delaney
Momentum has been building istration, Congress and
civil society on how best
Copy Editor

for over three years to to do so.

Kathy Ward

News Editor
improve American foreign We look forward to
communicating with the Tawana Jacobs
assistance. In this dynamic White House on the final Proofreader
environment, our community PSD strategy, titled A New
Way Forward on Global
Margaret Christoph

has added its voice to major initiatives being Development, which we

developed in both the executive and legisla-
tive branches of the government and we eagerly
anticipate three of these coming to fruition over
the next few months.
The first of these initiatives is the House For-
eign Affairs Committee’s process to update the
Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and create a new
law more appropriate for today’s post-Cold War
world. InterAction is extremely appreciative of
the opportunities Congressman Howard Berman,
hope will provide the
policy framework for the QDDR recommenda- Monday Developments Magazine
tions. Additionally, as noted in a sign-on letter is published by:
recently sponsored by InterAction, to strengthen InterAction
USAID and implement the reform recommenda- 1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 210
tions in a way that would allow the agency to be a Washington, DC 20036
robust player in global development, the Obama Tel: 202.667.8227
publications@interaction.org
The draft [PSD] paper ISSN 1043-8157

Chair of the House Foreign Affairs Commit-
tee, and his staff have given our community to
provide input into this important process over the
last year and a half. We look forward to the draft
Foreign Assistance Authorization rewrite, which
we anticipate being released sometime in July.
The second, which began in August 2009, is
the State Department’s first-ever Quadrennial
Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).
This review focuses on the capabilities of the
State Department and USAID, and where they
need strengthening to carry out their respective
missions. Right now, the second phase of the
QDDR is coming to a close, and the final report is
scheduled for release in September.
The third initiative is the Presidential Study
Directive on Global Development Policy (PSD).
Started shortly after the QDDR process, the PSD
is a review by the National Security Council of all
foreign assistance, not just that housed within the
State Department and USAID. InterAction and
its members were invited to provide input to the
PSD process. A draft of the PSD document was
leaked to the media in early May; and the draft
paper illustrates that the Obama administration is
poised to take a major step forward on improv-
ing U.S. global development policy. InterAction
applauds many of the draft paper’s recommenda-
tions and would like to see them implemented as
soon as possible. Prior to that, however, we are
calling for a serious dialogue among the admin-
illustrates that the Obama
administration is poised to
take a major step forward
on improving U.S. global
development policy.
administration needs to appoint more Assistant
Administrators at the agency.
Given everything that is going on both on the
Hill and in the administration right now, I cannot
think of a more important time to be engaged in
the work that our community does. Our
landscape is changing, and we may see—indeed,
we hope to see—crucial changes for which
InterAction and its members have so long
advocated. MD
Sam Worthington
President and CEO
InterAction
Monday Developments Magazine is pub-
lished 11 times a year by InterAction,
the largest alliance of U.S.-based interna-
tional development and humanitarian non-
governmental organizations. With more
than 185 members operating in every
developing country, InterAction works to
overcome poverty, exclusion and suffer-
ing by advancing social justice and basic
dignity for all.
InterAction welcomes submissions of
news articles, opinions and announce-
ments. Article submission does not guar-
antee inclusion in Monday Developments.
We reserve the right to reject submis-
sions for any reason. It is at the discretion
of our editorial team as to which articles
are published in individual issues.
All statements in articles are the sole
opinion and responsibility of the authors.
Articles may be reprinted with prior per-
mission and attribution. Letters to the
editor are encouraged.
A limited number of subscriptions are
made available to InterAction member
agencies as part of their dues. Individual
subscriptions cost $80 a year (add $15
for airmail delivery outside the U.S.)
Samples are $5, including postage.
Additional discounts are available for
bulk orders. Please allow 4-6 weeks for
delivery. Advertising rates are available
on request.

4 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010

 Feedback Washington Update
Send your letters to publications@interaction.org
Counterterrorism Laws Hamper Charities Budget &
The emergency counterterrorism regime established immediately Appropriations
after 9/11 has had negative long-term consequences for nonprofits Chances for the Senate passage
and the people we serve. Nonprofits are not able to carry out their of a budget resolution for the U.S.
work as effectively as needed since the threat of being shut down as government’s 2011 fiscal year (FY)
a supporter of terrorism hangs over operations or limits their scope. grow slimmer and slimmer. The
Peace-building groups cannot meet with listed organizations to turn primary budget function of the
them away from violence. Muslim charities and donors have been budget resolutions is to set an
subjected to profiling and punitive scrutiny, international programs overall discretionary spending cap
are hampered, donations have declined or been redirected. (the “302(a) allocation”) and other
The U.S. counterterrorism regime is based on economic sanctions enforceable budget levels (revenue
laws, an overbroad definition of material support of terrorism, the and debt levels, for example). But
threat of criminal and civil liability and broad surveillance powers. After Congress can also sidestep the
9/11, the Patriot Act expanded these powers and the Bush administra- need to use budget resolutions to
tion began vigorously applying them to nonprofits. set these levels. The alternative
Compliance with U.S. material support laws is in direct conflict with is to use a “deeming” resolution,
long-established standards for aid including the Geneva Conventions. which is used when the House
The overly broad definition of material support of terrorism assumes and Senate are unable to agree on
all support furthers a designated organization’s terrorist operations, a final budget resolution. It refers
regardless of its actual character. Medical and religious materials are to a piece of legislation “deemed”
exempted from the definition, but peace-building and humanitarian to serve in place of an annual bud-
aid such as food, water, tents and blankets are not. In other words, it get resolution that would fix the
is legal to provide a pill to a child trapped in an area controlled by a appropriations bills to a particular
designated group, but illegal to provide clean water for swallowing it. dollar total. The advantage of the
The harm is not limited to U.S. nonprofits and their grantees. The U.S. deeming resolution route is that
has aggressively exported its flawed counterterrorism regime to other it involves less political mess than
countries through international bodies such as the Financial Action a full-fledged budget resolution.
Task Force. At least $7 million from designated charitable organizations Additionally, instead of the bud-
remain frozen indefinitely, unable to achieve any charitable purpose. get resolution’s five-year spending
Curbing support of terrorist activity is and should be an important plan, a deeming resolution simply
element of the United States’ counter-terrorism strategy. But the laws sets overall spending caps for one
and policies that prohibit support for terrorism should respect consti- year, the coming fiscal year (in
tutional freedoms of charitable groups and their donors. To be effective, this case FY2011).
the sector must address the increasingly restrictive environment that If the budget resolution is
threatens the civic space needed to operate. Changing U.S. security poli- passed, the appropriators (the
cies and rules so that security concerns are brought into alignment with members of the Senate who sit on
fundamental fairness and human rights principles is the place to start. the committee that puts together
the bills that actually say what
—Kay Guinane money will be made available for
Charity & Security Network the government to spend) must
www.charityandsecurity.org stick to the overall discretionary
funding level in the budget reso-
PVO-U.S. Government Relations lution. However, the resolution’s
Ms. McCleary’s suggestion [June 2010 issue of MD] that PVOs that division of that overall num-
are more dependent on U.S. government funding are less independent ber among discretionary bud-
and more cooperative during wartime is interesting, but it leaves me get accounts like International
a bit puzzled. Is “cooperation” during wartime really a good proxy for Affairs is only advisory. In other
independence? Are independent PVOs necessarily uncooperative or words, the appropriators can fol-
advocates against U.S. foreign policy? low, modify or disregard any or
I’m much more interested in whether those PVOs who rely heavily all parts of the division as set out
on a close relationship with the U.S. government are more or less likely in the budget resolution. Senate
to be innovative, have an outsized impact and transform developing Appropriations Chairman Inouye
societies. From what I’ve seen, being goal-led and supported by a (D-HI) has expressed concern
substantial proportion of non-federal funding is a much surer recipe about the Budget Committee’s
for real autonomy and unconventional thinking. MD proposed FY2011 International
—Ryan Winger Affairs underfunding—$4 bil-
July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 5
lion (7.7 percent) less than the
administration’s request—and
reminding everyone that his com-
mittee, like its House counterpart,
ultimately decides what will be
spent on International Affairs
programs. However, hopes for
action on a Senate budget resolu-
tion are all but dead and plans are
being made to attach a deeming
resolution to the supplemental
appropriations bill slated for Sen-
ate floor consideration.
As those plans are made, atten-
tion is turning to the setting of
the individual appropriations
subcommittee allocations, the
“302(b)” allocations (named
after the provision in the Con-
gressional Budget Act that pre-
scribes them). Those allocations
will be set by the Chairmen of
the Appropriations Committees
and are usually proposed and
approved at the first full commit-
tee markup of an appropriations
bill. Advocates are supporting
a Senate sign-on letter to Sen-
ate Appropriations Chairman
Inouye, encouraging him to set
302(b) allocations that match the
administration’s request level for
International Affairs.
Supplemental
On May 14, the Senate Appro-
priations Committee approved
(“reported out”) a combined
FY2010 disaster/war supple-
mental spending bill, H.R. 4899,
combining: the “war” supplemen-
tal, including Defense, Veterans,
and State Department funding;
the FEMA (Federal Emergency
Management Agency) supple-
mental, including funding for
domestic hurricane, flood, and
wildfire response efforts; and the
“Haiti” supplemental, including
funding for international disas-
ter response efforts. This bill pro-
poses more for the International
Disaster Assistance account than
the administration requested:
$460 million, as opposed to the
$350 million requested, though
Washington Update
InterAction has recommended
$684 million for this account. The
bill also proposes more overall for
Haiti than was requested: $913
million, as opposed to the $893
million requested. The $913 mil-
lion proposed in the bill is for the
Economic Support Fund and the
International Narcotics Control
and Law Enforcement account.
Under an agreement reached
on May 20, the Senate began floor
consideration of the bill the next
week and passed it on May 27.
There is still no definitive word
on when the House Appropria-
tions Committee will move on
its version of the supplemen-
tal bill(s). The House already
passed a FEMA supplemental,
which served as the base bill for
the Senate’s bill, and may mark
up its version of a war and Haiti
supplemental anytime.
Haiti
Senate Foreign Relations Com-
mittee Chairman John Kerry
(D-MA) and Senator Bob Corker
(R-TN) introduced the “Haiti
Empowerment, Assistance, and
Rebuilding Act of 2010” (S. 3317)
on May 5. The bill would establish a
Senior Coordinator for Haiti within
the State Department, require a
Haiti Rebuilding and Development
Strategy from USAID (U.S. Agency
for International Development),
and authorize $3.5 billion in assis-
tance for Haiti to be provided over
five years. At press time, the bill was
still in committee.
State Department
Reauthorization Bill
On April 27, the Senate Foreign
Relations Committee passed a
State Department Reauthorization
bill. The bill, the first of its kind
since 2005, authorizes significant
bolstering of the State Depart-
ment and USAID. Highlighted is
an increase of 1,500 foreign ser-
vices officers over the next two
years and expanded exchange
and training program opportuni-
6 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
If you would like to be added to InterAction’s weekly public policy email update
ties. The bill also aims to increase
the accountability of diplomatic
and development programs by
increasing hiring flexibility in
conflict zones where trained and
experienced staff are hardest to
come by. The USAID administra-
tor is given more leeway to engage
the American public about for-
eign affairs and the Millennium
Challenge Corporation is given
permission to engage in extended
(up to seven years), concurrent
and subsequent compacts with
partner countries. In addition,
the bill would establish by law the
Office of Global Women’s Issues,
an office already in existence at the
Department of State and geared
toward gender integration and
empowerment of women. The
office was established by Executive
Order, which means any president
could simply repeal the existing
Executive Order. Establishing it
by law would mean that it could
only be removed if Congress were
to change the law.
Further Senate action on the
State Department Reauthoriza-
tion Bill is not expected in the
short term.
Foreign Assistance
Reform
At a National Security Council
Deputies Committee meeting on
April 20, a decision was made not
to release the Quadrennial Diplo-
macy and Development Review
(QDDR) Interim Report. How-
ever, there are new QDDR FAQs
(frequently asked questions)
available that provide insight on
the review’s process and scope.
A new Congressional Research
Service report titled Foreign Aid
Reform, National Strategy, and
the Quadrennial Review is now
also available. Links to both are
included below.
Lord’s Resistance
Army Bill
On May 24, the president
signed the Lord’s Resistance Army
please contact Margaret Christoph at mchristoph@interaction.org
(LRA) Disarmament and North-
ern Uganda Recovery Act (S. 1067).
The new law directs the president
to create a strategy to guide future
U.S. support directed toward pro-
tecting civilians and regional stabil-
ity from threats posed by the Lord’s
Resistance Army. The text of the
legislation also contains a sense of
Congress on the need for increased
funding to support humanitarian
assistance and transitional justice
activities; an earlier version of this
portion had been an authorization.
Food Security
On May 20, Dr. Rajiv Shah,
the head of USAID, outlined the
U.S. government’s new archi-
tecture for food security and
officially released the Feed the
Future Guide, the implemen-
tation strategy for the Obama
administration’s global hunger
and food security initiative. Sec-
retary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack
and Cheryl Mills, Counselor and
Chief of Staff at the State Depart-
ment, also delivered remarks
at the symposium, which was
hosted by the Chicago Council
for Global Affairs.
To achieve measurable results,
Feed the Future seeks to align
resources with country-owned
plans and foster sustained, multi-
stakeholder partnerships to reduce
hunger and poverty. Through these
long-term, large-scale investments
in a small number of partner coun-
tries, Feed the Future will concen-
trate resources on investment plans
with proven approaches. Included
in these plans will be support for
women as agricultural producers
and as critical actors for creating a
food secure world.
Climate
On May 12, John Kerry (D–
MA) and Joe Lieberman (I–CT)
introduced comprehensive cli-
mate change legislation, called
The American Power Act. The
bill’s original release date of
April 26 was postponed due to
concerns by co-author Senator
Lindsey Graham (R-SC) related
to the timing of the taking up of
immigration issues by the Senate.
Senator Graham cited these con-
cerns as the reason for his deci-
sion to withdraw his name from
the bill. However, Senators Kerry
and Lieberman remain confident
that the legislation can get the 60
votes needed to pass the Senate.
The bill calls for a 17 percent
cut in emissions below 2005 levels,
with the emission limits applying to
different sectors of the economy at
different times. For example, trade-
sensitive manufacturers would
start in the climate program six
years after the power plants. The
legislation also promotes domestic
production of nuclear energy and
offshore oil and gas. The develop-
ment community is pleased with
those programs on international
adaptation and reduced emissions
from deforestation. However, many
are disappointed by the overall lack
of adequate investments in inter-
national action to tackle climate
change including the absence
of any program for clean energy
promotion. MD
Resources:
• Senate Budget Committee
documents: http://budget.
senate.gov/democratic/
• QDDR FAQs: www.state.
gov/s/dmr/qddr/faq/index.htm
• A new Congressional
Research Service report
(Foreign Aid Reform, National
Strategy, and the Quadrennial
Review): www.fas.org/sgp/
crs/row/R41173.pdf.
• Feed the Future Guide: www.
feedthefuture.gov/guide.html
• Feed the Future: www.
feedthefuture.gov.
• For InterAction’s reaction to
the American Power Act,
please visit: www.interaction.
org/article/interaction-
disappointed-international-
investment-provisions-
american-power-act
InfoBytes
New Members
Join InterAction
The Disability Rights Education
and Defense Fund’s (DREDF)
mission is to assist individuals with
disabilities in achieving an independent
lifestyle by cultivating their appreciation
of rights and powers provided by law,
and to create in others an aware-
ness and respect for such rights and
powers. They are a cross-disability
law and policy center dedicated to
protecting and advancing the civil and
human rights of people with disabili-
ties through legal advocacy, training,
education, community organizing and
the development of public policy and
legislation. Managed and directed by
people with disabilities and parents of
children with disabilities, DREDF has
promoted inclusion and equal oppor-
tunity for people with disabilities for
30 years. DREDF shares its expertise
to support disability communities
and advance disability and human
rights around the world. DREDF has
established the first Internet Clearing-
house for International Disability Law
and Policy that contains the texts of all
the disability laws and policies around
the world. They are working to build
capacity for a discussion forum, pro-
vide contact information for resources
in each country and translate all legal
documents into multiple languages.
Food for the Poor provides aid and
development programs to improve the
health, economic and social conditions
of the poor throughout the world.
Their activities are concentrated in the
Caribbean and Latin America. They
do not have offices or field offices
outside of the U.S. For example in
Jamaica, Haiti and Guyana they work
with associated charities that also
bear their name but are separate
entities with their own independent
board of directors. They have country
coordinators who work closely with
these associated charities and other
local partners to identify, design and
monitor projects that Food for the
Poor undertakes. Food for the Poor’s
purpose is to collect and distribute
food, clothing, money and goods for,
and on behalf of, destitute persons
and to utilize such means as shall
further such charitable purposes.
They fund and oversee development/
micro-enterprise projects that
foster long-term self-sustainability
and offer education and vocational
training so as to promote eligibility of
employment amongst the poor. They
recruit volunteers and educate the
public regarding the plight of destitute
persons in ways that improve the
health, economic and social conditions
of destitute persons throughout the
world.
Friends of the Global Fight’s
mission is to end the worldwide
burden of AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria. They educate, engage and
mobilize U.S. decision-makers to
support the Global Fund, the world’s
largest public health financier. They
are a leading source of accurate,
objective and timely information
about the Global Fund in the U.S.
Specifically targeting policy leaders
and decision makers in Washington,
D.C., Friends shares information on
the approach the Global Fund takes
and the results it achieves. Friends
July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 7
also provides the Global Fund’s
Secretariat with strategic direction and
legislative counsel, tightly integrating
the two organizations’ education and
communications activities. Finally,
Friends acts as a conduit between the
Global Fund and the U.S. government,
fostering collaboration and mutual
support between the Global Fund and
the U.S. government’s bilateral AIDS
and malaria programs.
One Economy Corporation uses
innovative approaches to deliver the
power of technology and information
to low-income people, giving them
valuable tools for building better
lives. They apply technology at the
community level to transform the
lives of low-income people. Their
community development programs
provide access to technology, public-
purpose content and training in digital
literacy. One Global Economy, the
international division of One Economy,
has implemented community-driven
technology programs in 11 countries
under the same mission of applying
technology to enable citizens to
find information and resources and
improve their lives. They have created
a network of public-purpose media
web properties that connect low-
income people to resources and
information about important issues
like health, jobs, money, schools and
housing. One Economy’s multilingual
websites, called “The Beehive,” is
written at an accessible literacy level,
combining compelling programming
with localized, relevant information
that helps people to take action. One
Economy has created Beehives in local
languages in ten countries, including
42 localized Beehive websites
throughout the United States. More
than 19 million people have used One
Economy’s public-purpose media to
improve their lives.

InfoBytes
Films not to miss...
By Sean Patrick Murphy
The Lazarus Effect (2010)
Forty cents a day.
That’s how much it costs to supply
antiretroviral (ARV) drugs to an HIV/AIDS patient
in sub-Saharan Africa and it is the gist of this
short (30 minute) documentary created by HBO
and (RED). Set in Zambia, the film documents
the lives of several people whose lives have been
turned around for the better because of the free
ARVs they receive.
It is the effectiveness of the ARVs that results
in the Lazarus Effect, a second chance at life
after being given a death sentence. Constance
Mudenda lost her three children to AIDS before
help was available. After she and her husband
were diagnosed with HIV, they had to choose at
the end of the month whether to buy food, pay the
rent or pay for drugs that would keep them alive.
Mudenda received free help from a clinic where
she now counsels afflicted people.
The Global Fund supplies the drugs for
patients and funding is provided by (RED) and
various governments. Starbucks, Apple, Gap
and American Express are just some of the
companies that sell (RED) products with as much
as half of the gross profits going to the Global
Fund. Many celebrities have made it their mission
to get the word out about this brief but powerful
documentary.
There is a long way to go: as many as 4,000
people die each day in Africa because of HIV/
AIDS.
“The Lazarus Effect” is now playing on HBO.
It can also be viewed on YouTube at http://www.
youtube.com/joinred#p/u/0/l16YH6xCN4c
8 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
$
$
$
Getting the Most Out of Your
NGO Travel Dollars
By Gwen Kuebler, Manager, Client Services and Development, MTS Travel, Inc.
Not enough hours in the day? Not enough money in the budget? Making wise decisions
regarding the cost/benefit tradeoffs of various suppliers in the airfare industry will save you
both time and money, leaving you more for your projects.
Follow these helpful guidelines to maximize the value of your travel dollar.
Using Internet sites: advantages and caveats
Internet sites provide a quick airfare estimate for your budget—if the site has itineraries to
the out-of-the-way places NGOs travel!
Buying a straightforward roundtrip international ticket on the Internet may seem easy. How-
ever, you should compare the price and purchase terms you find online with those from a travel
agency specializing in humanitarian airfares. You may find lower prices and/or more flexibility.
For routes you have travelled before, buying the ticket online may be efficient. But be
aware that some carriers (such as Southwest Airlines) limit their exposure on many search
engines, as they are not always the lowest-priced. You may have to check their sites directly
Photo: wireheadsfx - Fotolia.com; James Steidl - Fotolia.com; BVI Media - Fotolia.com
for the best fare.
Once you see an itinerary and price you want, buy it immediately. It may be gone ten min-
utes later. It can also be frustrating if you locate an itinerary that fits your needs perfectly, but
then find it is unavailable when you click to purchase it. This can happen if the airline allows
the travel site to show only schedules rather than actual availability. Airlines sometimes do
this because they have to pay the sites different amounts for varying levels of access.
While purchasing online may save a few dollars, be aware of the following caveats: You
must be certain you will use the ticket. It can be difficult and time-consuming to change your
ticket with the website or airline. You must pay instantly by credit card. If you need to make
changes, you incur penalties. Understanding the complex rules and cancellation penalties
can take some time. Be sure to read all the fine print and interpret it correctly.
Researching visa and baggage details carefully
Depending on nationality, a traveler may need transit visas for certain countries. For in-
stance, a citizen of India connecting in London needs a UK transit visa, even if he doesn’t get
out of the plane. Also make sure you know the baggage allowances for each domestic and
international flight, especially if you buy separate tickets for different parts of your journey.
You may not be able to check your baggage straight through to your final destination.
Some humanitarian airfares allow you free excess baggage if you are taking medical or
educational supplies to leave overseas. Generally, paying for baggage online will save you
a little money versus paying at the airport. However, if
you have several pieces of excess international
baggage and your airline gate agent is sym-
pathetic and has authority to waive the
relevant charges, you may actually
get a free piece or two!
Weigh the time/cost tradeoffs
Making travel arrangements
can be daunting and time
consuming, especially over-
seas. While some travelers
prefer to search online for
airfares and specials, NGO
leaders may want staff to save
their time and energy for project work.
Having a respected travel agency that pro-
vides humanitarian airfares and highly experienced
agents can save your organization both time and money,
plus provide you with expert assistance if your flight is can-
celled or delayed by the airline.
InfoBytes

2010 Disability
Inclusion Award
InterAction, in collaboration with Mobility International USA, is pleased to announce Mercy Corps as the 2010 recipi-
ent of the Disability Inclusion Award. The award recognizes InterAction member agencies that demonstrate a strong
commitment toward greater inclusion in programs and management, as well as expanding leadership opportunities for
people with disabilities. The award was presented to Mercy Corps at InterAction’s annual Forum. Mercy Corps is being
recognized for its work in Mongolia, which demonstrates how major strides for disability inclusion can be implement-
ed with focused interventions and strong public-private-civil society partnerships. The initiatives have resulted in a ma-
jor policy change that has had a nationwide impact. They have also fostered a culture of addressing inclusion through
outreach, advocacy and capacity building for disabled peoples organiza-
tions (DPOs). Highlights include 23 new accessible ramps built at govern-
ment and private sector agencies, government approval of National Stan-
dards for Accessible Construction and Walkways, and capacity building
for 31 urban and rural DPOs. Mercy Corps/Mongolia also made changes
to their recruitment policy to promote disability inclusion, hired two new
staff members with disabilities, made their offices accessible with ramps and signage, and provided staff training on
the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Social Model of Disability. Mercy Corps serves as
a model organization for its comprehensive approach to addressing inclusion of people with disabilities through pro-
gram interventions—both local and national in scope—and at the organizational level.
On behalf of InterAction and Mobility International USA, we would like to thank everyone who has been working
toward greater inclusion of people with disabilities in their humanitarian and international development efforts. Along
with Mercy Corps, we received outstanding nominations from five other organizations whose work shows a strong
commitment to inclusion: American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, American Jewish World Service (AJWS),
International Rescue Committee/Women’s Refugee Commission, Save the Children and World Vision.
As part of its commitment to disability inclusion, InterAction recently formalized a Disability Working Group. For in-
formation on joining the working group please contact Susan Dunn at sdunn@miusa.org.
—Susan Dunn, Mobility International USA

Climate Change Movies that Save Lives By Danilo Giannese

The International Red Cross is using movies to educate villagers in support in operating the cameras and editing the footage. The cycle
Africa on how to reduce the impact of climate change. The twist is continues as other villagers increase their knowledge, adopt climate
that the movies are actually made by villagers for villagers. change risk reducing practices and produce their own movies to
The Red Cross started using participatory videos three years be shared. The organization is looking to set up similar projects in
ago. The process starts with Red Cross operators showing village Senegal, Burkina Faso, Kenya and Tanzania.
communities a movie produced by people living in rural areas in
another region of the world. The movie teaches them about the risks
of climate change—such as floods and droughts—and how people
have prepared for them. The lessons help guide the viewers’ efforts
to protect their own villages.
In Mphunga, Namibia, people watched a video made by a rural
village in Argentina. They learned how to build a house from reeds
so that it can be moved when there was risk of floods, and that
planting reeds on the river bank is a good way to prevent water
damage and decrease siltation. They even discovered that raising
ducks is more advantageous to chickens because ducks float during
floods, while chickens drown!
After adopting the necessary precautions to protect their own
village, participants produce a movie to share what they have
learned with neighboring villages. The Red Cross provides technical

July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 9

Monitoring Culture

“The broken handpump is a

constant reminder of our inability
to escape poverty.”
— a mother in Salima, Malawi

T
he water and sanitation sector has been
intervening in people’s lives worldwide for decades. Bil-
lions of dollars have been invested in new water points
and latrines, driven by good-hearted desires to over-
come dire water and sanitation challenges worldwide.
The sector generally makes its case for support by bombarding
policy-makers, donors and the general public with data about
how big the crisis is, suggestions of financial gaps between cur-
rent allocations and sector requirements, and personal stories of
triumph and tragedy: Rajashi in Delhi getting a new toilet through
microfinance, Feliciano tasting his first drops of clean water, and
Ophelia’s struggles because she walks all day collecting water
for her family from a dirty scoop hole in the desert. Fair enough,
but the water and sanitation sector has generally survived—and
at times thrived—on a combination of tragic statistics coupled
with anecdotes and cherry-picked stories of success that stand
in sharp contrast to the post-project reality on the ground, where
sustainability remains elusive. This contrast between compelling
but perhaps somewhat isolated stories of success, and the real-
ity of broken water points and filled, abandoned latrines will one
day, rightly, undermine the sector.
The stories we almost never hear about are of villages that were
supported 10 years ago and where they are today. The true success

Moving
stories would be about villages that sustained their water supplies
after external support ended and reinvested in new infrastructure
with some combination of their own finances and local government
finances, showing that external NGO, bilateral or multilateral sup-
port is in fact no longer needed. I suspect such a story of success,
which is compelling, transformative and energizing, is rarely told

Beyond
because it is rarely found. And it is rarely found because: (1) few
projects have succeeded at truly eliminating water and sanitation
poverty without additional interventions from outside organiza-
tions; and (2) few organizations actually know what happened in
the villages they supported after a project ends.

Enter monitoring
This gap between sector advocacy or fundraising initiatives and
field reality can be significantly addressed through monitoring. Indicators
and Funding
Thankfully there are new rumblings of support for monitoring that
would help the sector identify successes that can be built upon in
profound and systematic ways, address sustainability challenges

Debates
as they emerge, and modify current and future programming
based on actual results from the field. There is a growing sense
that the real lessons are to be learned long after the program
or project has been completed; thus building the case for post-
project monitoring and evaluation that requires organizations to

10 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010

 Why do monitoring efforts fall short?
commit to communities after donor support for that project has
ceased. Good monitoring will help illuminate the stories of Rajashi,
Feliciano and Ophelia, better educate donors and the general
public about how hard water and sanitation development actually
is, and create a new level of honesty and transparency that will
better serve the billions of people constantly cited who defecate
in the open and the hundreds of millions who drink from polluted
streams. Programming would improve based on qualitative and
quantitative insights that are at present lost in the fog of anecdotes
and public relations.
Challenges of indicators and funding
The water sector has of course had these debates on the need
for better accountability, transparency and “aid effectiveness”
before. Sector-wide monitoring has remained elusive (along with
project sustainability) because of a few factors. None are compel-
ling, but all are commonly referenced. First, sector professionals
love to start any discussion on monitoring with a seemingly never-
ending debate on “indicators.” After almost 40 years of concen-
trated effort by many great organizations, it is truly remarkable that
we still seem to think that the indicators are not clear and need to
be further discussed before any real action on monitoring can be
taken. All organizations approach this problem from a slightly dif-
ferent angle and with a slightly different set of questions, but surely
a set of core indicators includes issues of system functionality,
use, hygienic maintenance, finance and management.
We can make the indicators as complex or as simple as we like,
but this is not rocket science. And frankly, monitoring anything
in the field would be better than the current stalemate in which
practically nothing is monitored because we do not have agree-
ment on indicators.
The indicator debate is actually a bit of a smokescreen used to
avoid the hassle of having to monitor at all, and could be addressed
easily internally by any organization in the water and sanitation
sector if it decided to do so.
Second, “show me the money” is a refrain heard shortly after
the monitoring debate gets confused on indicators. Sector agen-
cies love to talk about how more money is needed for everything,
and make the case that they value monitoring but simply cannot
pay for it. Really? Some of the organizations that preach this the
loudest have extremely sophisticated fundraising programs and
receive a considerable amount of “unrestricted” money that could,
if so desired, be allocated to monitoring. Monitoring results of
past projects should not be a prohibitively expensive activity, and
furthermore should be written into job descriptions and operational
plans as a key part of any development agency’s work.
The reality is that most agencies choose not to allocate their
funds to monitor past performance; and thus complaints on lack of
funding for monitoring remain hollow. Pounding more finances into
more projects may seem to make sense, unless those finances are
simply scaling up past programmatic errors in more communities
that could have been avoided if monitoring was actually informing
Photo: Tony Cece
programming.
Linked into these debates around indicators and funding are
other issues. Aid effectiveness debates tend to focus on measur-
ing the results of larger multilateral and bilateral agencies, which
By Edward D. Breslin,
CEO, Water for People
is certainly important. Yet some of the biggest advocates for aid
effectiveness are ironically from organizations that do not monitor
their own work. Others make the case that they do monitor dur-
ing the life of the program, but that they do not have the capac-
ity or finance to continue post-program, where the real lessons
are learned. They blame donors for their lack of vision. But as
suggested above, this would be addressed with more creative
fundraising and the allocation of unrestricted finance to post-
program learning. And finally, there is much debate about who
should monitor, with agencies constantly pushing the line that it
is the responsibility of host countries to assume responsibility for
monitoring after the project ends. This is of course true in an ideal
world, but in-country monitoring remains weak despite lots of effort
and finance to address this problem; and, in my opinion, simply
passing the buck to a host country does not absolve implementing
organizations of their responsibilities to monitor their own work.
Culture
Monitoring is not about indicators, or finance, or roles and
responsibilities. It is about a culture in the sector as a whole that
does not seem capable of a more honest debate about results. It
is about a culture that seems to think that all they do is good, or
that they are too busy to look back and learn. It is about a culture
that thinks that our primary responsibility is to our donors. Too
many are worried about how “donors will respond” and how it is
a hard enough sell to convince people to get engaged in water
and sanitation issues only to have them turned off by bad news.
It is about a culture that does not really accept its moral respon-
sibilities to the people we supposedly serve every day in Africa,
Asia and Latin America.
Luckily, improvements are happening in the sector. At the field
level, in places like the recent conference held in Uganda by the
IRC International Water and Sanitation Committee, and amongst
more progressive foundations such as Case, Gates and Hilton, there
are those who truly understand that water and sanitation are not
exact sciences, and that people are better served if sector agencies
are honest and programming subsequently improves based on
sound and verifiable insights from the field. There are practitioners
who want to do a better job, and who are desperate to learn from
what works and does not work so they can support communities
in more profound ways. Some NGOs and agencies like UN-Habitat
are making considerable strides to develop innovative post-project
monitoring programs that should be supported and applauded. And
soon the culture of monitoring will be demanded by people in Africa,
Asia and Latin America who are accessing new tools (like cell
phones) and activists who know how to use social media (like Twit-
ter) in ways that highlight project success and failure from their
perspectives. These individuals will force greater accountability and
transparency on a sector that has hidden in the dark for far too long,
at the expense of the very same people we highlight in our fundrais-
ing brochures and advocacy campaigns every day. MD
Questions and comments can be sent to the author via email
at nbreslin@waterforpeople.org, on the Water for People Website
(www.waterforpeople.org), on Twitter: NedBreslin, or on his blog
http://nedbreslin.tap.waterforpeople.org/
July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 11
Conflict
Conflict and Evaluation
Recognizing and meeting the challenges of
M&E in crisis situations.
By Scott Ruddick, Director, Monitoring, Evaluation and Impact
Assessment and Leah Katerberg, Program Manager, Monitoring,
Evaluation and Impact Assessment
T
he intersection of conflict
and development has long been a hot
topic of discussion among develop-
ment practitioners. Forums such as the World
Bank’s Conflict and Development blog (http://
blogs.worldbank.org/conflict) encourage
practitioners to “debate practical suggestions
on how to address conflict and fragility at the
local, national, regional, and global levels.”
M&E practitioners working in
conflict zones should:
• Be cognizant of cultural norms and
maintain a low profile;
• Ensure proper data security, including
encryption and password protection of
all data storage devices;
• Build the technical capacity of M&E
staff by training them in effective
M&E techniques suitable for conflict
settings;
• Use caution and sensitivity when
posting project results;
• Build flexibility into the M&E work
plan and have backup plans in place
for conducting crucial M&E activities;
• Develop a performance framework
with clear but flexible outcome and
impact targets;
• Build the M&E capacity of local
(community) partners and explore
technological options that enable
project clients to “self-report”;
• Use carefully-crafted retroactive ques-
tions to draw out attributable impact in
the absence of baseline data; and
• Provide support and training for staff
in dealing with trauma.
12 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
Evaluating peace-building initiatives has
received some attention (e.g., the OECD’s 2008
Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and
Peacebuilding Activities), but guidance on evalu-
ating development initiatives in conflict settings
is still in a formative stage. As monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) practitioners who work on
projects in unstable locales, we understand the
need for M&E systems and processes tailored to
the challenges these places pose to evaluation.
There has been some progress. For example,
in 2006, USAID addressed this head-on in
Monitoring and Evaluation in Post-Conflict
Settings (http://dec.usaid.gov/index.cfm), hav-
ing researched the issue in Afghanistan and
Iraq. But much work remains and there is a
significant, ongoing need for M&E practitioners
working in unstable settings around the world
to share their challenges and lessons learned.
Handling the challenges
Conflict zones pose a host of challenges for
monitoring and evaluation. These include:
difficulty accessing clients; disruptions to
data collection; data security; the tendency
to focus on short-term outputs; how to deter-
mine impact without a baseline survey; and
working with traumatized beneficiaries and
staff. Evaluators need to thoroughly analyze
the conflict environment and factor this con-
text into their evaluative approach.
Access to clients
For Benefsha Noory, who oversees the M&E
office for MEDA’s Afghanistan Secure Futures
project, keeping a low profile is critical. “When
our evaluation staff works in conflict areas, we
ask them to be as non-descript as possible. They
drive in unmarked cars, dress in local dress, do
not have the ID cards of our organization with
them, and use notebooks instead of computers.”
This “blending in” goes beyond visuals,
extending to understanding and respecting
the ways in which people interact. As Zainab
Wahidi, who manages M&E for MEDA’s
Through The Garden Gate project in Afghani-
stan, explains, “We have constraints of cultures
which we need to be very careful of ... in many
of the traditional villages we work in, under-
standing of and respect for cultural traditions is
extremely important.” For the Afghanistan M&E
team, that means establishing contact with vil-
lage elders and gaining their trust and approval
before commencing assessment activity. In some
cases, heightened violence makes it impossible
to access respondents. Khurram Jilani, with
MEDA’s Pakistan M&E team, explains how
building the capacity of local partner NGOs and
other local groups involved in the project can be
crucial in these instances. “In one of our projects
we work in an area with several communities.
Due to growing regional violence among various
clans, our M&E team was unable to complete
data collection there. The only option was the
involvement of our local partner in monitoring
and evaluation work. We have focused on train-
ing them and building their capacity to a high
standard so that we can trust their reporting.”
Disruptions to data collection
Jilani knows an evaluation team can expect
disruption to data collection work at any time.
He relates a recent example. “Our project had
hired a team of enumerators to help with com-
pleting a large survey. While in the field, there
were seven bomb blasts within one day. Fortu-
nately, all were safe; however, they contacted me
later that evening and informed me that they
would discontinue due to the security situation.
We had already provided them with four days
of training on survey management, data col-
lection, survey ethics, and understanding the
questionnaire, so many resources had been spent
on their training. Finally, they agreed to reassess
the situation the next day and decide whether to
continue. They began collecting data again two
days later, however because of this we needed
to be flexible in our budgeted resources, time,
and money.”
Embracing flexibility becomes highly
important in M&E fieldwork. Amanullah
Khan leads the Pakistan M&E staff. He sug-
gests having a backup plan before going to
Mark E. Chiaviello, Director, Corporate and Investment Banking
Standard Bank, 320 Park Ave., 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 407-5000
mark.chiaviello@standardnewyork.com

Maureen Harrington, Director, Corporate and Investment Banking

Standard Bank, 320 Park Ave., 19th Floor New York, NY 10022 (212) 407-5000
maureen.harrington@standardnewyork.com
Conflict

the field, such as alternative routes and a flex- From the outset of programming in conflict crucial in all development activity, in con-
ible M&E workplan to allow for more time locales, donors need to be informed that the flict locales it becomes paramount. Rigourous
in the field, depending on what might arise. dynamism of the situation will probably at some protocols are critical. Electronic data must be
“Introducing innovative ideas and approaches point require that changes be made to the pro- kept in password protected devices. Make sure
to data collection can also help to ensure the gramming and its methods of assessment. Some all laptops, USB drives and CDs are password
quality and quantity of data. For example, donors already realize this. The Canadian Inter- protected and encrypt data at all times.
we have introduced mobile phone-based national Development Agency, for instance, has Although sharing M&E results by publicly
monitoring so that project clients can report an organizational commitment to a concept they posting them on web sites and in journals is
on their sales and earnings themselves. This call “the iterative line of business” that recognizes common, Noory suggests caution. “It could be
minimizes travel-related risks for staff.” that successful development initiatives need to very dangerous if you publish them, especially
Donors, too, need to understand these chal- be responsive to changing circumstances. when the project is for a vulnerable group
lenges and appreciate that the solutions often [such as women in Afghanistan]. It is a good
mean higher costs and greater flexibility. This Data security idea to share the information with the national
requires a significant level of client education. While the security of electronic data is security department or other security advisors
before deciding to post it. Depending on the
type of project, and the results, respondents
could be targeted for participating.”
The Charles Bronfman Prize celebrates the vision and
Beyond the immediate
endeavor of innovative humanitarians whose inspiring Program staff struggling with the chal-
work benefits the world. We are committed to recognizing lenges of working in a conflict zone can find
young, dynamic individuals whose Jewish values infuse it difficult to concentrate on anything more
than meeting the immediate needs of the next
their efforts and inspire the next generations. few days or weeks. The same logic can lead
evaluators of such projects to stress the output
The Prize is honored to recognize our 2010 recipients for indicators as the measure of a project’s success.
Impact, however, is what project managers
the direct impact and broader implications of their work and donors are ultimately interested in. This is
in the field of Human Rights. where a well thought-out performance frame-

2010
work, requiring reporting on results at all lev-

providing inspiration els, will keep M&E staff focused on a range

of appropriate measures. Training all M&E
staff on the basics of evaluation is critical, so

to the next generations

they are capable of determining the level of
impact—even if modest—project activities are
having on project clients. Coupling this with
flexible work plans and performance targets
Sasha Chanoff Jared Genser will avoid discouragement by donors, project
management and M&E staff.
Mapendo International Freedom Now Baselines and alternatives
Founder + Executive Director Founder + President As data collection tends to be more expen-
www.mapendo.org www.freedom-now.org sive in conflict zones due to the logistical issues

r e c i p i e n t s
described earlier, the decision to omit baseline
studies can be easily justified. Conflict pro-
motes transiency and displacement too, which
We salute their heroic efforts and outstanding accomplishments. can minimize the usefulness of baseline data.
Their common objective is the promotion and protection of rights; While conducting a thorough baseline study
their common beneficiary is humanity. is preferable, in the event that pre-project data
was not collected (often for valid reasons),
well-crafted retroactive questions that focus
on changes realized as a result of program inter-
ventions is a viable alternative. This requires
Jewish Values. Global Impact. a diligent approach, however, as it is not rea-
www.thecharlesbronfmanprize.com sonable to expect respondents to recall some
continued on page 29

14 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010

 Data Report

Data report:
The Final Report Card
Will the G8 meet
its Gleneagles
commitments to
Africa and what
is needed beyond
2010?
By Erin Thornton, Global Policy
Director, and Nora Coghlan,
Senior Policy Manager ONE

A
s the World Commemorates
the tenth anniversary of the Millen-
nium Declaration and prepares for the
High-Level UN Summit on the Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs), another impor-
tant milestone is on the horizon: the deadline
for the delivery of the G8’s historic Gleneagles
commitments to sub-Saharan Africa. This
year, ONE’s annual DATA Report offers its
usual empirical assessment of G8 progress,
but also recommends a new strategy beyond
2010 that builds on the lessons learned since
Gleneagles to ensure an ambitious new part-
nership for Africa’s future. assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by $13.7 bil- towards reaching the goal of devoting 0.7 per-
lion over 2004 levels, representing 61 percent cent of GNI to official development assistance
2005-2010: The final verdict of the $22.6 billion that was promised. (ONE’s (ODA) in 2013, with all three major political
Each year since the Gleneagles Summit, projections for 2010 are based on the latest parties committed to the target.
ONE’s DATA Report has monitored the G8’s budget documents and consultations with Three countries (Canada, Japan and the
annual progress on meeting their commitments donor governments.) Although a shortfall of United States) are on track to surpass or meet
to development, giving credit where promises $8.9 billion is expected, $13.7 billion would relatively modest commitments. Canada met
are on track, laying out a path forward for com- represent an historic increase: the largest on its Gleneagles target in 2009 and ONE projects
mitments behind schedule and, to the extent record from the G7 to Africa over a six year that it will deliver 170 percent (or $831 mil-
possible, evaluating the impact on the ground. period, and more than two and a half times lion) of its committed increases by the end of
As the last installment in a five-year series, this the increase in the first half of the decade, 2010. Yet despite being the host of both the
year’s report offers a more final assessment of from 2000 to 2004. G8 and G20 summits this June, Canada does
G8 performance between 2005 and 2010. Underneath the 61 percent headline, indi- not have a development assistance commit-
vidual donor performance varies. ONE proj- ment—globally or for sub-Saharan Africa—
Development Assistance. By the end of ects that the UK will have delivered $3.425 that extends beyond 2010; and it has also
2010, ONE projects that the G7 (excluding billion by the end of 2010, 93 percent of its announced that it will be capping its Inter-
Graphics: ONE

Russia, which did not make a commitment commitment and the largest increase of the national Assistance Envelope at 2010-11 levels
to increase ODA to sub-Saharan Africa at G7 measured as a proportion of gross national Similarly, Japan is on track to meet its mod-
Gleneagles) will have increased development income (GNI). The UK continues to work est target to double bilateral development

July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 15

Data Report

*Because multilateral contributions are often “lumpy,” to establish a baseline for progress ONE uses the two-year average multilateral disbursement for
2004 and 2005.
**The projections by the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) for 2010 do not
take into account 2010 and 2011 cuts in global assistance that were announced by Spain as the DATA report went to print. As part of sweeping budget
cuts to stave off economic collapse, Spain has announced cuts of at least €600m over 2010 and 2011. It is not yet known what proportion of these cuts
will be made in 2010 or how assistance to sub-Saharan Africa will be affected.

assistance to sub-Saharan Africa by 2010, but has not outlined a new
commitment that encompasses bilateral and multilateral spending.
The third country in this category, the U.S., met its commitment in
2009 and is on track to deliver 158 percent (or $5.384 billion) of the
increases it promised, the largest from any G7 donor in volume-terms.
Although the Obama administration has made a number of commit-
ments to development, including a pledge to double foreign assistance
by 2015, it has not set a target for sub-Saharan Africa.
Both France and Germany set ambitious targets at Gleneagles and
are on course to deliver about a quarter of them by 2010. ONE projects
that by the end of 2010, France will deliver an increase of $1.304 billion
(25 percent of its target) and Germany $1.089 billion (25 percent of its
target). Both countries have also committed to meet the goal of devot-
ing 0.7 percent of GNI to ODA by 2015, but they have not clarified
how much will be directed towards sub-Saharan Africa.
Finally, Italy exists in a category of its own as the only G7 country
to decrease 2009 development assistance levels below its 2004 baseline
and deliver -6 percent of its committed increases.
Italy’s abysmal performance clouds the G8’s overall progress, com-
prising nearly 47 percent of the G7’s expected shortfall at the end of
2010. If Italy were stripped out of the G7, the remaining G7 countries
would have met 75 percent of their target.
On aid quality, G7 progress implementing the Paris Declaration
on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action has been slow.
Several G7 donors—Canada, Germany, Italy and the UK—prepared
action plans in 2008 and 2009 to meet the aid effectiveness com-
mitments made at Accra in 2008. Japan and the U.S. are either still
developing such action plans or revising strategic frameworks that
embrace aid effectiveness principles
The DATA Report measures against five aid effectiveness indicators:
transparency and reporting, predictability, untying of development
assistance, local competitive procurement, and the proportion of ODA
allocated as grants as opposed to loans. This year’s report found that
although some progress has made by certain G7 donors to untie aid
and increase the amount of ODA that is delivered as grants, overall,
donors have a long way to go in improving the effectiveness of their
aid to ensure it achieves maximum results.
Italy’s abysmal performance clouds
the G8’s overall progress, comprising
nearly 47 percent of the G7’s expected
shortfall at the end of 2010.
Debt cancellation. Two rounds of debt cancellation from the G8 and
other donors have delivered $100 billion dollars in debt stock reduction
for sub-Saharan African countries. Over the past decade, these debt
agreements have served as one of the clearest examples of a promise
fulfilled and have freed up substantial resources for poverty reduction.
France and Japan lag behind the rest of the G7 in delivering their

16 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010

 Data Report

commitment to cancel 100 percent of bilateral debt because they have
not cancelled all their post cut-off date commercial debt. In addition,
France, Italy, Japan and the U.S. have not followed through with their
commitments to compensate the International Financial Institutions
(IFIs) for reflows lost as a result of debt cancellation, which is essential
to sustaining the original debt agreements.
Moreover, despite billions of dollars in debt relief, there are signs
that early progress could be in danger of reversing as more African
countries begin to accumulate unsustainable debt burdens. The impact
of the financial crisis has driven increased borrowing by many devel-
oping countries and has driven some donors, France in particular, to
increasingly deliver ODA as loans as opposed to grants.
Trade and investment. The G8 has delivered little, if any, of the policy
changes needed to meet their commitment to help “make trade work for
Africa.” While the G7’s aid for trade to sub-Saharan Africa has increased
since Gleneagles (from $4.6 billion in 2004 to $6.9 billion in 2008), it
still falls far short of the estimated need. Some G7 countries have made
progress in improving market access for African countries, but many
products are still excluded from these initiatives and the complexities
of the various programs means that the poorest countries often have
difficulties utilizing them. More concerning, subsidy programs have
become even more entrenched in G7 countries, and momentum on
completing the Doha Development Round has all but vanished.
Efforts to improve Africa’s investment climate and support infra-
structure have been slightly more successful in recent years, with FDI
(foreign direct investment) to sub-Saharan Africa increasing nearly
ten-fold from 2000 to 2008 (before a steep decline in 2009 due to the
financial crisis), an anticipated capital increase for the African Devel-
opment Bank and new regional economic corridors taking shape.
2010: A new chapter begins
As the world moves beyond Gleneagles and towards the 2015 dead-
line for the MDGs, a successful new partnership for Africa’s future must
be led by Africans themselves—citizens’ groups, the private sector and
governments—to lay the foundation for lasting change.
The experience of the past five years provides some lessons for the
next five. Firstly, the Gleneagles framework helped prove that bold,
collective commitments can yield results—an historic increase in
development assistance—but that enhanced accountability is needed
to ensure that all countries deliver their commitments
Any new roadmap for the years ahead should also incorporate new
players, such as emerging economies and the private sector, and also
address new challenges and opportunities facing Africa, such as cli-
mate change and the availability of innovative tools to raise resources
for development.
Finally, in addition to continued increases in effective aid to sustain
progress, a new strategy for Africa must do more to ensure that polices
beyond development assistance are better leveraged for African devel-
opment, in particular policies that strengthen governance, fight cor-
ruption and spur sustainable, equitable economic growth. These are
the areas where Gleneagles fell short but lasting change—driven by
Africa and supported by the international partners—could help Africa
to meet the Millennium Development Goals and eradicate poverty in
the long-term. MD

Investing in people. In sectors where G8 commitments have been

delivered and matched with investments from sub-Saharan African
governments, impressive results have been achieved. For example, the
G7 more than doubled health spending in sub-Saharan Africa between
2004 and 2008, from $3.2 billion to $7 billion. These resources have
helped provide nearly 3 million Africans with access to antiretroviral
treatment for HIV/AIDS and deliver 200 million bed nets between
2007 and 2009 alone, helping to cut malaria cases and deaths in half
in Ethiopia, Rwanda and Zambia.
On education, despite an initial spike in development assistance after
Gleneagles, ODA levels have since stagnated and total G7 spending
has increased by a modest $208 million over 2004 levels. Nevertheless,
increased development assistance, along with debt relief savings and pri-
oritization by African governments, has helped send 42 million additional
children to primary school in sub-Saharan Africa between 1999 and 2007.
Meanwhile, donor progress fulfilling their L’Aquila Summit pledge
on food security is not yet reflected in available development assis-
tance data, and development assistance for agriculture in sub-Saharan
Africa have only seen a modest increase (from $1.15 billion in 2004
to $1.8 in 2008).
Progress on the vaguer Gleneagles commitments—such as prioritiz-
ing investments in water and sanitation—has been less impressive. And
although the G8 and other donor groups have repeated their promises
on areas like maternal health and health systems, targets are unclear
and results have not yet been achieved.

July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 17

Pakistan
An Ongoing Crisis for
Pakistan’s
Displaced
Agencies face possible large-
scale program closures despite
critical need.
By Bakhtiar Ahmed, Program Development Officer,
International Medical Corps
I
t has b e e n on e year since th e r eside nts
of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KPK) Province, Pakistan witnessed one of
the largest displacements in recent times. Civilians poured into Swabi
and Mardan Districts from the neighboring districts of Swat, Buner
and Lower Dir to escape the fighting between Pakistani security forces
and anti-government militants. In May 2009, the Pakistan government
launched a full-fledged military operation against militants after they
took control of major portions of these districts and established parallel
governments there. For weeks, the roads were choked with thousands
of men, women and children traveling in cars, buses, trucks and on
foot, clinging to their belongings and families, confused and scared,
not sure what just happened to them and not knowing where to go.
This was one of the largest and swiftest displacements in the country’s
history; in the span of six weeks more than two million had become
internally displaced persons (IDPs). Indeed, a recent United Nations
study found Pakistan had the highest number of the world’s internally
displaced people in 2009. Out of a population of 170 million, some
three million Pakistanis were displaced—three times more than the
18 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
second-place country in 2009, the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Most of the IDPs in Pakistan had time to grab only a few personal
belongings before they fled the intense fighting. They immediately
needed shelter, food, access to drinking water and health facilities.
The scorching heat in the plains of Swabi and Mardan added to their
miseries as the IDPs were accustomed to the cooler climate of their
mountainous hometowns. The twin traumas of conflict and displace-
ment, compounded by the loss of property, family members and uncer-
tainty about the future, resulted in widespread psychological problems
among the IDPs, especially among women and children.
The Pakistan government, UN agencies and humanitarian organi-
zations scrambled to address this massive and sudden displacement,
quickly ramping up their response to the immediate needs of the IDPs;
seven new camps were established, providing basic facilities to the IDPs.
The people of the hosting districts were at the forefront of relief efforts.
In addition to providing non-food items, they opened their hearts and
homes to the IDPs, who for cultural reasons preferred to stay with the
host families; fewer than 20 percent of IDPs went on to stay in camps.
By August 2009, the Pakistani military had cleared large areas of
Swat, Buner and Lower Dir of militants and the IDPs began to return
to their home areas. The return was as swift as the displacement and
the majority of IDPs repatriated within a few weeks.
However, while relieved to be home again, their struggles continue to
this day. Healthcare and educational facilities suffered the most from the
conflict. Buildings were destroyed, supplies and equipment looted and
staff had to re-locate to safer locations, leaving a large segment of popula-
tion with no education or health services. Houses also were destroyed or
damaged in the fighting while the standing crops, which were the main
source of livelihoods for the local population, were decimated because they
could not be harvested on time. According to government estimates, more
than 12,000 houses, 400 schools and 44 government health facilities were
damaged or destroyed; few of them have been reconstructed until now.
While almost all the IDPs from Swat, Buner and Lower Dir have
repatriated, there are still 1.4 million IDPs living in the Hangu, Kohat,
D.I. Khan, Tank, Lower Dir and Nowshehra Districts of KPK, who
are displaced due to fighting between security forces and militants in
several parts of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas. That number
increases daily and the majority of them are reluctant to return due
to ongoing fighting or fear of renewed fighting in their hometowns.
Non-governmental organizations and UN agencies are supporting the
government in the provision of basic services like health and education
to the 1.4 million IDPs and in the areas of return, where little has been
done so far to rehabilitate the government systems and livelihoods of the
local population. These services are desperately needed for the foreseeable
Photo: Reuters/Faisal Mahmood, courtesy www.alertnet.org
future until all the IDPs repatriate, the conflict zones are rehabilitated to
sustainable levels, and local governance systems are restored.
The humanitarian community, however, faces serious shortfalls
in donor funding. At the beginning of this year, the UN launched
a combined appeal to international donors for $537 million for six
months. To date, it is only 26 percent funded. With no significant
commitments from donors beyond June, it is feared that most of the
UN agencies and NGOs will be forced to close their programs, leaving
millions of IDPs and returnees without access to life-saving services.
Meanwhile the returnees struggle to resume a normal life amid an
uncertain future and fears that militants may regain control of their
area, causing them to flee once again. MD

Haiti
From the
Inside
Out
An inside view of how the reconstruction
process looks and what needs to be done to
bring about real, lasting change.
By Meryl James-Sebro, Independent Development Anthropologist
Managing Director, FirstWorks International
T
he hope that UN Secretary-
General Ban Ki-moon expects to bring
to Haiti through the billions pledged
at the international donor’s conference in
March may well reach Haiti … Haiti’s rich.
Haiti’s displaced masses question processes
that continue to exclude them and keep them
poor. And the rich, well they, Haitian grass-
roots activists say, dine, party and gamble in
their accustomed opulence in plain sight of
extraordinary poverty and vulgar inhumanity.
Photo: Reuters/Carlos Barria, courtesy www.alertnet.org
There are some hidden historical truths
about Haiti that humanitarian organizations
need to engage in addressing the post-earth-
quake devastation in Haiti. Anyone hoping to
understand and effectively tackle the current
situation must confront three fundamental
truths: (1) the historical disdain of the minor-
ity local elites for Haiti’s majority poor; (2) the
direct connection of the uncaring elites with
external economic forces that enrich them
at the continuing expense of the poor; and
(3) the threat of “disaster colonialism” which
is leading many in Haiti to ask the question:
“Reconstruction or recolonization?”—that is,
whether Haiti will experience real reconstruc-
tion or the imposition of an order controlled
by outside forces. Fears abound that the com-
mission overseeing Haiti’s reconstruction is
being dominated by Western governments
and international financial institutions that
in the past have all but given a wink and a
nod to the inhumane corruption and misap-
propriation of funds. The miserable conse-
quences of these three truths are manifest in
the structural and economic vulnerability that
enabled the loss of over a quarter of a million
lives during and after the earthquake.
Memories of the pre-earthquake import
of “Miami Rice” and the consequent collapse
of Haiti’s rice cultivation that deepened its
food insecurity are among the issues provid-
ing the context for the nagging concern of
who will benefit following this most current
Haitian tragedy. In fact, former President
Clinton recently said he regretted the nega-
July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 19
Haiti
tive impact of the free trade policies imposed
on Haiti during his presidency. “It may have
been good for some of my farmers in Arkan-
sas,” he allowed, “but it has not worked. It
was a mistake. I had to live everyday with the
consequences of the loss of capacity to pro-
duce a rice crop in Haiti to feed those people
because of what I did; nobody else.” A look at
the ongoing failure to return displaced resi-
dents to their homes after Hurricane Katrina
and the comment of at least one Louisiana
official that divine intervention was involved
in removing impoverished masses from prime
real estate areas is the backdrop for Haitian
concern and cynicism.
Recent United Nations meetings have done
little to allay fears of the marginalization of
the Haitian government, its people and neigh-
boring CARICOM (Caribbean Community)
countries. Progressives fear a return to old
development plans that have marked Haiti’s
present and past failure, when what is urgently
needed is, as Cary Fraser of the Haiti Support
Group explains, “an alternative process aimed
at defining a new national project, includ-
ing strategies to overcome exclusion, politi-
cal and economic dependency, and poverty.”
The return of oppressive free trade zones, gar-
ment sweatshops and the marginalization of
agriculture, fishing and reforestation top the
list of failed development strategies that seem
ready to be repeated.
Women have been sidelined in the recon-
struction process and they are demanding a
greater role. For example, women had only
minimal representation at the March donors’
conference. Gender advocates expressed con-
cern that women’s specific needs were in danger
of being excluded from the U.S. $5.3 billion
pledged for the country’s recovery over the next
two years. According to Haitian human rights
advocate, Marie St. Cyr, “We still don’t have
full participation, and we certainly don’t have
full inclusion. Haitian women are still being
raped…they are supporting more than half
of the households, and yet they are not being
heard.” Gender activists have also lamented
the exclusion of women from the Haitian
Government’s Post-Disaster Needs Assess-
ment (PDNA) recovery plan, and warned of
the need to integrate the concerns of girls and
women across the board at every level of devel-
opment planning and implementation. The
Haiti Gender Equality Collaborative, a coali-
tion of civil society organizations, in pointing
to the absence of gender concerns in Haiti’s
Haiti

“Most want job ment opportunities in those locations. Intro-

opportunities closer
to home, no matter
how remote their
communities, and
demand a say in the
development of their
regions.”
PDNA, recommends gender mainstreaming
in all sectors of the reconstruction process, as
well as funding for specific gender projects.
A focus on needs in rural areas is also lack-
ing. Local representatives at the UN donor
conference repeatedly called for development
assistance in rural areas outside Port-au-
Prince paired with support to improve public
services, healthcare, education and employ-
duced as “the voice of the voiceless,” Michelle
Montas, representing six organizations of
women, farmers, peasants and fisherfolk
explained, “Most want job opportunities closer
to home, no matter how remote their commu-
nities, and demand a say in the development
of their regions.” Focus groups in Haiti’s ten
departments also reportedly document Hai-
tian popular insistence on de-centralization
and de-concentration of public services with
increased participation of local management.
U.S. relief and development agencies oper-
ating in Haiti must make sure their work does
four things, no matter what their particular
area of programmatic focus may be. First, take
into account Haiti’s proud history of enduring
struggle in the face of all attempts to negate or
break its spirit. Second, press to ensure that
funding reaches all Haitians, regardless of
their status or location, and does not remain
in the pockets of local elites. Third, ensure that
displaced Haitians are treated with dignity
and respect, not as beggars. And fourth, make
sure the Haitian people are at the forefront in
planning and implementing reconstruction.
This demand for respect and a leading
role in the reconstruction process does not
mean Haitians do not want to work with the
international community. International sup-
port and solidarity are still very much valued.
However, based on past experience, concerns
persist. Solidarity is about respect, not charity,
international trusteeship, recolonization or
military occupation, says Professor Norman
Girvan, an internationally renowned Carib-
bean economist, academic and international
civil servant, recently named as UN Special
Representative to assist Guyana and Venezuela
in their long-standing border dispute.
“Respect for the equality and dignity of
each individual and for the sovereignty of the
nation. Respect for the inherent capacity that
resides in every person. To give support with-
out imposing or intruding. Solidarity seeks
no material gain from giving, for it springs
from consciousness of shared humanity. It is
continued on page 30

Online Graduate PrOGram in

Global Leadership
The Master of Science in Leadership with
a concentration in Global Leadership is
designed to develop globally-conscious
leaders who want to make an impact.
Courses in this online program are
highly interactive.
• Gain a working literacy of global issues
• Learn about critical thinking, thoughtful analysis,
and decisions with the global good in mind
• Develop strong cross-cultural communication,
negotiation, leadership and team-building skills
• Participate in a program that takes a systems
approach to teaching international leadership

Founded in 1878, Duquesne University is among

the top tier of the US News & World Report’s
annual ranking of America’s Best Colleges.

www.duq.edu/msgl • 800.283.3853
DU-MSGL Monday Developments Ad.indd 1 4/26/10 2:39:30 PM

20 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010


A Conversation
with...
Ruth Levine
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Bureau
of Policy, Planning and Learning, USAID
Monday Developments recently
spoke with Dr. Ruth Levine, USAID’s
Deputy Assistant Administrator in the
newly established Bureau of Policy, Plan-
ning and Learning (PPL). Dr. Levine is
a health economist with more than 15
years of experience in health and family
planning financing issues in East Africa,
Latin America, the Middle East and
South Asia. In her current role, she is
leading PPL’s Office of Learning, Evalu-
ation and Research, with a central focus
on strengthening USAID’s ability to learn
from program implementation and to link
the best available evidence to decision-
making for greater effectiveness and
Photo: Darcy Kiefel
better informed policy. Before joining
USAID in March, Dr. Levine served as
Vice President for Programs and Opera-
tions and Senior Fellow at the Center
for Global Development (CGD). She has
also worked at the World Bank and at
the Inter-American Development Bank.
Dr. Levine holds a doctoral degree from
Johns Hopkins University and is the
author or coauthor of numerous books
and reports on women, girls and public
health, including Millions Saved: Proven
Successes in Global Health (CGD, 2004),
which has been on the required reading
list at more than 33 schools and universi-
ties in the U.S. and abroad.
MD: In recent budget hearings mem-
bers of Congress stated that USAID
does many things and does many of
them well, but it needs to prioritize
in order to achieve and demonstrate
sizeable results. How can USAID use
its evaluation function to help USAID
accomplish this?
RL: Done well, and within a system in
which evaluation findings inform deci-
sion-making, robust evaluation can help
identify areas where we seem to be more
capable of achieving development results
in a cost-effective way and those where
we have trouble, across a range of dif-
ferent approaches and settings. This will
help the agency sort out its compara-
tive advantage across and within sectors
(relative to other donors and/or the private
sector). However, it is important not to
overstate what evaluation can do. Many
factors play into decisions about resource
allocation within the agency, and there is
no mechanistic way in which evaluation
findings can drive those decisions.
MD: It is pretty clear that project-based
July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 21
Conversations Series
and project-focused development faces
severe constraints in terms of fostering
long-term changes in root causes of
poverty. At the same time, projects are a
good vehicle for intervention-level work
and can push development actors to be
ever more rigorous about cost-effec-
tiveness and comparative work across
contexts. How do you see USAID’s eval-
uation office dealing with this? Will we
see an even greater focus on project-
based, intervention-level work—with
the concomitant approaches to evalu-
ation that these suggest? Will we see
more program and/or sector-focused
evaluations aimed at trying to measure
USAID’s effectiveness beyond the proj-
ect level?
RL: In thinking about this, we have to
be careful to distinguish the ways that a
donor like USAID organizes its financial
and technical support, which might be in
a very targeted project or a broad, sector-
wide program, and the way public sector
and NGO activities are organized, which
almost always boil down to quite specific
activities and approaches. In the end,
big sweeping aims like “poverty reduc-
tion” are achieved in small, local, specific
ways, whether the funding is channeled
through donor-funded projects or not.
What this means is that while it is cer-
tainly valuable to do a better and more
systematic job of understanding how a
program- or country-level portfolio affects
key development outcomes at the micro-
and macro-levels, we gain tremendously
by learning how local, specific interven-
tions work or don’t. Big pots of money
get translated into lots of those local,
specific interventions—or at least they are
supposed to—and so the overall effec-
tiveness of the funding is a reflection of
micro-level successes or failures. When
people tell me that there is no need to do
intervention-level evaluation and research
because funders are moving toward more
aggregated funding instruments, that
doesn’t persuade me that the micro-level
work is unimportant. On the contrary,
it tells me that it is extremely important
because there is a lot at stake.
In short, I see it as crucial for the agency
to do more and better both in country-
level evaluation and at the intervention or
Conversations Series
project level; and we will work hard to link
the two because they are linked in the real
world. What we won’t do is become fix-
ated on whether we are precisely estimat-
ing the impact of USAID dollars in isolation
if there are other resources at work in the
same program or project at the same time.
MD: How will USAID structure its learn-
ing agenda and institutional processes
so that program designs (and program
managers and USAID technical repre-
sentatives) actually benefit from the
learning that occurs? While there is a
global repository of reports and evalua-
tions, it doesn’t seem to get much use.
RL: This is a great question and one we
ask ourselves every day. The measure
of our own success will be the extent to
which the evaluation work contributes to
greater development effectiveness: that
is, informs and leads to sounder decisions
about resource allocation and program
design and implementation.
Making that happen requires lots of
pieces to fall into place, and some already
have. We have tremendous political
space—some might call it pressure—to
demonstrate that we are an organiza-
tion that learns in a systematic way from
experience. Our Administrator is a tireless
advocate for and champion of evidence-
based decision-making and transparency
about our performance.
Even today, we have great examples
across several technical areas of evalua-
tions making a difference in the decisions
that are made; and we are looking care-
fully at the key business processes where
there are opportunities for introducing the
best available evidence or making room for
better evaluation. A friend of mine says, “If
it’s not in your week, it’s not in your life.”
What that means for evaluation and evi-
dence-based decision-making is that we
have to—and will—find ways to integrate
those essential functions of a contempo-
rary organization into the daily lives of the
talented professionals at USAID.
MD: In what ways will USAID seek to
add rigor to its evaluation and learning
agenda? Will there be increased use
of randomized control trials in areas
outside the health sector?
22 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
The measure of our
own success will
be the extent to
which the evaluation
work contributes to
greater development
effectiveness.
RL: Evaluations are worth doing only if
the findings they generate are credible
and based on sound methodology. The
methods need to fit the question and the
context; and they need to be transpar-
ent so people can judge whether they are
yielding empirical results we can believe
in. The aim is not to increase the use of
particular methods but rather to use the
best possible methods given the ques-
tions being asked and the context. Right
now, there is lots of scope for improving
the quality of the methods we use across
a wide spectrum of evaluations and that
is a key objective. I honestly do not know
if there is scope for doing more random
assignment evaluations beyond what is
now done—and randomization is now
used within the agency to some extent
in evaluations of everything from microfi-
nance to health to education to community
development. I do know, however, that
I’d like to stop labeling as “evaluations”
the impressionistic write-ups of a few field
interviews and very incomplete data on
project outputs. Every type of evaluation
should seek to use methods that give us
confidence in the findings.
MD: Has USAID considered using com-
parative feedback that would allow a
number of implementing partners to
improve their practices through joint
evaluation and learning? Also, there is
much discussion among international
NGOs about multiple accountabilities:
to donors, national partners, people we
serve. Is USAID considering including
in evaluation guidance for implement-
ing partners a request for listening to
constituency voices?
RL: The perceptions and views of con-
stituencies, including program participants
and beneficiaries, are important to answer
some evaluation questions, and so that
certainly will be included in the guidance
we develop around evaluation.
MD: When will USAID have an operating
evaluation unit?
RL: USAID has had in the recent past an
evaluation unit in the Management Bureau,
which provides technical support and
training opportunities, as well as some
key tools, to agency personnel. With the
creation of the new Bureau of Policy, Plan-
ning and Learning, and within it the Office
of Learning, Evaluation and Research, we
are elevating and expanding that set of
functions.
MD: What, in your view, would be
the best office “home” for evaluation
at USAID? Should this stay as part
of MPBP [the Office of Management
Policy, Budget and Performance in the
Management Bureau]?
RL: Ideally, there will be two homes for
evaluation at USAID. The first, and argu-
ably the most important, is as close to the
field as possible: that is, within missions
that are designing and implementing strat-
egies and programs. It is at this level that
evaluation has to happen and be used.
The second is at as high a level in the
agency as possible—within the Bureau
of Policy, Planning and Learning—sitting
right next to those who are shaping the
agency-wide policies and strategies. Hav-
ing a central evaluation unit interacting on
an ongoing basis with those who are in
high-level decision-making positions is
essential to ensuring that those decisions
are informed by real-world experience and
evidence, and that those in the field under-
stand that evaluation is a crucial way to
provide the “ground truth” that is often
missing in policy circles.
MD: How would a new evaluation unit
at USAID coordinate and harmonize
all the different evaluation policies and
practices throughout the Bureaus? In
particular, Child Survival and Title II
have well developed systems, while
other offices seem to lack any techni-
cal coherence.
 Conversations Series

RL: USAID is and will continue to be a
decentralized agency, as is appropriate
given the very diverse nature of its activi-
ties and broad geographic scope. How-
ever, the central evaluation function will
provide policy guidance, tools and tech-
nical resources so that every operating
unit will be able to fulfill a set of minimum
standards around evaluation.
MD: What type of outreach could and
should USAID do to NGOs and other
members of the implementing partner
community that have been conducting
evaluations for USAID projects?
RL: My colleagues and I have been taking
advantage of many opportunities to speak
with members of the community of imple-
menting partners, and we look forward to
more opportunities in the future. As we
develop the evaluation policy, tools and
resources, we will reach out—particularly
through on-line means—to get input. We
share with our partners a common aim of
a high level of development effectiveness,
and seeking to have monitoring and evalu-
ation contribute to that.
That said, I don’t anticipate there will
be consensus about the approach we are
taking, or unanimous support among the
implementing community. I am very well
aware that there are tensions between
“doing” and “learning”—not always, but
sometimes—and that there are frustra-
tions when the imperative of evaluation
interferes with the impulse to just do the
job quickly and in as streamlined a way as
possible. I know people are rarely agnos-
tic about the programs they design and
implement; they are pretty sure the pro-
grams are going to work and they often
see with their own eyes signs of success.
Under those circumstances, evaluation
can seem like a waste of time or even a
threat. And I know that people are over-
whelmed with the reporting requirements
that have been layered on over the years.
All of this sets a nice, high bar. It means
that to make evaluation worth the trouble,
it has to yield meaningful, credible knowl-
edge. That’s a good standard to have to
meet. Honestly, I see evaluation like physi-
cal fitness. It takes work and time, compet-
ing with lots of other things that are more
fun. But it also makes you feel stronger,
healthier and proud of yourself for making
the effort to do what’s right.
MD: The M&E [monitoring and evalu-
ation] component of projects is, more
often than not, underfunded or cut
when budgets are constrained. How will
USAID ensure that M&E is adequately
budgeted in projects? Should there be
a minimum monetary threshold?
RL: First of all, I see M quite differently
than E. M, or monitoring, must be done as
a direct and real-time management tool,
so appropriate levels of M have to be seen
as program costs, not “extras.” The E is
also not an “extra,” but it is something
that is separable from the program itself
continued on page 28

Plant knowledge. 
Grow justice. 
GRADUATE PROGRAMS IN  
SUSTAINABLE INTERNATIONAL  
DEVELOPMENT 
 MA in Sustainable International Development 
 MS in International Health Policy and Management 
 PHD in Global Health and Development 

Brandeis University
Boston 

http://heller.brandeis.edu 

July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 23

retention
Brain Drain
Training and retaining health
care workers where they are
needed most.
By Barrett Prinz, Assistant in Communications and
External Affairs Department, Betsy Kovacs, Director
of Communications and External Affairs, and Peter
Ngatia, Director of Capacity Building, The African
Medical and Research Foundation, AMREF
A
ccording to the World Health Organization
(WHO), the world needs more than four million new health
care workers, and it needs them fast. But that is only part of
the problem. While these workers are urgently needed, nations must
ensure that new and existing health care workers are distributed equi-
tably across the globe, especially to the areas that need them most. The
dual challenges of training and retaining workers must be addressed
simultaneously by the international community if the world’s rural
populations are to receive even the most basic medical services.
Africa has been particularly hard hit. WHO estimates that Africa is
home to 36 of the 57 countries in the world currently experiencing a
“critical shortage” and that sub-Saharan Africa alone desperately needs
approximately 800,000 new health care workers. In fact, the U.S. gov-
ernment has committed to training 140,000 new workers through its
Global Health Initiative and PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan
for AIDS Relief). Not only must African nations train vast numbers of
new workers, they must find a way to convince them to work where
the need is greatest, if the continent’s health care needs are to have any
chance of being met. These nations cannot meet this task alone.
Even if enough new workers can be trained, a number of issues must
be addressed to ensure that trained workers stay in underserved rural
areas. First, donors and implementers need to understand why health
care workers migrate and how to retain the workers most critical to a
particular area’s needs. Second, nations need to come to an agreement on
how to stem the flow of trained workers from developing countries. For-
tunately, the WHO and other organizations are addressing both issues.
Retaining workers in rural areas
Simply raising salaries is not the answer, although it is an impor-
tant part of the solution. According to a February 2009 WHO report,
“financial incentives are neither the first nor the most important factor
in the decision to leave or stay in remote or rural areas.” For example,
dismal working conditions also drive workers to move, as illustrated
by this statement by a nurse in rural Zimbabwe:
I really want to help my patients … but with the way things are,
that’s not easy. Can you tell me how I am supposed to handle so
many sick people, particularly those who soil themselves, with my
24 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
bare hands? And there is no soap most of the time to wash one’s
hands! Tell me, how do I live on [Zimbabwean] $17,000 month
… that buys only about three loaves of bread.
In fact, the WHO report found that socio-economic factors (such as
work safety, living and work conditions, access to education for children,
work overload and a lack of access to continuing professional training)
are what matter most to health workers when deciding whether to work
in rural areas. The failure to adequately address these factors results in
a striking imbalance between rural and urban distribution of health
workers. Even though the world’s population is almost evenly split
between urban and rural areas, only 38 percent of trained nurses and 24
percent of trained doctors practice in rural areas. The situation is even
more pronounced in sub-Saharan Africa. For example, while only 12
percent of Uganda’s population lives in urban areas, approximately 70
percent of doctors and 40 percent of nurses and midwives practice in
these areas. With these factors in mind, host governments and donor
Using eLearning to Close the Nursing Gap
More than 85 percent of the more than 22,000 nurses in Kenya do
not have registered nurses’ diplomas, leaving them inadequately
qualified to treat major diseases like HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and
malaria. Because the present educational system can only upgrade
the training of 100 nurses per year, AMREF has partnered with the
Nursing Council of Kenya and Accenture (a global management
consulting firm) to create an eLearning program now in use in 105
remote computer centers. This program will upgrade these nurses to
“registered” status and 4,500 nurses are already enrolled. According
to Dr. Peter Ngatia, Director of Capacity Building for AMREF, “This
Photo: Altay Kaya - Fotolia.com
program is not only going to drastically increase the number of
highly qualified nurses and improve the delivery of health care in
Kenya. It will also become a model for training nurses and other
health professionals in Africa. Its replication will have an enormous
impact on the numbers and skills required to build strong and
sustainable health systems in Africa, especially sub-Saharan Africa.”

agencies must work together to take a holistic approach to meeting
rural health workers’ basic needs in order to retain as many as possible.
In addition, African governments are trying to increase local capac-
ity by identifying the most critical positions and training workers spe-
cifically for them. Because training doctors and nurses is expensive and
time-consuming and may not meet the specific needs of any given area,
governments and health care organizations like AMREF are training
cadres of lower-skilled workers like community health care workers and
upgrading the skills of enrolled nurses to “registered” status. While this
will not completely solve the problem, it will go a long way toward increas-
ing capacity and delivering higher quality health care to the rural areas.
The importance of these capacity-building efforts has not been lost
on the U.S. Congress. During a Senate Foreign Relations Committee
hearing in March, Bill Gates specifically brought attention to efforts to
scale up programs geared toward “training community-based health
workers and skilled birth attendants who can help ensure that women
in the most rural and remote areas receive prenatal care, accurate infor-
mation about best practices in newborn care, assistance in delivering
their babies safely and hygienically, and advice on care seeking for ill-
ness.” And Senator John Kerry noted that “the United States seeks to
empower other countries to eventually assume full responsibility for
the care of their own citizens, the United States must recognize their
priorities, and the importance of building local capacity.”
The international community must work together
The migration problem is more than just a matter of righting the rural
urban imbalance. The international community must also stem the flow
of health workers from developing to developed countries. The problem
is particularly acute in sub-Saharan Africa. The member nations in the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) are
among the wealthiest in the world. At least five African nations (Angola,
Liberia, Mozambique, Sierra Leone and Tanzania) have at least as many
of the physicians they have trained living in OECD countries as they do at
home. And several other African nations have at least 40 percent of their
domestically-trained doctors living abroad. This trend must be reversed
if developing nations are to build self-sufficient health care systems.
The main reason health care workers migrate to OECD countries is
the simple fact that developed countries need and actively recruit them.
Despite their vastly greater resources, many developed countries are
simply not training enough health care workers to meet their needs.
The U.S., for example, trains approximately 30 percent fewer doctors
than it needs. And 2008 saw a 70 percent increase (over 2001 levels)
in the number of foreign-trained doctors passing the U.S. medical
licensing exam. Over the same period, immigration of overseas doctors
has doubled in Australia and risen by 40 percent in Canada; while in
Ireland, New Zealand and the United Kingdom foreign-trained physi-
cians account for over 30 percent of all doctors.
A related WHO initiative introduced in 2004 has evolved with input
and comments from many WHO member states into a draft global code
of practice for the international recruitment of health personnel (the
“Code”). The Code sets forth a comprehensive framework for nations to
follow to address the one-sided flow of health care workers. Among its
many valuable provisions, it: (1) provides that destination countries should
give technical and financial assistance to developing countries to offset
the loss of health workers; (2) urges all signatories to enter into additional
bilateral, regional and multilateral agreements to enforce the Code; and
retention
(3) calls on member states to proactively strengthen their domestic educa-
tional and vocational training systems to a point where they can become
self-sufficient in providing domestically trained workforces. [See sidebar]
The Code also has, however, a glaring shortcoming in that it is, and
always will be, voluntary. In other words, if the WHO adopts the code,
member states are not legally obligated to follow its provisions. While
one would hope that signatories would adhere to its dictates, noth-
ing in it allows the WHO or any other body to enforce its provisions.
Similar efforts (e.g. the UK Department of Health’s code of practice
for international recruitment of health care professionals of 2004) have
been raised in the past demanding a more responsible attitude from
rich countries that are recruiting health workers from countries with
severe shortages but have not yielded the desired outcome. The demand
for foreign health workers has continued to grow in these countries.
While the challenges may seem daunting, great strides can be made in
a relatively short amount of time. Training the right health care workers
and creating incentives for them to stay where they are most needed should
significantly help developing nations build much-needed health care
capacity. The WHO member states can take the first step toward these
goals when they deliberate and decide whether or not to adopt the Code
at the Sixty-Third World Health Assembly held in Geneva from May
17-21, 2010 (www.who.int/hrh/migration/en/). Let’s hope they choose to
take this important step and that governments around the world follow
up with new binding bilateral and multilateral agreements to help keep
valuable health care workers where they are needed the most. MD
Learn—Share—Connect
InsideNGO  supports  the  operations  staff  (finance, 
HR, contracts & grants, IT, legal, general operations) 
in international relief & development organizations. 
We conduct training workshops, roundtables, salary 
and indirect cost surveys; hold annual meetings; host 
listservs  and  members‐only  sites;  lead  member 
advocacy initiatives. 
InsideNGO helps you:
◊ connect with peers 
◊ stay current with sector trends 
◊ gain practical tools & resources  
◊ grow your knowledge & leadership skills
To learn more about us, go to—www.InsideNGO.org. 
To learn how to become an organizational member,     
email us at membership@InsideNGO.org.
July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 25
Crisis Management

Limiting Devastation:
Crisis Management Teams
Advance planning contributes to Maggie Burke is the director of Management Services for Africare.
With more than 15 years of experience as a senior administrator and
success in handling emergency security executive in both the non-profit and private sectors, she has
developed numerous security and risk management programs for
situations. various organizations.
As Burke explains, “The problem with many organizations is they
By Sula Bruce, Director, and Angela Williams, often think that something is not going to happen.” It is heartening
Communications Manager, Aid & International that lessons have been learned in the face of humanitarian disasters
Development Forum (AIDF) such as the tsunami in Southeast Asia, but it is more than unfortunate
for those affected by this devastating natural phenomenon that the

A
lmost half a year on, th e earthquake
and aftershocks that took place in Haiti occupy the hearts and
minds of colleagues and the general public alike. Among the
startling media images, a massive humanitarian effort was—and still
is—taking place. In such a crisis, it is the cooperation of a Crisis Man-
agement Team (CMT) that brings together the necessary aid such as
food, shelter and healthcare to those affected.
Internationally focused
master’s degree programs
designed to advance
your career.
Put Your passion
Into Practice
Still accepting applications for Fall 2010
www.sit.edu | admissions@sit.edu
Toll-free (US) 800-336-1616 or 802-258-3510
relevant authorities did not have the benefit of hindsight.
For organizations that want to have contingency plans in place
before a crisis strikes, the first step is to determine key people for your
CMT. Properly assembled, the team is almost a mini-organization in
itself. The CMT must have a president or chairman to handle fund-
ing and act as the group’s authorized signatory. The role of the vice
president is generally given to someone with a security coordination
background. It is especially helpful if he or she also has experience
handling insurance and legalities, human resources or administration.
Responsibility for public relations is a key role because on a number of
occasions, previous press coverage of a staff kidnapping or perhaps a
fatality has been more of a hindrance than a help to aid organizations.
A legal advisor who can act as an insurance broker is also a vital cog
in the CMT wheel.
Of course, the CMT would not be doing its job properly if it did
not have its own internal contingency plan in place, so a deputy to
the president or chairman should be appointed, with the necessary
authorization to access funds.
A common mistake is thinking that crisis management is purely
about helping the vulnerable people who have lost their homes, families
or crops. Undoubtedly, this is hugely important. However, as Burke
notes, “caring for the caregivers” is absolutely essential. Having plans
in place in case a staff member is kidnapped or a field office burns
down is a critical part of crisis management planning. These sorts of
hazards leave any organization vulnerable, so it is worth taking time
to list possible risk scenarios.
All organizations have a responsibility for the safety of their staff.
And one of the most important aspects is to ensure that there are con-
tingencies in place in the event of a communications breakdown. Burke
cites the example of trying to reach staff caught up in hostile situations
such as the political unrest that occurred in Zimbabwe. “One of the
first things we all lose in these situations is communications.” The role
of effective Information and Communications Technology (ICT) solu-
tions and satellite communications cannot be overestimated. MD
Maggie Burke and other experts will be taking part in a workshop
entitled “Crisis Management Teams: Developing a Crisis Management
Team and Plan” at the Aid and International Development Forum this
July 22-23 in Washington, D.C. For free registration and more informa-
tion visit www.aidforumonline.org.

26 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010

Kicker
Projects
Improved Access to
Information for Humanitarian
Workers
Organization
All In Diary
Location
Zimbabwe
Funders
European Community Humani-
tarian Office (ECHO)
The Project
Involvement of local organizations and
disaster-affected communities in manag-
ing their own recovery is crucial. In its 2006
report, the Tsunami Evaluation Coalition
highlighted that information and improved
downward accountability are needed to
enable community empowerment and
engagement in decision-making.
In response, the All In Diary aims to
improve access to humanitarian information
through a multi-functional information and
management tool of the same name. The
tool includes information sheets on essential
humanitarian topics, a diary for planning
and organization, and a notebook for record
keeping. An accompanying CD combines
the information sheets with integrated links
to best practice publications and guide-
lines on each topic. The information sheets
can also be freely accessed in html format
through the website (www.allindiary.org),
along with regularly updated resources.
In 2009, with funding from ECHO, All In
Diary developed a project to tailor the All In
Diary tool to a specific emergency, drawing
on evaluation findings from initial trial of the
Subscribe to Monday Developments
Call 202-552-6548 or
email publications@interaction.org
tool. Zimbabwe was selected because of
its vulnerability to future emergencies, civil
society capacity and language. Local field
or community-based workers and local gov-
ernment were identified as the main target
group.
The Institute of Water and Sanitation
Development in Harare supported local
printing and distribution of 2,000 cop-
ies of the All In Diary to 145 humanitarian
organizations and 41 government offices
throughout Zimbabwe. The Inter-Agency
Standing Committee’s clusters on Nutrition
and Water, Sanitation and Hygiene actively
supported this process.
An external project evaluation in Febru-
ary 2010 indicated that 80 percent of users
found the All In Diary information easily
accessible and relevant in guiding humani-
tarian practice. Groups that received the
tool reported that the information sheets
help improve understanding of wider
humanitarian issues and support decision-
making in the field.
Peter Imbayarwo, Council Chairman for
Zaka Rural District Council said the All In
Diary “opened my eyes to how humanitar-
ian workers should relate to people whom
they are assisting.” In response, he called
a meeting with implementing NGOs to
challenge the relevance of the humanitar-
ian work in his district and insist on a more
collaborative approach to future decision-
making.
Other users provide examples of
improvements in individual and organiza-
tional performance. Wesley Nyabaya, a
program manager at the Life Empowerment
Support Organisation, described significant
improvements in project monitoring and
reporting since adopting the All In Diary as a
tool for field coordinators.
All In Diary has also proven effective for
training. CADEC (Catholic Development
Commission) Masvingo is using the informa-
tion sheets in training community members,
while Save the Children is using them as
part of its staff induction.
July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 27
Does your organization implement
unique projects or programs? Share
them with the Monday Developments
community. Send your project’s
name, implementing organization,
location and funder(s) along with a
brief description of 400 words or less
to cbrobst@interaction.org
Steps to Transforming
Evaluation Practice for Social
Change (STEPS)
Organization
Planned Parenthood of
New York City
Location
Worldwide
Funders
Ford Foundation
The Project
Our era of social change investment is
arguably characterized by: a rights-based
social justice framework for international
development efforts; an ever-increasing
emphasis on evidence-based interventions;
and accountability to funders and the com-
munities we serve and partner with. How
then are we to operationalize the ethos of
rights and accountability for the entire inter-
vention cycle of planning, learning, monitor-
ing, and evaluation? Planned Parenthood of
New York created the Steps to Transform-
ing Evaluation Practice for Social Change
(STEPS, www.stepstoolkit.org) resource to
help organizations apply, learn from and
measure the results of these new frame-
works in our work.
STEPS assists users in applying a rights-
based social justice framework to the
intervention cycle. It is especially useful in
engaging program staff and participants
in the learning process and in breaking
down complex concepts such as women’s
empowerment into locally meaningful and
measurable objectives and indicators.
Funded by the Ford Foundation, STEPS is a
free web-based resource, also available on
CD-ROM, in English and Spanish. Planned
Parenthood has also developed a workshop
to show organizations how they can most
effectively use STEPS.
We know that women’s economic
Projects
empowerment is related to their sexual and
reproductive health and rights, but bring-
ing these issues together in our work is a
separate challenge. STEPS helps people
and organizations meet that challenge by
examining their target issues in a social
justice framework. For example, a thought-
ful examination of what women face in the
workplace will likely open up a discussion
about the ways in which every sphere of
their lives is shaped by gender inequalities.
Planned Parenthood is also engaged in an
exciting cross-movement collaboration with
the Solidarity Center (a global labor justice
organization) using STEPS for their Women’s
Regional Empowerment Network (WREN)
program with workers in North Africa. We
see this collaboration as an important con-
tribution not only to capacity building for
planning, impact assessment and account-
ability, but also to cross-movement work on
women’s empowerment. STEPS furthers this
process by providing guidance, exercises
and tools for a meaningful and useful plan-
ning, learning and evaluation process.
Kjaer Group (US Liaison Office) Inc. | 1601 North Kent Street, Suite 100 | Arlington, Virginia 22209
Tel: (703) 778.9400 | Fax: (703) 778-9405 | USA@KjaerGroup.com | www.kjaergroup.com
28 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
For further information please contact Jac-
queline Hart at Jacqueline.Hart@ppnyc.org MD
Project claims are made by the featured
organizations and are not confirmed or
endorsed by InterAction.
Conversations Series
continued from page 23
to some degree, and I think the resources
often need to be walled off so they are
not cannibalized when budgets are tight.
I think we’ll come up with some rules of
thumb about the amount and the ways
to separate out the budget for E, but with
significant flexibility. We need to choose
wisely when to deploy the fiat power
within a bureaucracy, using that in as
limited a way as possible. In the end, we
want the professionals at USAID to be
motivated to evaluate by the value, not
the requirement.
MD: What role do you see for USAID
with respect to the wider community
of international development donors
such as DFID in the UK, the European
Commission and others?
RL: I see many ways to engage with a very
broad set of individuals and groups, includ-
ing peer institutions. Right now, I think we
have a lot to learn from how other bilateral
donors are conceptualizing and implement-
ing their evaluation and learning functions;
and we are doing a quick review of that to
inform the development of our own learning
policy. We also anticipate joining the Inter-
national Initiative for Impact Evaluation—
something that has been in the works since
Henrietta Fore was Administrator—which
will give us the chance to work with the
many other stakeholders, including bilateral
agencies. In the future, I hope to team up on
some particular evaluations and, potentially,
exercises around setting high and common
standards for evaluation.
MD: Thank you, Ruth. MD
Kicker

Events
It’s free and easy to publicize
your upcoming events in Monday
Developments Magazine. Send your
event’s name, date, location and
contact information to publications@
interaction.org

June 29 June September Conflict

World Hope Seminar continued from page 14
23 June World Hope International Date TBD types of information or provide
8th Annual Local Dakota Wesleyan District Third UN Private Sector very detailed information. If not
Networks Forum Family Camp Forum: MDGs carefully worded, recall questions
New York, USA http://www.newworldhope. New York, NY can also direct a respondent to
Contact: haertle@un.org org/NWHO%20 Contact: Melissa Powell, provide an “ideal” answer. While
INTRODUCTION.html powell1@un.org it is generally important to train
23 – 24 June survey designers to craft questions
World Resources Institute that will draw out reliable outcome
July 22 – 24 September
and impact data, evaluators must
3rd Annual Ecosystem Millennium Development
also be aware of the limitations of
Markets Conference 12 – 13 July Goals Review Summit such retroactive queries.
Raleigh-Durham, NC Annual Meeting: New York, NY
www.wri.org Finance, Grants and www.un.org/ Dealing with traumatized
Contracts millenniumgoals/calendar. clients and staff
24 – 25 June Washington, DC shtml In conflict settings many project
UN Compact Global www.insidengo.org/ clients may have personally expe-
Leaders Summit workshops.htm October rienced violence. They may have
New York, NY been forcibly displaced, had rela-
www.unglobalcompact. tives and friends harmed, or had
14 July 9 – 11 October
org/newsandevents/2010_ their social and/or cultural identi-
Annual Meeting: 2010 Annual Meetings of ties shattered. As such, it is impor-
Leaders_Summit/index.html Cross-Operations the International Monetary tant for evaluators to manage inter-
Washington, DC Fund and the World Bank actions with clients with the utmost
25 – 27 June www.insidengo.org/ Group care and sensitivity. The value and
36th Annual G8 Summit workshops.htm Washington, DC use of information must be judged
Huntsville, Ontario www.imf.org/external/am/ against the difficulty of recounting
www.canada-g8-summit. 15 – 16 July index.htm traumatic experiences. Non-local
com/ Annual Meeting: evaluators, in particular, should
Human Resources 17 October receive training in the local context
26 – 27 June Washington, DC International Day so they can understand how to
conduct M&E activities while being
Annual G20 Summit www.insidengo.org/ for the Eradication
sensitive to respondents affected by
Toronto, Ontario workshops.htm of Poverty trauma. Exposed to such extreme
www.g20.org www.un.org/esa/socdev/ experiences and perhaps having
18 – 23 July social/intldays/IntlDay/index. directly witnessed violence, it is not
28 June – 2 July XVIII International html unheard of for members of evalu-
ECOSOC High-level AIDS Conference ation teams to experience traumatic
Meeting (Annual Vienna, Austria November stress disorders themselves. If this
Ministerial Review) www.aids2010.org/ is anticipated, training and counsel-
Development Cooperation 17 – 19 November ing should also be offered to team
Forum 19 – 20 July members before data collection
Sixth World Conference on
begins. MD
New York, NY Clean Energy Ministerial the Promotion of Mental
http://www.un.org/en/ Washington, D.C. Health Questions and comments can
ecosoc/newfunct/amr2010. www.cleanenergyministerial. Washington, DC be sent to the authors at sruddick@
shtml org/ www.wmhconf2010.hhd.org meda.org and lkaterberg@meda.org.

July 2010 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS 29

Jobs
Haiti
continued from page 20
about offering scholarships, not sending in arrogant and patronizing
consultants. It is about sending doctors, not soldiers.” (http://www.
normangirvan.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/girvan-solidarity-
with-haiti1.pdf)
The Haiti Support Group, a British solidarity organization support-
ing the Haitian people’s struggle for participatory democracy, human
rights and equitable development (http://www.haitisupport.gn.apc.
org) has suggested some guiding principles for an alternative action
plan for a new model of prosperity. This course of action stays true
to Haiti’s proud history of struggle and rebellion against servitude by
calling for a break from the past patterns of oppression and exclusion:
• Break with exclusion. Traditionally excluded groups such as
women, peasant farmers, youth and artisans must participate.
This will require undoing current oppressive state structures and
30 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS July 2010
Are you looking to hire experienced
development and humanitarian
professionals? The candidates
you’re looking for read Monday
Developments! Send your classified
position announcements or display
advertisements to Katie Delaney at
publications@interaction.org
creating a new state that operates based on the well-being of all the
people, the rule of law, social justice and respect for human rights.
• Break with economic dependency. An economic model must
be created and instituted that stimulates national production. It
must have at its core not speculation or excessive accumulation of
wealth, but instead the well-being of the people and recovery of
forestry resources. It must prioritize agriculture and agro-industry
that meets food needs (including rice) and promote the country’s
huge renewable energy resources.
• Break with the excessive centralization of power and public
services. The focus should be on the decentralization of decision-
making, provision of services and access to resources, and on
reinforcing the capacities of local government and civil society
organizations.
• Break with the current land ownership relations. This requires
reorganizing physical spaces in towns and villages, and thorough
agrarian and urban reform to resolve the housing needs of the
homeless, create public spaces and control urban sprawl.
The plan must also include quality education for all children, promote
the speaking of Kreyol by the entire population without distinction or
discrimination as part of Haiti’s cultural pride, and raise awareness of
environmental protection and disaster prevention. It must include a
re-organization of the health system, with hospitals established in all
of the regions, a recognition of traditional medicine and particular
attention to women’s health. Also required are a system of citizenship
that accords the same rights to all adults and children regardless of their
birth circumstances, and a legal system that facilitates justice for all and
fights corruption. Haitian social movements are already mobilizing to
address these challenges and strategies for an alternative development. 
In the PBS series “The Quake,” which examines prospects for real,
sustainable change in Haiti, Dr. Paul Farmer, co-founder of Partners
In Health, points to the “opportunity to rethink how aid works and
how we, the most powerful country in this part of the world, can work
with our longstanding neighbor. A critical starting point is to end the
popular convention of reflexively using the phrase “Haiti, the poorest
country in the Western Hemisphere.” Haiti’s greatest resource is the
conquering spirit of its people and its culture of survival, so dramatically
displayed in their continuing post-earthquake struggle for survival.
This is the wealth that will fund its long-overdue triumph. Well-thought
out assistance in helping the Haitian people build a new society that
caters to the needs of all would be a start in repaying the debt that the
world owes to Haiti. It would also be a chance to say, in the words of
David Rudder, the Trinidadian calypsonian, “Haiti, I’m sorry.” MD
Dr. James-Sebro also authored the InterAction report “Revealing the
Power of Gender Mainstreaming: Enhancing Development Effectiveness
of Non-governmental Organizations in Africa.”
Jo b O p e n i n g s Director of Staff
Security
Arlington,VA

Chief of Program
Development
Arlington,VA

Haiti Country
Director
Port au Prince,
Haiti

AVIPA Provincial
Director
Afghanistan

Deputy Chief of
Party–Roads, SPR
Kabul, Afghanistan

Deputy Chief of
Party–Finance, SPR
Kabul, Afghanistan

1621 North Kent Street For more information,

Fourth Floor contact Christine
Arlington,VA 22209 Dalpino at 703.248.0161
P: 703.248.0161 or visit www.ird.org
F: 703.248.0194 www.ird.org and click on “careers.”
 “Finding the right auto insurance for one vehicle is hard enough - trying to find coverage for a fleet
of vehicles in Sudan seemed almost impossible. Thanks to Clements and their superior team, our
vehicles were protected across borders so we could get our job done.”

CLEMENTS INTERNATIONAL
®

Learn more about our unique insurance solutions for NGOs.

+1.202.872.0060 | info@clements.com | word.clements.com

LOOKING FOR A NEW JOB

in International Development or Humanitarian Relief?
InterAction’s online
job board instantly
connects you to the
latest humanitarian
relief and international
development jobs as
they become available.

Search by job sector,

level, region and
country—or post your
resume and let the
hiring managers come
to you!

Visit: careers.interaction.org