MONDAY

DEVELOPMENTS
The Latest Issues and Trends in International Development and Humanitarian Assistance

The Next Big Thing

Tracking Relief and Development Trends

A Dying Breed: 44 Years in

What is the New International Development
Philanthropy?

Secretary Rice Talks About Foreign Assistance

Reform and Much More
April 2007
Vol. 25, No. 4
InterAction
 In this issue, we asked our readers to share their ideas of
current and future trends in relief in development.
Here’s what they came up with...

FEATURES
04 A Dying Breed (Special Report)
06 New Philanthopy and Impact Assessment in International Development
10 Sending Money Home
12 From Disaster to Conflict Early Warning: A People-Centered Approach
14 Beyond Doing No Harm
16 Doing Better at Learning: Impact Evaluation for Development
18 Food and Fuel: World Commodity Prices and Food Security
20 Seeding New Philanthropy: Mobilizing Internal Resources for
Development in Ukraine
22 An Interview with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice
26 Deepening Aid Effectiveness Through the Paris Declaration Framework
30 Trend Spotting: Readers Write In

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE

03 Inside this Issue: An Overview
08 Inside Our Community
18 Your Thoughts
32 Position Announcements

Want more information on this issue?

Check out our resource page at www.interaction.org
22
An Interview with U.S. Secretary
Next month of State Condoleezza Rice
Look for the May issue of Monday Developments,
Secretary Rice will be a keynote speaker
highlighting Forum 2007, InterAction’s annual
at this year’s Forum.
conference.

Oops!
Correction for the March issue. On page 16, the
first bullet point does not belong in the “How is it
Different?” text box.
FORUM 2007
We hope to see you on April 18-20! More
information online at www.interaction.org

Renew your Monday Developments subscription today! Email publications@interaction.org

 INSIDE THIS ISSUE
AN OVERVIEW
Trend Spotting
In this issue of Monday Developments, we have allowed ourselves
the luxury of a deliberately ambitious goal: to invite practitioners
from within and outside our community to share with us their
take on happenings that are consistent and frequent enough to be

trend
considered trends. These are actions, events and accomplishments
that, in their views, could steer our current approaches and (noun)
practices of international development and humanitarian assistance 1. the general course or prevailing tendency
in anticipated or unexpected directions.
The practice of “trend spotting” is better known to the business
sector, perhaps because it helps minimize risk and uncertainty
while maximizing opportunities for growth and profit. Like
profit in the business sector, the enormity of the challenges facing
our community in seeking lasting solutions to global poverty
and saving lives is equally compelling. As InterAction aims to
demonstrate and enhance NGO accountability and impact in
development and humanitarian action in its new strategic plan,
scanning the horizon in an effort to anticipate and respond to
change seems a timely exercise to promote in our community.
In these pages we bring you some of the new and/or potential
trends—some more established than others. Kent Glazer captures
the entrée of new players in development financing along with The practice of “trend spotting” is better known to the
new approaches to addressing poverty. Theresa A. McCaffrey business sector, perhaps because it helps minimize
further explores one of the new funding trends identified in risk and uncertainty while maximizing opportunities
Glazer’s article, diaspora giving. David Alpher observes that for growth and profit.
the increasing linkages between poverty and conflict have made
conflict resolution a crosscutting issue of importance equal to
that of gender and the environment. Patrick Meier captures
the shift from centralized responses to contemporary disasters,
based on the conventional division of labor between “warners”
and “responders,” to an increasingly people-centered disaster MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
management that recognizes and leverages local capacities. Managing Editor Monday Developments is
Julie Montgomery published 12 times a year by the
The elephant in the room in the international aid field remains the Communications Department of
effectiveness of programs. An astute piece from World Vision’s InterAction, the largest alliance of
Editors
CEO, Richard E. Stearns, shares insights on the increasing U.S.-based international development
Robyn Shepherd and humanitarian nongovernmental
scrutiny of NGOs’ work by a growing number of external Kathy Ward organizations. With more than
rating agencies. We also introduce you to Kevin Lowther, who 160 members operating in every
takes a retrospective look at his 44 years of career experience in Copy Editor developing country, we work to
international development and speaks to increasing concerns Hilary Nalven overcome poverty, exclusion and
suffering by advancing social justice
around responsibility and ownership of development work. and basic dignity for all.
Other pieces of interest include perspectives on the issue of aid Advertising & Sales
Josh Kearns
effectiveness in the Paris Declaration framework and an informative InterAction welcomes submissions
of news articles, opinions and
Q&A session with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Communications Department announcements. Articles may be
As you read through these and other articles, I trust you’ll put Nasserie Carew, Director reprinted with prior permission and
Josh Kearns, Advertising & Sales attribution. Letters to the editor are
to good use your own sense of “trend spotting” to not only encouraged.
Julie Montgomery, Publications
recognize, but to leverage the trend or trends that might steer Robyn Shepherd, Media
your organization closer to its own mission. I also invite you to A limited number of subscriptions
are made available to InterAction
share with us any insights these articles might generate for you. Editorial Committee member agencies as part of their
Sylvain Browa dues. Individual subscriptions cost
Sylvain Browa Kimberly Darter $80 a year (add $15 for airmail
Senior Manager, Partnership and Development Impact Hilary Nalven delivery outside the U.S.) Samples
are $5, including postage. Additional
InterAction discounts are available for bulk
InterAction
orders. Please allow 4-6 weeks
1400 16th Street, NW, Suite 210 for delivery. Advertising rates are
Washington, DC 20036 available on request.
Tel: 202.667.8227
publications@interaction.org ISSN 1043-8157
A Special Report
A Dying Breed
By Kevin Lowther, Regional Director for Southern Africa, Africare
When I graduated from college in
June 1963, I did not plan to be an Ugly
American. There was no career choice
called “international development.”
Foreign assistance programs, born under
the Marshall Plan, were in their infancy.
Only missionaries, a self-selected few,
trained to be development workers.
President John F. Kennedy changed
that. He revamped our foreign aid
administration and created the Peace
Corps in 1961. The day after graduating,
I became one of his volunteers. Three
months later, I stood with a piece of chalk
in my hand, facing 40 Sierra Leonean
high school students. I had become a
development worker.
As I prepare to retire in June after 44 years
in development—all of them involving
Africa—I feel like a dying breed. I hope
that I am.
Lest I be misunderstood: the Peace Corps
is a credible and enduring expression
of the best that is in us as a people. I
take pride in having helped to establish
Africare. And I have no regrets in having
devoted 37 good years to its growth as a
respected vehicle for social and economic
development in Africa.
That begs a question, however, which
has bothered me increasingly over the
years—and which I suspect bothers
many others in my profession. Who
is responsible for development? Who
should be “doing” the development?
Many years ago, an African minister,
angered that an expatriate Africare staff
 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
member had started a local vaccination
campaign a day earlier than the
government planned, lectured me that
“This is our country.” She was right, of
course, and she was the first—and only
—African official honest enough to say
it to my face. I thanked her.
I have long believed that grassroots
development, community development
—whatever you choose to call it—is a
catalytic process. That requires a catalytic
(meaning outside) agent. I have flattered
myself over the years that I, as a non-
African, an outsider, could play that role.
This conceit can take an expatriate and
the catalytic process just so far. An African
who has the cultural knowledge and
intuition, as well as the vernacular skills,
that you will never possess can advance
the process further and more effectively.
She or he can be the outsider far better
than you.
That realization should give us all
pause. If we are genuinely committed to
improving people’s lives, we are obliged to
find a place in the train of development
that allows us to add real value without
subtly retarding local initiative and
capacity.
There are many ways to add value
without getting in the way of indigenous
initiative. Africare’s co-founder, Dr.
William Kirker, and his wife Barbara
are returning this month to work in the
Nigerien clinic where they served as
Peace Corps Volunteers in the 1960s. No
one can argue against providing skilled
medical services or other scarce technical
expertise. This applies equally to
dissemination of appropriate technology
and the cross-fertilization of successful
development models. It can embrace
training and evaluation.
Still, the devil’s advocate might assert
that even these contributions, when
made by expatriates, pre-empt the
responsibility of peoples and nations to
address their own needs. My students in
Sierra Leone did not aspire to replace me
in the classroom. They aspired to leave
for Europe and America, as many did.
They had no interest in development of
their country as such. If others wanted
to shoulder that thankless burden, they
were welcome.
Foreign aid programs, private voluntary
organizations (PVOs) and the Peace
Corps—no matter how effective they
may be at doing good—cannot escape
the iron law of unintended consequences.
The most glaring is that we have made
it easier for African and other Third
World governments and communities to
evade fuller responsibility for their own
development.
We will never know the true measure
of our counter-productivity in this
respect. I would like to believe that we
have merely slowed—not aborted—our
hosts’ assumption of accountability for
national and local development. Indeed,
over the past decade or more, I have
concluded that people and communities
are becoming more proactive in their
own development. We have no higher

purpose now than to foster and expedite
this devolution of responsibility to the
people we have pledged to “develop.”
When I first worked in Southern Africa,
in 1978, I found virtually no spirit of
self-help or local initiative. During the
five years that I lived in Zambia, people
expected the government to provide
infrastructure and services. I found
this same assumption in a liberated
Zimbabwe, in Malawi and elsewhere in
the region.
The people could hardly be blamed. For
political reasons alone, governments were
not going to tell citizens that they had
to look out for their own development.
Donors abetted this by granting huge
amounts of aid. This sent a subliminal
message to governments and people alike
that they could not develop without
external assistance.
Looking back on the development projects
I helped to design and implement during
that period, I can recall only a few where
there was more than a fleeting impact.
That began to change, very gradually, as
With over 40 years of experience, Kevin
Lowther looks back on his career to see
just how he has made a difference.
Photo: courtesy of Kevin Lowther. Pictured from left to
right, Pedro Siloka, a former long-time Angolan staff
member of Africare’s; Kevin’s wife, Patricia; Kevin.
people realized that their governments This is a challenge to governments, to
were incapable of meeting many of their donors, to PVOs and to people like me
needs. who have long presumed that they have a
The dawning of this reality was especially defining responsibility for development in
evident in Zambia. As I visited areas of Africa. If there is any defining to be done,
the country that I had first known 15 and it is for governments, donors, PVOs and
20 years earlier, I found a palpable self- well-intentioned outsiders to redefine
reliance where once there had seemingly their role vis-à-vis people who are taking
been none. People had started building control of their own development and
community schools, with little or no destiny.
outside aid, to fill the vacuum created
by the government’s inability to meet Kevin Lowther has served as Africare’s Regional
educational needs for all. Women were Director for Southern Africa since 1984. He is co-
organizing caregiver groups to sustain the author, with C. Payne Lucas, of Keeping Kennedy’s
Promise, a critique of the Peace Corps’ formative
mounting number of orphans. Township
first decade.
youth were coming together to educate
their peers on HIV/AIDS. All of which
was happening without the catalytic
presence of outsiders of any complexion.
I see a similar trend throughout much of
the region. Farmers’ associations, savings
and loans clubs, women’s groups, youth
and churches are driving development
and providing services. Civil society is
asserting itself, as it was bound to. Local
leadership is taking firmer hold.
APRIL 2007 
New
And Impact Assessment in International Development
By Kent Glenzer, Director of Impact Measurement and Learning, CARE, and
Research Associate, Center for the Study of Public Scholarship, Emory University
Social Entrepreneurs. Venture Philanthropists. Philanthropreneurs.
All the above actors have been described
as elements of what is being called “the
new philanthropy.” But what is the new
philanthropy? What are the likely future
impacts of this new set of financiers on
global development? What specifically is
the relevance of this trend to impact as-
sessment?
In 2005, U.S. foundation grants for in-
ternational affairs reached a record $2.8
billion, much of which came from “new
philanthropy.” This catch-all phrase en-
compasses at least six distinct compo-
nents:
1. New foundations
2. Wealthy individuals
3. Corporate foundations
4. Reinvented established
foundations
5. Diaspora giving
6. Global community foundations
Newer foundations such as the Bill &
Melinda Gates Foundation dominate
the public imagination, while individuals
such as Ted Turner represent a new gen-
eration of wealthy individuals looking to
support international causes. But these
two categories are populated by small-
er, innovative actors too. The Global
Greengrants Foundation, for example,
makes small grants—generally less than
$5,000—to actors in the developing
world. Additionally, new partnerships
are emerging between philanthropies,
for-profit enterprises, universities and
governments. Meanwhile, giving from
wealthy individuals who are not inter-
nationally known is increasing rapidly.
These individuals are looking to support
“big ideas” for improving the well-being
of the world’s poor.
Still, Gates dominates the landscape. In
2002-2004, Gates’ international giving
grew from $526 million to $1.2 billion.
 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
If Gates’ contributions were subtracted
from all international giving for that pe-
riod, international giving by U.S. philan-
thropies would have dropped 4%.
These two trends have been driven by the
extraordinary growth of the stock market
in the 1990s. As BusinessWeek reported
in 2002, charitable giving by individu-
als in the U.S. rose from $110 billion to
$164 billion between 1990-2001. U.S.
philanthropic grant making could total as
much as $300 billion per year by mid-
century.
Another trend involves a new generation
of corporate foundations. Nike, Google,
and eBay have all started their own foun-
dations in the last decade. In 2004 cor-
porate foundations, for the first time,
surpassed all other categories of private
funding partners with regard to interna-
tional giving.
These new entries into the philanthropic
marketplace, coupled with new ideas
about aid effectiveness, have led also to
reinvention of long-established philan-
thropies. The Rockefeller Foundation
has concentrated its resources, applying
greater focus on addressing underlying
causes of social ills, and more reliance on
strategic alliances to combine compara-
tive strengths. These decisions flowed
from an analysis that revealed how main-
stream development theory and practice
has consistently converted complex ideas
into simplistic and formulaic solutions.
Diasporic philanthropy consists largely of
remittances. In 2000, one researcher es-
timated that while foundation and other
formal giving totaled $10 billion for in-
ternational work, diasporic philanthropy
totaled at least $25 billion, a conserva-
tive estimate given the difficulty of track-
ing such funds. A 2006 study estimated
global diaspora giving at $50-$75 bil-
lion.
Community foundations—philanthropic
entities that serve their own communi-
ties—may not be financial heavyweights
but are a boon to the poor in different
ways. Boards or trustees are drawn from
the local citizenry. They often encourage
citizen action and create more vibrant
civil societies in their local areas. Signal-
ing their importance, the World Bank be-
gan tracking the trend in 2003.
What is Really New?
With regard to the first two trends, there
is a strong focus on entrepreneurship,
market-oriented approaches to social and
economic development, and the use of
forms of venture capital for philanthrop-
ic purposes. The new philanthropists
bring business sensibilities to their work.
They demand results, and are interested
in “best practice,” taking proven solu-
tions to scale and quantified measures of
performance.
There is also a much greater desire to be
more closely involved in all stages of the
work. This is particularly true with re-
gard to wealthy individuals who seek not
a charity to support but a cause and solu-
tion to back. Many of these individuals
have made massive fortunes by identify-
ing and solving complex challenges in
the for-profit world and wish to now use
those skills to increase the well-being of
the world’s poor. They are not content
to fund a project and receive periodic re-
ports. They want to be involved. While
insistent on supporting proven technolo-
gies and approaches, they are sophisti-
cated and understand that social change
is complex and that lasting solutions are
different from quick fixes.
The sheer weight of the financial resourc-
es that the new philanthropy brings to
international development may radically
reinvent development funding. In 2000,
the Gates Foundation gave more for
international health than the U.S. gov-
ernment. If these philanthropies con-
tinue to grow, by mid-century they may
dominate and determine international
development approaches. This raises the
question of accountability and coordi-
nation. With so many new and wealthy
entrants, how will they coordinate with
Southern governments and multilateral
institutions such as the UN? To whom
will they be accountable?
Implications for Impact
Assessment
The first and most obvious implication for
impact assessment is that INGOs need to
offer clear, testable programs and dem-
onstrate results in the form of changes in
well-being of people if they wish to work
THE annetwhropy
phil
with the new philanthropists. The de-
mand goes beyond “results-based man-
agement.” Stronger skills in quantitative
and statistical methods are needed, and
strategic alliances with research orga-
nizations must be forged. To date, the
willingness to fund such monitoring and
evaluation systems is one of the new phi-
lanthropy’s greatest strengths. A num-
ber of philanthropies now offer awardees
free design, monitoring and evaluation
technical assistance through university or
research group partnerships.
A second and related implication is that
those INGOs that wish to access a share
of these funds for international programs
will need better knowledge of “best prac-
tice” in technical arenas and clear plans
and strategies for achieving wide replica-
tion and efficiencies of scale. The chal-
lenge will be to do this in a way that does
for internationaor l
not turn the poor into mere objects of
top-down designs.
INGOs have a unique position—and ob-
ligation—to engage jointly with the new
philanthropic actors on all these levels.
Our connections to the most remote
villages in the South allow us to speak
with authority about how to address
underlying causes of poverty and social
injustice while at the same time achiev-
ing important, short-term improvements
in well-being. Our ability to amplify the
voices of the poor themselves can affect
the choices made by new philanthropists
about what to support and how to sup-
port it. Our struggles with the politics of
development knowledge—which actors
get to define success and how to mea-
sure it—need to be better explained and
communicated. Our experience working
within the policies of a wide range of do-
nors allows us to bring to the table wide
practical experience about donor practic-
es that work for the poor and marginal-
ized—as well as those that do not.
Ironically, the very strengths of the new
philanthropy—its focus on supporting
proven, measurable, rapid improvement
in the lives of the poor—are a potential
danger. We know that quick wins are
possible yet disappear when projects end.
We know we need to address underly-
ing causes of poverty and social injustice
if short-term improvements are to last.
Those kinds of programs are more com-
plicated, however. They are emergent, re-
quiring long-term commitments, intense
focus on participatory and qualitative
methods and types of data and sustained
action-learning cycles. Our community’s
opportunity and challenge is to more
clearly define impacts on underlying
causes and engage the new philanthropy
in supporting methodological innova-
tion, research partnerships and long-
term learning that can help us connect
the dots between quick wins and lasting
change. That’s a shared goal of both the
new philanthropists and NGOs, and its
achievement could result in a reinvention
of how development is financed, mea-
sured and promoted.
nts
U.S. foundation graaffairs
.8
reached a rec 0d5$2
billion in 20
APRIL 2007 
INSIDE OUR
COMMUNITY
InterAction Hires Vice President for Membership
InterAction this month welcomes Barbara Wallace as Vice
President for Membership. In her new position, Barbara will
promote InterAction’s strategic engagement with the leadership
of member organizations, develop long-range plans for
membership development and expansion and help build a strong
U.S. NGO community.
Barbara came to InterAction from RESULTS and RESULTS
Educational Fund, where she served initially as Managing
Director and Executive Director from 2001-2006. While at
RESULTS, she represented RESULTS in the National Anti-
Hunger Organizations Coalition and InterAction and served
on the boards of the Basic Education Coalition and the U.S.
Alliance to End Hunger.
She continues to serve as chair of the Alliance to End Hunger’s
Presidential Task Force, created to bring issues of hunger and
poverty forward as major issues for all candidates in the next
presidential election.
Prior to RESULTS, Barbara worked at Landmark Education
where her service included the management of multiple
departments, volunteer recruitment and leadership development.
Barbara’s experience as a businesswoman began while still in
college, at which time she started the first of two successful
businesses in the printing industry, generating impressive revenue
and industry innovation. For several years, Barbara volunteered
with organizations that fought for Native American rights and
educational opportunities for the impoverished. Participation
in the ceremonial life of Native American people and long-term
activism in Native American issues are cherished parts of her
life.
Trickle Up’s Poverty Alleviation Work Featured in PBS
Documentary
Trickle Up entrepreneur Melissa Hull and President Bill Abrams
are featured in the PBS documentary The Boomer Century 1946—
2046 which premieres last month. Abrams and Hull—who
are both boomers—tell how Trickle Up changed their lives by
bringing them each to a new direction and new field of work.
Melissa Hull was struggling to make ends meet for herself and
her children. In the feature, Hull states, “I didn’t want my
children to grow up and just see me on welfare; I wanted them
to see a strong woman.” Hull became involved in local training
that taught her how to open a home-based daycare center, and
within a few months she had used business training and a seed
capital grant from Trickle Up to launch her center in Brooklyn,
NY. She now has two centers and is an inspiration and beacon of
hope in her community.
Bill Abrams spent his career as a journalist and media executive,
always wanting to affect positive social change. After a 30-year
career working for The Wall Street Journal, ABC News and
The New York Times, Abrams decided to apply his skills and
experience to the nonprofit sector. In the feature, Abrams speaks
about the microenterprise development organization that he
now leads, Trickle Up. “Part of the fun of life is adding new
chapters and grabbing new opportunities that come along. But
I must say, sitting here right now, I can’t imagine anything that
would be more satisfying than this.”
 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
ERD Supports Communities Affected by Cyclone Indlala
in Madagascar
Episcopal Relief and Development (ERD) is supporting people
in Antalaha, Madagascar affected by Cyclone Indlaha. Antalaha is
located 354 miles north of Madagascar’s capital, Antananarivo.
On Thursday March 15, Cyclone Indlaha swept through the
town destroying buildings and infrastructure. The storm killed
12 people and left more than 14,000 others homeless. In the
Sofia region, the storm caused the death of a young man who
drowned while trying to save his mother from the rising waters
of the Sofia River. A national electricity power station 99 miles
east of Antananarivo was damaged, leaving residents without
power or communication services.
Recent tropical storms and cyclones have increased pressure on
food security due to the island’s loss of more than one-third of its
yearly rice production, with some areas losing 80 percent of their
crops. In the Sambava region, rice plants have been flattened,
and vanilla bean fields were destroyed by blown tree branches.
In the town of Ambilobe, most of the upcoming rice harvest was
ruined with only 20,000 hectares of rice fields left undamaged
after the Mahavany River overflowed its banks.
World Vision Struggling to Deliver Aid to Displaced as Sri
Lanka Crisis Intensifies
As fighting in eastern Sri Lanka continues to force thousands from
their homes, World Vision is delivering critical relief assistance
to displaced children and families. Safe access to volatile areas
remains a key challenge. The recent escalation in hostilities has
created a humanitarian crisis in eastern Sri Lanka, with more than
155,000 homeless and living in displacement camps.
“We’re concerned that this crisis could worsen in the coming
weeks,” said Rein Paulsen, World Vision’s Senior Director for
Emergency Response. “Many communities in the conflict zone
are still recovering from the 2004 Asia tsunami, when families
lost everything. Now they’ve been uprooted from their homes
again, and have no way to feed or educate their children.”
As fighting has intensified in the past week, World Vision has
been distributing water, food, mats, tarps for shelter, water
containers and other essential supplies to families living in
displacement (IDP) camps in the East. The protection and well-
being of children in the camps is a key focus of the agency’s work.
Over the past several months, World Vision has distributed aid to
families trapped in the conflict areas in the Northern and Eastern
Provinces, including two resettlement areas, seven communities
where the agency already works and in IDP camps.
COO of Save the Children Joins Blackbaud’s Board of
Directors
Blackbaud, Inc., the leading provider of software and related
services designed specifically for nonprofit organizations,
announced that Carolyn Miles, executive vice president and chief
operating officer of Save the Children has joined its Board of
Directors. Miles, who has been with Save the Children since
1998, is the organization’s second highest ranking executive,
and is responsible for agency-wide strategic planning as well as
operations in 50 countries including the United States, with
more than 6,000 employees worldwide.
InterAction Members Lobby UN on Girls Rights, UN Reform
By Suzanne Kindervatter, Vice President of Strategic Impact, InterAction
T
he hallways of the UN resounded with the voices of
over 300 empowered girls aged 12-17 who brought
their demands to the annual UN Commission on the
Status of Women (CSW) from February 26 to March
9. More than 4,000 representatives from NGOs and
women’s organizations around the world registered for the
inter-governmental meeting, which focused on the elimination
of all forms of discrimination and violence against the girl child.
NGOs also lobbied for adoption of proposals for strengthening
and consolidating the three women’s entities currently part of
the UN.
Many InterAction members played leading roles in highlighting
specific issues and in lobbying for CSW action.
World Vision and Plan International collaborated on the panel
“Hope for the African Girl Child,” which included two teenage
Kenyan Maasai advocates for the abolishment of female genital
mutilation (FGM). The panel spotlighted challenges including
girls’ education, child rights, child labor and how girls themselves
are a leading force for change. When Teresa Cheptoo, one of
the Kenyan teens, was asked why she chose to go through an
alternative right of passage, she stated, “through my education,
I learned about the dangers of FGM and HIV/AIDS and
the importance of education. This has helped the community
because I have taken what I learned to others in my hometown.
I know boys who have not married girls who are circumcised and
also girls who say they will not be circumcised at all.”
The International Center for Research on Women’s (ICRW)
activities at CSW focused on early marriage. The panel
“Too Young to Wed: Ending Child Marriage in Developing
Countries” revealed that more than 50 million girls throughout
the developing world are married, some as young as 7 years
old, with devastating consequences for girls, their families
and communities. Presenters also shared the good news that
innovative, community-based efforts appear to be providing
viable alternatives to early marriage. ICRW also supported a
resolution on Forced and Early Marriage, which was adopted by
consensus by government delegates. The U.S., which originally
sponsored the resolution, withdrew its sponsorship due to the
inclusion of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination
Against Women and Child Rights, as well as language related to
reproductive health and sexual rights. Kathy Selvaggio, Senior
Policy Advocate, reported that “ICRW was pleased to play a
key role in the decision making process. We are also pleased
that the U.S. took the initiative to champion the resolution, but
disappointed the U.S. could not sponsor it in the end.”
Several InterAction members—the International Rescue
Committee, the Women’s Commission for Refugee Women
and Children and Christian Children’s Fund—joined forces
on a panel on the protection and reproductive health needs of
refugee and internally displaced women and girls. A focus of
the presentation was the Neighborhood Method, an innovative
strategy for collecting accurate reproductive health data in
displaced communities.
InterAction’s Commission on the Advancement of Women
—with Women’s Edge, Religions for Peace and the Center
for Global Justice and Reconciliation/Washington National
Cathedral—convened a session on the new Women, Faith and
Development Alliance for Advancing Women’s Empowerment
and the Millennium Development Goals. NGOs from faith,
global development and women’s organizations packed the
room for a lively discussion on how faith can be a force for
gender equality.
WEDO, the Women’s Environment and Development
Organization, led NGO efforts to secure a new “gender
architecture” at the UN. NGO advocacy on the UN reforms
began at last year’s CSW and subsequently was successful in
securing strong recommendations from the High Level Panel
on UN Reform. The recommendations call for elevating the
institutional focus on women within the UN system by combining
three existing entities and creating a new Undersecretary
General focused on women’s empowerment and gender
equality. This year, NGO advocacy concentrated on getting
these recommendations implemented. Through the leadership
of WEDO and the Center for Global Women’s Leadership,
almost 200 NGOs signed a letter to UN Member States and
the Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon endorsing the proposals for
upgrading women’s equality work within the UN.
On International Women’s Day, which fell during the CSW,
the Secretary General made his first public statement on gender
equality and the UN reform process. He called on the UN to be
at the forefront of empowering women and girls and for member
states to move forward. “I encourage Member States to study
the possibility of replacing several current structures with one
dynamic UN entity….It should mobilize forces of change at the
global level, and inspire enhanced results at the country level.”
InterAction members and other NGOs at the CSW will be
watching whether all the words agreed upon will be put into
action. As NGO delegates left New York, they committed to keep
up their collective pressure for making the recommendations on
girls’ rights and gender equality in the UN a reality.
For information on the official UNCSW outcomes, www.un.org/
womenwatch/daw/csw/51sess.htm ; for NGO perspectives and
advocacy, www.wedo.org
SAVE THE DATE: MAY 2
Clinton Presidential Library to Host 2nd Annual
Southern Agenda for Change Meeting
Little Rock, Arkansas
WHY (World Hunger Year), Heifer International and the
Clinton Foundation are proud to sponsor this year’s Southern
Agenda for Change, a day to contemplate innovative
solutions to hunger and poverty in the southern region of
the United States. For additional info, please contact Rhonda
Everman, Heifer International: Rhonda.everman@heifer.org
or (859) 497-0603.
APRIL 2007 
$
By Theresa A. McCaffrey, Georgetown Public Policy Institute
ending y home
mone
In the past few years, the flow of remittances—money sent by
migrants to their home countries—has captured the interest of
the development community. Scholars and practitioners alike are
striving to figure out the impact of remittances on development
and the implications for the future of both development and in-
ternational migration.
There are several reasons for this growing attention to remit-
tances. Perhaps the most important is the sheer volume of re-
mittances sent on an annual basis, which dwarfs the amount of
development aid that is given. According to the World Bank,
remittances accounted for approximately $226 billion across all
countries in 2004, while official development assistance given
by countries in the OECD Development Assistance Committee
was about $79 billion. A second reason is the direction of these
transfers, which is primarily into developing countries (about
$160 billion of the $226 billion in 2004). Third, this transfer
is “free money,” creating neither debt nor future obligation on
the part of the developing countries. Finally, and of paramount
importance to the present remittance enthusiasm, is the accelera-
tion witnessed in recent years of the remittance phenomenon.
In 1990, $31 billion was transferred to developing countries; in
1995, $58 billion; in 2000, $86 billion; and in 2005, a projected
$167 billion.
However, a note of caution is necessary when considering data on
remittances in general and their growth in particular. Although
there are official numbers, their accuracy is questionable. The
numbers come from national accounts data and are compiled
on a country level by central banks. They are often calculated
inconsistently and, especially for developing countries, without
the adequate resources. Usually only money sent through official
channels can be accurately tracked. For many reasons—immigra-
tion status, safety and fee avoidance being a few—remittances
may instead be routed through informal channels.
The money generally referred to as remittances actually com-
prises three categories in national accounts data. First there are
“workers’ remittances” which consists of money transferred by
migrants who move to another country for a period of one year
or longer. “Compensation of employees” represents the wages,
salaries and benefits earned by nonresident workers who migrate
for less than a year. Finally, “migrants’ transfers” corresponds to
the financial transactions that accompany the change of residence
of the worker from one country to another. Although only the
first of these three is officially called remittances, the public dis-
course on remittances and studies of their economic effects gen-
erally include at least the first two and, most often, all three.
Lindsay Lowell of Georgetown’s Institute for the Study of In-
ternational Migration points out that the rapid growth in remit-
tances sent from the U.S. cannot be reconciled with the leveling
off of both migration and migrants’ wages in the U.S. He argues,
10 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
therefore, that the growth is merely a function of more remit-
tances being sent through official channels and better accounting
techniques on the part of national governments.
But the inaccuracy of the data is only one of the difficulties of
studying the link between remittances and development. This
money is never in the control of a government or development
agency; it belongs to and is spent or invested by individuals and
households. Many studies have examined the impact of remit-
tances on local economies. The gist of this literature is that remit-
tances are a remarkably stable form of capital transfer. They may,
in fact, be countercyclical, compensating for downturns in the
economies of migrant-sending countries, although the degree
of this countercyclical nature is debated. In a straightforward
manner, remittances raise the incomes of households in develop-
ing countries. In doing so, they also affect the local economy
in ways that may be detrimental to other households because
of their inflationary effects. The impact of remittances on in-
equality tends to mirror the type of migration experienced in the
migrant-sending country. In some countries, those who migrate
and send remittances back to their families are among the most
educated, while in other countries, it is the lowest skilled workers
who migrate.
There is significantly less literature comparing the developmental
impacts of remittances on a macroeconomic cross-country basis.
An important study by Richard H. Adams, Jr., and John Page
of the World Bank found that remittances help reduce the level,
depth and severity of poverty in developing countries. The Inter-
national Monetary Fund has released many papers investigating
the impact of remittances on economic growth. One by Ralph
Chami, Connel Fullenkamp and Samir Jahjah found remittances
have no significant impact on growth. Another by Paola Giuliano
and Marta Ruiz-Arranz found that remittances have a more posi-
tive impact on growth in countries with low levels of financial
development. In this case, remittances compensate for the lack of
access to credit and provide capital for investment.
Even if remittances do not spur on development in an absolute
sense, it may be possible to direct them into channels that will
help to spur development. Manuel Orozco and Rachel Fedewa
of the Inter-American Dialogue mention a range of the policy
options that can enhance the developmental impact of remit-
tances including: reaching out to diasporas working abroad, re-
ducing the costs of sending remittances, providing banking ser-
vices for unbanked remittance senders and receivers, providing
investment and micro-enterprise opportunities for remittance
monies, encouraging the use of hometown associations to chan-
nel money towards local development and marketing tourism
and “nostalgic trade” to migrants.
Development agencies and the international financial institutions
are encouraging these policies through a range of programs. The
Remittances—money sent by migrants to their home countries—has captured the interest of
the development community in the past few years. According to the World Bank, remittances
accounted for approximately $226 billion across all countries in 2004. There are more ways to
send money home. For example, Latin American immigrants in Washington, DC can now choose
between banks (top) and wire services (bottom) for sending money home.

Multilateral Investment Fund of the Inter-American Develop-

ment Bank has been the major player in this field since 2001, pro-
viding tens of millions of dollars in grants to over twenty projects
that seek to increase the developmental impact of remittances
in many ways—support for returned entrepreneurs, encouraging
homeownership, providing micro-enterprise opportunities and
providing rural banking services to name a few. Their current
goal is to halve the cost of sending remittances and double the
number of households receiving remittances through the formal
financial system by 2010.
USAID has undertaken several projects on remittances, includ-
ing a grant to the World Council of Credit Unions in 2002 to
help credit unions enter the remittance marketplace. On a coun-
try level, around the world but with a focus on Latin America,
USAID has partnered with banks and corporations to help de-
velop the technology to send remittances securely and transpar-
ently. Other federal agencies are also taking an interest in the
sending of remittances. In 2003, the U.S. FDIC and Mexico’s
Consulate General launched the New Alliance Task force that
brings together banks, NGOs and government agencies to help
immigrants to access the U.S. banking system.
On the NGO level, many of the remittance and development
projects follow naturally from previous efforts in the areas of mi-
cro-enterprise and financial sector development, targeted to ar-
eas that receive large amounts of remittances. But the full range
of possibilities is much broader and includes networking efforts
to keep migrants in touch with their home communities. Home-
town associations of migrants can provide a natural mechanism
for funding small-scale development, generally infrastructure
projects and NGOs can help with both organizational support
and technical assistance to these associations. For example, the
Dutch Oxfam affiliate has been involved with connecting Afri-
cans working in the Netherlands to help organize hometown
associations and carry out development projects in Burundi,
Ghana and Somalia.
Despite the current levels of enthusiasm about remittances as a
development tool, they are not a development panacea. Their
real impact on local and national economies in developing coun-
tries remains to be seen. However, the vast amount of money
being transferred to developing countries cannot be ignored and
should, to the extent possible, be taken into account in formulat-
ing development strategies and projects.

Theresa A. McCaffrey is currently working on her Masters in Public Policy

at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.

Photos: courtesy of Theresa A. McCalfrey

APRIL 2007 11
  PREPAREDNESS
From Disaster to Conflict Early Warning:
A People-Centered Approach
By Patrick Meier, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy
T
he occurrence of natural disasters amid complex politi-
cal crises is increasingly widespread: over 140 natural
disasters have occurred alongside complex political cri-
ses in the past five years alone. To make matters worse,
the conflation of disasters with protracted conflicts
may accelerate dramatically given the vagaries of climate change.
How should we prepare and respond? According to the tradi-
tional discourse in the disaster management literature, “we in
the West are the rescuers and aid does not start until we arrive.”
Unfortunately, we rarely show up; hence the importunate reality
of “neglected crises” and “forgotten emergencies.” This is un-
likely to change any time soon. Despite welcome commitments
by a handful of international donors to contribute to a new UN
Central Emergency Response Fund, most governments have so
far failed to muster the political will to follow through. While
centralized modes of disaster management lose effectiveness, al-
ternative studies have recently sought to explore the capacity of
disaster-affected communities to bounce back or recover with
little or no external assistance following a disaster. This article
addresses the trend towards people-centered disaster manage-
ment.
Tipping Points
What were the main tipping points that led to the shift in this
discourse? Three in particular come to mind: ideology, complex-
ity and locality. The fall of the Berlin Wall paved the way for al-
ternative concepts of security, with human security taking center
stage. With this came the realization that centralized models of
action and thinking were no match for the complexities of con-
12 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
temporary disasters. Finally, the shift towards people-centered di-
saster management also reflects the belated recognition that local
communities have consistently developed sophisticated strategies
and complex institutions to manage the constant threat of inse-
curity in their lives. In fact, estimates suggest that no more than
10 percent of survival in emergencies is attributable to external
sources of relief aid. To this end, the 2006 UN Global Survey of
Early Warning Systems defines the purpose of people-centered
early warning as follows: “To empower individuals and commu-
nities threatened by hazards to act in sufficient time and in an
appropriate manner so as to reduce the possibility of personal
injury, loss of life, damage to property and the environment and
loss of livelihoods.” It is worth emphasizing that the discourse
has shifted away from the conventional division of labor between
the “warners” and “responders.”
Current Trends
The disaster management field is progressively focusing on—and
learning from—indigenous disaster response practices. In Swa-
ziland, for example, we are taught that floods can be predicted
from the height of bird nests near rivers, while moth numbers
predict drought. Because these indicators are informal, they
rarely figure in peer-reviewed journals and remain invisible to the
international humanitarian community. Reassuringly, the UN
International Strategy for Disaster Reduction is taking steps to
empower traditional knowledge systems that render local com-
munities more self-adaptable to dynamic disaster environments.
In many of these projects, community-based codes and protocols
are jointly defined to ensure reliable preparedness and disaster
“To empower individuals and communities threatened by hazards to act in sufficient time and in
an appropriate manner so as to reduce the possibility of personal injury, loss of life, damage to
property and the environment and loss of livelihoods.” It is worth emphasizing that the discourse
has shifted away from the conventional division of labor between the “warners” and “responders.”
response measures with minimal need for external intervention.
This involves the blending into indigenous settings high tech-
nology such as cell phones, handheld global positioning systems
(GPS) and other technologies of cooperation including wikis.
While the disaster management field has shifted towards a people-
centered approach, the conflict management community has yet
to embrace the new discourse and practice. Conflict prevention
and early warning remain centralized and hierarchical exercises
bent on prediction rather than preparedness. Formal early warn-
ing systems still emphasize the division of labor between “war-
ners” and “responders” in that they are still designed to trigger
responses external to the immediate disaster environment. As
Casey Barrs of The Cuny Center has noted, perhaps 99 percent
of what we read about conflict early warning refers to regional
or international systems. Logically, these systems are designed
with the interests of governments in mind: to control and remain
abreast of escalating violence well beyond their own borders or
capital cities. Local communities remain completely unaware
that these systems even exist. Barrs explains, “Alerts, bulletins
and reports are sent around the world in real time. Yet they rarely
touch ground where the killing happens.” Surely, the democratic
flow of information is the first condition for a democratic and
open system of people-centered disaster preparedness.
Future Implications
The lesson here is perhaps self-evident: promote systems that are
tailored for local use and are generated on site in order to pre-
pare for both natural disasters and impending conflict. Evidently,
the local human factor is critical for effectual preparedness and
self-adaptation in dynamic environments. Barnett Rubin suggests
that “there is something about the complexity of human experi-
ence that suggests that a different kind of knowledge [is] needed,
the quality called by the ancient Greeks metis, or practical wis-
dom.” People-centered early warning with respect to conflict
would therefore seek to build on local capacities and ingenuity
to empower individuals to act in time to reduce the possibility of
personal injury. Rubin also notes that preventing violent conflict
requires more than just monitoring the causes of conflict and the
testing policy instruments. To be sure, prevention efforts should
also seek to galvanize social and political movements since “the
framework for response is inherently political, and the task of ad-
vocacy for such response cannot be separated from the analytical
tasks of warning.”
Why then are conflict prevention efforts and local nonviolent
movements erroneously assumed to be conceptually and opera-
tionally distinct in the practice of conflict management? Tactical
evasion, for example, is a central component of strategic nonvio-
lence: people must be capable of concealment and dispersion.
Getting out of harm’s way and preparing people for the worst ef-
fects of violence requires sound intelligence and timely strategic
estimates. Put differently, people-centered early warning is vital
when conducting maneuvers of defensive dispersion. A realistic
appreciation of impending violence based on a people-centered
approach also makes it possible to motivate civilian groups to re-
spond early in conceiving plans for evasive action and protection.
According to the expanding literature on nonviolence, the orga-
nizational template most useful for response in dynamic conflict
environments is a community-based network since networks are
better able to self-adapt tactically and weather repression.
In his comprehensive and highly recommended operational
guide on local disaster- and conflict-response strategies, Casey
Barrs suggests that at-risk communities can learn from one an-
other about what dispersed and hidden livelihoods look like. For
example, they can learn how to “dismantle their village homes
and build temporary huts near their fields as the Vietnamese
sometimes did in the face of American airpower. Or use crop col-
ors and canopies that are
less noticeable from the
air, as Salvadoran peas-
ants sometimes planted.”
People-centered conflict
early warning and pre-
paredness clearly works,
as evidenced by ample
case studies available
in the nonviolence lit-
erature. Interestingly, al-
though not surprisingly,
people-centered conflict
early warning predates
today’s centralized and formal early warning systems by several
centuries. Africans, for example, have enjoyed a long tradition
of people-centered approaches to conflict management. At the
American Council on Africa (ACA), Koureissy Condé seeks to
promote precisely these traditional methods and to render them
more visible to us in the international humanitarian community.
ACA’s mission is to incorporate the best practices of tradition-
al African peace-making into the international peace-building
agenda. In sum, ACA seeks to redress the balance between the
need for external assistance and the capacity of local communities
to ‘bounce back.’ This is a trend well worth following.
Patrick Meier is a Ph.D. candidate at the Fletcher School of Law and
Diplomacy in Washington, DC. More information on the author’s work can
be found at http://fletcher.tufts.edu/phd/students/Meier.html
Photo: courtesy of Darcy Kiefel
Image: courtesy of the American Council on Africa
APRIL 2007 13
BEYOND   NO
By David Alpher, Coordinator, Conflict Mitigation Programs, Winrock International
T
he end of the Cold War brought with it a spike in the
level of conflict worldwide that governments in gen-
eral—and the development field specifically—were ill-
equipped to address. Responding to the human cost
and loss of development progress, a number of high-
level organizations began to re-examine the role of conflict dy-
namics within development work.
Two trends began gathering momentum. One was a focus within
the donor community on the role of development in addressing
conflict. The other was a shift in the development community’s
perception of its own neutrality regarding, and the role it must
take in alleviating, the causes and conditions of conflict.
The first of these trends is reflected in statements within the Mil-
lennium Development Goals and publications from EUROPA
(the European Union’s portal site), the UN and nearly every
national bilateral development donor, placing peace and conflict
center-stage. The U.S. government’s new Foreign Assistance
Framework indicates that USAID policy now accords conflict
resolution the same cross-cutting importance as gender and envi-
ronmental issues, combined with a global focus on democratiza-
tion and civil stabilization initiatives. Current donor focus places
a premium on proposals and projects emphasizing a landscape
approach that reliably assesses and addresses fragilities and con-
flict dynamics even if conflict itself is not the main focus. There is
an increasing emphasis on projects that weave resilience-building
elements into work done in strained societies so that they can
safely absorb the changes stemming from development work.
The Roots
The trend of donor focus on conflict has accelerated rapidly over
the past ten years. Beginning in 1997, the Development Assis-
tance Committee (DAC) at the Organization for Economic Co-
operation and Development (OECD) produced one of the first
manifestations of the trend among donors, a task force on con-
flict that published (in 2001) the DAC Guidelines on Helping
Prevent Violent Conflict, which became a roadmap on the sub-
ject. In the aftermath of 9/11, the 2002 National Security Strat-
egy elevated development to a highlighted position and linked
it overtly to U.S. foreign policy. This was followed by Andrew
Natsios’ formation of the Conflict Management and Mitigation
section within USAID a year later. Within the development com-
munity, Mary Anderson’s 1999 book Do No Harm, became a
landmark on the subject, mainstreaming conflict awareness with-
in the development community.
The development community is forced to consider conflict on
two fronts. One is the dwindling protection of “neutrality” as
foreign policy increasingly merges with development work, with
concomitant risks. The other is its own role in conflict dynamics.
14 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
The Present
The original “mainstreaming” goal of the groups that began
work on the subject has largely succeeded. USAID’s 2007 Con-
gressional Budget Justification lists $214 million for conflict
mitigation programs. This number has increased every year since
2003 and does not include other solicitations that now require a
description of how an otherwise non conflict-related project will
work with local social and conflict dynamics. The dollar figure
that represents is obviously far higher. The $2 billion Integrated
Water and Coastal Resources Management Indefinite Quantity
Contract (WATER II IQC), for example, contains a sizeable
conflict mitigation component. Multilateral donors including
the World Bank are now requiring social and cultural assessments
prior to implementing an increasing number of their projects.
The countries where development organizations work are in-
creasingly characterized by heightened levels of civil instability.
DFID lists 46 developing countries as “fragile,” and many coun-
tries not so listed are also conflict-prone, or in so-called “bad
neighborhoods.” No consistent list of conflicts exists, but put
simply, the vast majority of developing countries can be termed
conflict-affected or conflict-prone. Indeed, as documented in
a recent Humanitarian Policy Group briefing paper, attacks on
NGO personnel have doubled every year from 1997 to 2005. In
the past three years alone, 83 NGO workers have been killed in
the field and another 81 injured. Although recent studies claim
a decrease in the number of armed conflicts worldwide, they
do not take into account a parallel increase in inter-communal,
crime/corruption related and “unofficial” conflicts, which, while
deadly and disruptive, feature only civilian combatants, not sol-
diers; a poignantly important point for the development field as
it becomes increasingly difficult to separate beneficiaries, com-
batants and victims.
The increasing role of development as “foreign policy by other
means” has not gone unnoticed in the developing world, and
NGOs face a waning faith in the concept of their neutrality.
This is due in part to increasing interconnection between gov-
ernmental/military elements and development work and is, as
explained in a September 2006 Monday Developments article by
Robyn Shepherd, “exacerbated by perceptions…that some agen-
cies are advocating, publicly or non-publicly, agendas of change
or transformation which go counter to a community’s history,
social, cultural, religious or political inclinations.” The focal
point of this article is that development work by definition alters
social dynamics and balances, the distribution of scarce and often
zero-sum resources and the relationships and power structures
in which it operates; and is thus inseparable from present and
potential conflict dynamics and factors of both fragility and re-
silience. This raises deep questions about whether development
work can be considered neutral at all. Neutral or not, these side
effects of development work must be taken into account deliber-
ately and transparently so that beneficial side effects can be built
into development projects from the moment of inception.
Photo: courtesy of Jiro Ose
The Future Path
As conflict awareness mainstreams into the field and money for
conflict mitigation work increases, the message is that any or-
ganization that cannot show an expertise in conflict mitigation
is behind the curve. Many organizations have stepped up to do
the work. Conflict mitigation has long been considered discon-
nected from “regular” development work and characterized as
a fairly narrow set of peace-brokering activities, but because of
the inherent social alterations mentioned above, this is a false
dichotomy.
Development work cannot rest with “doing no harm” as a neu-
tral point, with positive effect on conflict dynamics an inadver-
tent by-product. It must instead rise to find innovative fulcrums
to leverage all development projects to build resiliency and re-
stabilize unstable environments. There is no neutral point to be
reached unless this is internalized. When determining its rela-
tionship to politics (with a “small p,” meaning power and re-
lationships), the development community is beginning to take
ownership of its effect at the community level—which takes
place within the smallest family units through local ethnic, vil-
lage, tribal, religious and regional structures of governance, on-
wards through the interactions of those structures with national
analogues. For proxy evidence of the seriousness of this, witness
the number of organizations recently ejected from Uzbekistan
for alteration of power and relationship. Thankfully no lives were
lost—but the work was.
The development community must justify its work by articulat-
ing how it purposefully, positively affects conflict dynamics. De-
velopment organizations need a way to offset the increasingly
overt politicization of development work and the waning faith in
their intent. They need to be prepared to understand and oper-
ate in volatile environments; and most particularly, they need to
be aware that their work can cause volatility in otherwise stable,
if impoverished, environments. Aside from the human cost, these
alterations will affect project dynamics and operational condi-
tions.
The range of thinking on the subject of the development field’s
interaction with conflict must expand to stay ahead of the curve.
Indeed, if the most ethical point is to be made, the development
field must define the curve.
APRIL 2007 15
DOING  AT
Impact Evaluation for Development
By Jessica Gottlieb, Program Coordinator Center for Global Development

B
ilateral assistance has doubled in the past five years,
but has our learning about what works in develop-
ment kept pace? Do we know a lot more today about
the impacts of different social and economic programs
in developing countries? Few observers would say we
do. Virtually all of the focus in development aid has been on do-
ing (disbursing funds and getting programs up and running) and
not on learning (finding out whether interventions are making as
big a difference or saving as many lives as hoped).
But there are hints that a new trend is emerging. Leaders in
developing countries and donor agencies are recognizing the
systematic failure to learn and are beginning to respond. The
motivation for this change is a growing frustration about not
knowing what works. As Timothy Thahane, Lesotho’s Minister
of Finance, explained, “There is increasing frustration among us
in developing countries about the prescriptive ‘fads’ about what
works and what improves the quality of life for all people sustain-
ably.”
As noted by the Center for Global Development’s Evaluation
Gap Working Group, “[The] shortcomings in our knowledge of
the effects of social policies and programs reflect a gap in both
the quantity and quality of impact evaluations.” Impact evalua-
tions measure the net effects of a particular intervention (adult
literacy programs, HIV prevention efforts and microfinance,
e.g.) on key social outcomes such as women’s employment,
morbidity and mortality or household income. Yet there will be
a persistent shortage of impact evaluations unless specific new
efforts are undertaken.
Impact evaluations can be expensive and technically challenging
because they study which observed impacts can be attributed to
a particular intervention and not other factors. The knowledge
they generate is a public good, which can be useful for many
decision-makers beyond those involved in the design and imple-
mentation of a particular program. For that reason, no individual
program manager or funding agency has incentive to invest suf-
ficiently in them. Importantly, impact evaluations must be built
into project design. Yet when programs start up, other priorities
garner a greater share of the available resources and attention.
As Gloria Rubio from Mexico’s Ministry of Social Development
points out, “Incentives exist to spend funds allocated at the be-
ginning of the year by the year’s end in whatever way possible.”
Despite these disincentives, with the right combination of lead-
ership, funds and focus, impact evaluations can be done.
Mexico’s Progresa program illustrates the feasibility and pow-
er of evaluating the impact of social programs. Implemented
with a double mandate to reduce poverty and to learn about
the effectiveness of a new intervention, Progresa started giv-
ing conditional cash transfers to women in 1997 with a built-in
impact evaluation component. The rigorously designed evalua-
tion revealed that Progesa significantly raised rates of secondary
school enrollment and improved child and adult health through
increased use of health services. This clear evidence of impact
not only helped program designers improve the program, but
also played a critical role in helping it survive the transition from
the Zedillo administration to the Fox administration with only
a name change from Progresa to Oportunidades. Today, condi-

Generating knowledge about whether a program achieved its basic aims requires impact
evaluation, which analyzes and documents the extent to which changes in the well-being of the
target population can be attributed to a particular program or policy. Such evaluation tries to
answer the question: “What difference did this program make?”

16 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
Impact evaluation asks about the difference
between what happened with the program
and what would have happened without
it. For example, “Are children staying in
primary school and learning more than they
would have without this particular curriculum
or teaching innovation?” This difference is
the impact of the program.
tional cash transfer programs are multiplying throughout neigh-
boring countries, in large part because of the rigorous impact
evaluation that accompanied Mexico’s intervention. Spurred by
the demonstrated impact of the Progresa study and the influence
of visionary leadership in government, Mexico has passed legisla-
tion and formed a new national council to promote the use of
impact evaluations in future social programs.
Impact evaluations are gaining attention. The World Bank’s De-
velopment Impact Evaluation (DIME) initiative is a new effort
to increase the number of Bank projects with impact evaluation
components and improve staff capacity to design and carry out
such evaluations. A network of donor evaluation constituencies
has created a joint task force to address the challenge of produc-
ing more and better impact evaluations. Called the Network of
Networks for Impact Evaluation (NONIE), this initiative aims to
coordinate and promote impact evaluations among the organi-
zations within its three component networks: bilateral develop-
ment agencies, multilateral development banks and UN agen-
cies. It plans to develop guidelines and create an online impact
evaluation resource to support studies by NONIE members.
But it is not just development agencies that are seeking to
change behavior when it comes to learning about development
programs. Leaders in developing countries are also looking for
change. Margaret Kakande from Uganda’s Ministry of Finance,
Planning and Economic Development said it best: “Countries
know where they want to be, but they may not know the best
way of getting there. We would like to see the development of a
new institution which can help us generate and use impact evalu-
ation findings and help build capacity within our country to de-
velop evidence and answer some of our enduring questions.”
One response to this demand is a new initiative to coordinate and
fund new impact evaluations among both donors and developing
countries. In discussions concerning the findings of the Center
for Global Development working group report, a set of lead-
ing governments of low- and middle-income countries, donor
agencies, philanthropic foundations and non-state organizations
concluded that a new entity should be established to channel
funds to high-quality, independent impact evaluations around
key questions that confront policy-makers.
The provisionally titled International Initiative for Impact Evalu-
ation (3IE) aspires to initiate a collective process of selecting
enduring questions about how to improve social and economic
development programs, identify programs that represent oppor-
tunities for learning about those questions, adopt quality stan-
dards, finance the design and implementation of impact evalu-
ations, prepare syntheses of the knowledge generated, advocate
for the use of this evidence, share and disseminate information
and promote mutual capacity development.
3IE membership will be voluntary and comprised of organi-
zations that fulfill a set of minimum obligations including the
Myth vs. Fact
It is commonly held that impact evaluations:
a Tell us little we do not already know about social programs. But
good studies can avoid costly mistakes and prevent doing harm.
a Are not needed to demonstrate success. But good studies can
identify successes even under adverse circumstances, where
success means doing less badly.
a Are not necessary to know which programs work. But good
studies distinguish real successes from apparent successes.
a Cannot address important issues. But current methods can
answer questions that are important to social policy decisions.
a Cannot be ethically implemented. But ethical issues can indeed
be managed.
a Are too costly. But ignorance is more expensive than impact
evaluations.
a Produce results too late to be useful for decision-makers. But
impact evaluations can provide timely information.
a Do not provide important information about how programs
operate. But impact evaluations complement other studies; they
do not replace them.
a Are too complex and do not influence policy-making. But findings
from impact evaluation can be simple and transparent.
Source of information in this box and pull-quotes: Savedoff, William
D., Ruth Levine and Nancy Birdsall, When Will We Ever Learn?
Improving Lives through Impact Evaluation. A Center for Global
Development Working Group Report. Washington, DC (2006).
commitment of funds, participation in governance and sharing
information and impact evaluation data. Members will help set
the enduring questions agenda, receive priority for funding and
technical review services, and enjoy better access to coordinate
with and learn from other members conducting impact evalua-
tions. Member institutions can be ministries or public agencies
(bilateral, multilateral), private non-profit institutions or non-
state organizations that finance or implement social and econom-
ic programs in low- and middle-income countries committed to
the 3IE mission. The countries and agencies involved in design-
ing 3IE have done so with the aim of making it feasible and
attractive for such institutions to join. Members are expected to
confirm their commitments to 3IE over the next several months
while leadership and a host institution are recruited.
As more funds become available to answer key questions about
what works in development, new opportunities will arise for
NGOs in rich and poor countries to participate in furthering the
learning process. As more evidence from studies is produced,
civil society will take a lead role in ensuring that the findings are
communicated to policy-makers and program designers in order
to improve social and economic development interventions. The
hope is that within five years this focus on learning through bet-
ter impact evaluation will embody a new approach in develop-
ment assistance that combines the good will to improve the lives
of the poor with the resources to find out how best to do it.
APRIL 2007 17
FOOD   FUEL
World Commodity Prices
and Food Security
By Paul B. Green and Richard Fritz
O
rganizations invested in the future of food secu-
rity of developing countries must be aware of the
confluence of events in world agricultural markets
that are driving commodity prices higher and mak-
ing markets even more vulnerable to dramatic price
volatility. These factors will have immediate negative effects on
food security and food aid, but may present the opportunity for
longer-term positive incentives for agricultural development in
the developing world.
Mandates and Food vs. Fuel
President Bush’s recent proposal to increase biofuel production
to 35 billion gallons in the name of energy independence has giv-
en even more impetus to the already existing gold rush mental-
ity of investment in turning U.S. agriculture products into fuel.
This ‘biofuel hysteria’ has hit nearly every country with grain
surpluses as farmers and politicians seek more stable demand and
higher prices for farmers.
As corn prices increase, buyers will compete for corn to enter
either the food or fuel markets. A recent study published by the
Center for Agricultural and Rural Development (CARD) at Iowa
State University estimates that the corn-based ethanol industry
will drive the price of U.S. corn to $4.05 per bushel. Corn prices
have already hit ten-year highs, mostly due to the ethanol man-
date and expansion. Higher prices give farmers economic incen-
tives to plant more acres of corn and less of other crops, includ-
ing soybeans and wheat. Some farmers will no doubt shift from
a corn-soybean rotation to a corn-corn-soybean rotation. The
CARD study also estimates that wheat prices will increase 20
percent with a corresponding small reduction in wheat acreage.
There may also be a shift from wheat acreage to other crops such
as oilseeds and plants that are a better fuel stock (e.g., switch-
grass). Incentives are also being given to biodiesel created from
oilseeds—the major biofuel investment in the European Union.
Changes in U.S. corn and soybean prices have a global impact.
Increased U.S. prices allow farmers in many parts of the world
to also benefit by demanding higher prices, which translate into
larger incomes. As corn, soybean and wheat prices rise, so will
the prices of beef, pork, poultry and dairy products. The in-
creased price of feed may benefit integrated farming operations,
but harm producers who purchase feed to produce meat and
milk.
Exacerbating this price shock is the trend for global food systems
to operate over the last decade on ever-smaller stocks. The “just
18 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
in time” nature of the world’s busi-
ness community affects the food in-
dustry where the carry-over (stocks
of one year’s crop that remain avail-
able to the market immediately prior
to the next year’s harvest) of major
grains and oilseeds is at record low lev-
els compared with total use. This adds
to volatility, since it means that there is
no buffer when a localized shock such as
drought or flood spreads beyond the re-
gion first hit, or when numerous disasters
occur in a single year.
Effect on Food Aid
The demand for ethanol and biodiesel feed-
stock has already and will continue to increase
the demand and price of corn, soybeans and wheat, and thus
have direct and residual affects on U.S. food aid assistance. The
U.S. food aid budget does not accommodate price increases, so
the ironic result is that when the need is worst, resources are the
smallest. Agriculture and humanitarian groups are already lob-
bying to increase the food aid budget to offset the price impact.
Increased prices also reinvigorate the argument that food aid
purchases should be made locally, rather than buying food in the
U.S. and shipping it overseas. Nothing is gained in that debate,
as the most obvious point is that more resources are needed to
assist the most vulnerable.
Developing Country Agriculture and Trade Policy
Impacts
As the food and fuel competition heats up, there will be an eco-
nomic and political push to improve yields through genetic al-
terations and a push to make such gains have a similar impact
on production by farmers in developing countries. This could
actually temper the debate over the production and trade of ge-
netically modified organisms (GMOs). Conservation or “set-
aside lands” in the U.S. and other nations may be put back into
production. Higher prices will also lower support payments to
farmers in developed countries—a step that developing nations
have pressed for in World Trade Organization negotiations.
Higher world prices should encourage net corn, wheat and soy-
bean importing nations to further reduce import barriers for
these products. Reduced import barriers would limit the nega-
 YOUR
THOUGHTS
U.S. Monthly Corn Price
Dollars Per Bushel
$4.50

$4.00

$3.50

$3.00

$2.50

Short term pain and

$2.00
disruption caused by
$1.50
high commodity prices
may lead to more
ov 5

N -06
D -05

D -06
ay 5

ay 6
Se -05

Se -06
O -05

Ja -05

O -06

Ja -06
Fe -05

Fe -06

Fe -07
Ju -05

Ju -06
A l-05
M 05
A -05

J u 05

A l-06
M 06
A -06

J u 06

M 07
7
sustainable agriculture
N -0
M r-0

M r-0

-0
b-

n-

b-

n-

b-
ct

ct
ov
ug

ug
p

ec

ec
n

n
ar

ar

ar
p

p
Ja

and food markets in

Source: CBOT
the developing world.

tive impact on local food and feed use by reducing costs to con-
sumers and intermediate users of grain. Exporting nations may
take the opposite approach: Argentina has already announced
limits on corn exports due to high prices and has implemented a
partial ban on meat product exports. India is looking at a similar
export ban.
Several variables will determine the magnitude of the impact.
First, oil prices would need to stay “high” to keep the focus on
alternative fuels. In addition, government subsidies, mandates
and import duties on foreign ethanol would need to be main-
tained, at least in the short term. Lastly, price incentives may
provide the impetus for crop production breakthroughs or ad-
ditional research in other alternative energy technologies that
could make biofuels from crops obsolete.
Role of the Humanitarian and Development
Community
Food prices have always fluctuated and relatively high prices
have nearly always done their job—signaling to farmers the need
to plant more. That expanded production has meant inevitable
gluts and corresponding price drops. For the developing world’s
farmers, this has brought a cycle of hope followed by despair,
fears of bankruptcy, disinvestment and instability. The new bio-
fuel demand could change these food price cycles, perhaps per-
manently.
Development agencies can do little to shield developing coun-
try consumers from the negative income effects of higher world
food and feed prices. Vulnerable groups in every society will feel
the impact of higher food prices and there will be a backlash
from some groups that argue that energy security for developed
countries is being gained at the expense decreased food security
in the developing world.
However, this era of higher prices may present opportunities for
farmers in developing countries to more easily obtain capital for
investment in improved productive capacity, seeds, fertilizer and
enhanced marketing. Now is the time for development groups
to implement safety net strategies to protect the most vulnerable
from high prices and provide the productive agriculture produc-
ers with capital for investment in a sustainable and productive
future.
For the food security community, the debate should not be
about food versus fuel. The reality that use of grains for fuel in
the developed world is a policy that garners strong support from
many sides must be acknowledged. Higher commodity prices are
likely to be with us for some time. Those in the international
development arena must accept higher food product prices, de-
termine how that will affect their humanitarian and development
programs and plan for these changes.
Paul B. Green is an agricultural economist and consultant based in
Washington, DC advising grain processing and exporting companies and
associations on international trade and food aid. Email comments and
questions to pbgreendc@aol.com.
Richard Fritz, based in Denver, Colorado, is an international trade
consultant specializing in the food industry and the former General Sales
Manager at the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Email comments and
questions to rfritz@globalagritrends.com.

APRIL 2007 19
Seeding New Philanthropy: Mobilizing Internal
Resources for Development in Ukraine
By Barbara Felitti, Ukraine Country Director, Institute for Sustainable Communities
T
apping into support from the corporate sector has be-
come increasingly important in countries where interna-
tional donors are decreasing their funding. In Ukraine,
as in other transitioning countries, the ability to mobilize
internal resources for development is essential to sustain-
ing its peaceful democratic transition and to fueling continued eco-
nomic growth.
In late 2005, corporate philanthropy began to gain momentum in
Ukraine, creating the promise of significant support for community
service organizations. One impetus was international investment
following the Orange Revolution in late 2004, as international
businesses brought an ethic of corporate social responsibility, in-
fluencing both policy and practice. In 2005, for example, Avon
Cosmetics of Ukraine held its first “One Day Walk for Life,” an
annual event to promote early cancer detection and support for
breast cancer survivors that raised funds for the purchase of por-
table mammography machines. Another important motivation for
this trend was the emergence of two funds established by Ukrai-
nian business leaders, the Fund for the Development of Ukraine,
founded in 2005, and the Victor Pinchuk Foundation, founded in
2006.
Other efforts to seed new philanthropy in Ukraine have not gar-
nered as much attention, but are worth examining for the lessons
they may yield for international development practitioners who
seek to encourage corporate giving in the countries in which they
work. Six such lessons are distilled below.
1. Find out what businesses are already doing. In Ukraine,
giving by business was common, just not visible.
When the Institute for Sustainable Communities (ISC) began to
look into fostering corporate participation in 2003, we soon dis-
covered that the perception that Ukrainian businesses were not giv-
ing was mistaken. Studies we sponsored found that small to large
businesses had been contributing to various causes, but were do-
ing so quietly. One reason is cultural, dating back to the tradition
of the “metsenats”—wealthy businessmen who, in the 1800s and
early 1900s, supported public projects and social needs as part of
their responsibility to society. This tradition is reflected in the com-
ments of businesspeople who reported giving to a variety of social
and cultural activities because “it is the right thing to do,” not for
recognition or marketing purposes.
2. Know the legal environment and how this affects giving.
The legal environment presented another obstacle to getting an
accurate read on corporate giving. Current legislation allows busi-
nesses to receive a tax credit for charitable giving of two to five
percent of a company’s profits. However, many businesses still
operate in the informal economy, preferring not to report profits.
This results in “shadow philanthropy”—giving that is not officially
reported.
3. Find strategic opportunities to build alliances among
businesses and spread the word.
Business alliances have proved invaluable in encouraging new cor-
porate giving. In 2004, ISC teamed up with the American Cham-
ber of Commerce in Ukraine to provide matching grants to chari-
ties, social service organizations and social enterprises throughout
Ukraine. In 2005, this partnership, which is also supported by
USAID, was formalized as the Ukrainian Fund for Corporate Citi-
20 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
zenship, enabling members of the business community in Ukraine
to donate to causes that are important to them and to demonstrate
the vital role that corporations can and should play in promoting
corporate social responsibility within the larger Ukrainian commu-
nity.
4. Build confidence and enthusiasm for corporate partner-
ships through support of causes that offer a natural fit.
The Ukrainian Fund for Corporate Citizenship created a ground-
breaking program to support the development of social entrepre-
neurship in Ukraine. Helping socially conscious entrepreneurs and
nonprofits to create a “social purpose business” was a great draw
for businesspeople who instinctively understood the power of help-
ing nonprofits expand their impact while increasing their financial
self-sufficiency. Pilot projects they have funded include employing
the homeless to renovate furniture, training the mentally disabled
to provide printing services, and the production of audio books for
the blind. These and other projects provide important therapeutic
support and job training as well as income for the participants and
the nonprofit organizations.
5. Encourage best practices by bringing existing corporate
giving initiatives into the context of the global corporate
social responsibility movement.
As corporate social responsibility gained ground in Ukraine, busi-
nesses began to formalize their programs, entering into partner-
ships with community service organizations and making their giv-
ing more transparent. The larger context encouraged Ukrainian
businesses to begin to embrace globally accepted best practices.
For example, ISC helped the Public Relations League of Ukraine
to develop and publish guidelines for social reporting in coopera-
tion with its members, which include national businesses such as
Kyivstar, a mobile phone company, as well as multinationals such
as the Coca-Cola Company. Another example is USAID’s Global
Development Alliance program, which, with ISC’s help, is bringing
major organizations and leading businesses together to promote
good practices and transparency in corporate philanthropy.
6. Test new models of corporate philanthropy such as work-
place giving.
In western Ukraine, ISC is working with the Princes-Benefactors
Ostrozky Foundation to promote workplace giving based on the
Community Shares USA model. This initiative makes it possible for
many nonprofits to reach out to a number of businesses through
a single workplace giving program. Since employees are able to
select the types of activities and organizations to support, this type
of program gives social justice and other nonprofits that do not
typically receive corporate funds the chance to gain support. Other
efforts are underway to help leading businesses such as Nadra Bank
and NIKO Trade House to develop or expand workplace giving.
We are also helping to introduce new models of mobilizing local
resources that could provide a consistent source of support for tar-
geted communities or issue areas.
Businesses, particularly Ukrainian businesses, have begun to take
over the role of international development programs in providing
financial support for meeting social needs. Indeed, recent surveys
report that charitable giving is on the rise in Ukraine. Improving
philanthropy’s transparency and effectiveness will help sustain this
trend.
APRIL 2007 21

Dr. Condoleezza Rice
became the 66th United
States Secretary of State on
January 26, 2005. Her arrival
heralded numerous changes
in U.S. foreign policy and
foreign assistance that impact
international humanitarian and
development organizations.
For the first time, Secretary
Rice directly addresses the
InterAction community’s
concerns about a myriad
of issues, including foreign
assistance reform.
Interviewed by
Nasserie Carew, InterAction
22 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
AN INTERVIEW WITH U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE
Condoleezza
QUESTION: You recently approved, with Ambassador Tobias, a change in the top-line
goal of U.S. foreign assistance by adding the words “reducing widespread poverty.” What
motivated you to make this change and what are the implications of this new wording for
the U.S. NGOs who partner with the U.S. government?
ANSWER: Even as we had originally defined it, the goal of transformational diplomacy, including the five objec-
tives that we identified, focused on the key actions needed to reduce poverty. A society cannot address poverty
without establishing peace and security, governing justly and democratically, investing in their people, fostering
economic growth and meeting humanitarian need. Our partners in the NGO community relayed to us that adding
the phrase “reduce widespread poverty” to the top-line goal would help communicate more clearly the linkage
between our poverty focus and the goals of transformational diplomacy.
USAID has now adopted the same objectives as the Millennium Challenge Account (MCA) by focusing on re-
ducing poverty, investing in people and encouraging economic freedom. However, unlike the MCA, the new
framework under which USAID will now operate does not prioritize the role of civil society in its process. Since
civil society participation (and representation) is an indicator of good governance, where do you see this key
indicator within the new foreign assistance framework?
First, we appreciate the continued efforts of so many NGOs as they help men and women around the world
build vibrant civil societies. We agree that it is extremely important to support an active civil society that can
advocate on behalf of citizens. To this end, we are categorizing the role of civil society under the “governing
justly and democratically” objective. The location of a particular kind of program area in the framework does
not reflect any priority order. Instead, the framework helps guide our dialogue to ensure that we are allocating
our resources to their most effective use.
You have spoken about how central women are to development and security overseas.
How is that priority reflected in U.S. foreign policy programs and budgets?
As represented through a range of United States government programs, women’s empowerment is key to our
development agenda. Programs that address the needs of women are included in each of the objectives of the
framework, with a focus on the areas of investing in people and humanitarian assistance. For example, many
of our health programs focus on maternal health and diseases that affect women and children. Our basic edu-
cation programs focus on enrolling more girls in school, and our humanitarian assistance programs address
issues of protection for women. We will continue to work for equal rights and equal opportunity for all women
around the world.
The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 defined both the framework and the way in which U.S. assistance should
be delivered. By changing the latter, the foreign assistance reform process seems to be modifying a key aspect
of the Act, without a legislative process. What implications, if any, will the reform process have on the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961?
The foreign assistance reforms undertaken to date, including the alignment of all State Department and USAID
foreign assistance planning and programming under the Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance, are designed to
maximize current statutory authorities so that we effectively and accountably meet our responsibilities manag-
ing all foreign assistance resources. As we just completed our first USAID/State joint budget process, we are
still actively assessing what further changes might be appropriate, both legislative and otherwise. Throughout
our review process, I look forward to continuing to speak with Congress about how we can work together to
improve America’s foreign assistance even further.
In doing so, we must work within the parameters of the Foreign Assistance Act to meet new challenges, al-
though we may seek changes in the future.
Photos: courtesy of the State Department. Taken from Secretary Rice’s trip to Darfur in July 2005.
 As the U.S. tries to shed its unpopular image abroad,
the State Department has partnered with PR firms and
American businesses to help turn around its negative
image. U.S.-based humanitarian and relief staff are in many
cases the only Americans in villages and towns throughout
the developing world. Are there any plans to work with our
sector as a key partner in rebuilding America’s image?
It is absolutely essential for our foreign policy to communicate the true
essence of the American spirit—the basic belief that all human beings
are born free by nature and equal in dignity. It is this principle that drives
the United States government to seek out dedicated partners in the NGO
community so we can work hand in hand on humanitarian projects. It
brings our embassy staff in India together, for example, with Habitat for
Humanity volunteers to hammer away to rebuild villages devastated by
floods. After the devastation of the tsunami in Indonesia and the earth-
quake in Pakistan, our government workers were on the scene with NGOs,
helping facilitate much of their work to ease suffering and save lives.
Our combined humanitarian efforts share the compassion of the American
people with the world, and we are also working to further tell our story.
For this, we look to the relief workers and nongovernmental workers who
demonstrate such talent and conviction on the ground. Their actions com-
municate the true American spirit, and we must use our public diplomacy
to amplify the good work we are doing. How we can do this better has
been an ongoing focus of ours at the State Department. In this day and
age, public diplomacy cannot be the work of the American government
alone. When I meet with business leaders, athletes and artists, I encour-
age them to share their experiences of America and their knowledge of
the American people with foreign audiences, because public diplomacy
must be a conversation, not a monologue. I also ask the same of the
many generous workers of nongovernmental organizations who are al-
ready showing the best of the American spirit in every corner of the world.
We need your help. We value your service and experience. And we look
forward to continued discussion of how we can continue our strong efforts
together.
InterAction members receive over $4 billion annually
from the American public for our poverty eradication
programs abroad. Our membership includes both secular
and faith-based organizations, and we are very committed
to ensuring that our millions of supporters, through us,
have a say in how and where their tax dollars are spent
with regard to foreign assistance. What do you see as
the challenges and benefits of working with our sector in
advancing U.S. foreign policy?
I am very grateful for the ideas, service, and, in many cases, oversight
that the NGO community has provided to our foreign assistance programs.
Most recently, the NGO community offered invaluable input on the foreign
assistance framework. As you know, one of our key principles in foreign
assistance reform is to move from a system of fragmented foreign assis-
tance programs to a coherent foreign assistance strategy, developed on a
country-by-country basis that focuses on country progress. We especially
valued the NGO community’s counsel on the indicators that we will use
to measure our progress, as well as on our process for ensuring that
our foreign assistance resources are integrated, coordinated and compre-
hensively targeted towards the goals of our transformational diplomacy.
continued on page 25
APRIL 2007 23
24 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
continued from page 23

And we must continue our coordination to reach our shared mission: to

assist vulnerable people and to support democratic, accountable states
that meet the needs of their people by reducing poverty and governing
responsibly.

Let me recognize that there is much good work occurring because of

nongovernmental and humanitarian organizations, and there is even more
work we would like to support. Unfortunately, as we all know, our funding
limitations force us to make difficult decisions about priorities in individual
countries. No one sector individually will put a country on the path to
progress. Such progress is only achievable if we look at all of these tools
together, and, based on challenges and opportunities on the ground, ad-
dress them coherently as part of an integrated country strategy. These de-
cisions may not always line up with the diverse advice and sector-specific
expertise of each NGO, but we would like to underscore how important it
is for us to hear your different perspectives. Through our continued coop-
eration and constructive engagement with the NGO community, together
we will work toward a more peaceful, free and prosperous world.

InterAction members provide services to displaced

Iraqis—both to those inside the country and to those who
have left Iraq for refuge in Jordan, Syria and other countries
in the Middle East. We welcome the announcement by
the State Department that the U.S. will provide additional
assistance to the United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees (UNHCR) in order to provide adequate services
to Iraqi refugees, but could you tell us more about the
U.S. commitment to addressing the needs of those Iraqis
who are displaced within their country (IDPs), particularly
as these IDPs outnumber those who have sought refuge
outside of the country?
Photo: courtesy of the State Department
The United States remains committed to providing humanitarian assis-
tance to vulnerable populations in Iraq and in neighboring countries. International aid workers are facing increasingly
To address the needs of conflict victims, internally displaced people (IDPs) dangerous working environments worldwide. What role (if
in Iraq and Iraqi refugees, we are expanding humanitarian assistance, es- any) should the U.S. play in holding those who carry out
pecially in the areas of health, education, shelter, sustainable livelihoods attacks on aid workers responsible?
and protection. The President’s request for Supplemental Fiscal Year International aid workers provide vital services in humanitarian crisis and
2007 funding includes $60 million for humanitarian assistance to Iraqis, conflict situations around the world, and the international community must
and more than $45 million of this funding will be used in Iraq to help work together to ensure a safe environment for them. The United States
people driven and displaced from their homes. We have also notified Con- will continue to work closely with international agencies, other govern-
gress that we are reprogramming an additional $12.8 million from the Iraq ments and NGOs in specific situations to promote safety and security for
Reconstruction and Rehabilitation Fund to USAID’s Bureau of Democracy, humanitarian workers.
Conflict Mitigation and Humanitarian Assistance.
For example, the United States actively supports the International Com-
The United States government response to the significant increase in the mittee of the Red Cross in its work to train and raise awareness among
number of Iraqis displaced by sectarian violence includes: all combatants about the Geneva Conventions and protection of humani-
Increased funding for humanitarian assistance to IDPs and other vul- tarian workers. In the UN Security Council, the United States voted for
nerable Iraqis in Iraq; resolutions 1502 (2003) and 1738 (2006), both of which emphasize the
importance of protecting international humanitarian workers. The United
Funding to protect and find durable solutions for vulnerable non-Iraqi
States continues to support the Convention on the Safety of United Na-
refugees in Iraq;
tions and Associated Personnel. We have been a strong supporter of ad-
Increased funding for protection and assistance programs in neigh- ditional resolutions in the UN General Assembly regarding the safety of
boring countries; and humanitarian workers.
Expansion of UNHCR third-country resettlement. American support for the principles of safety and security for all humanitar-
ian personnel keeps with the high level of humanitarian assistance we pro-
All of these measures mitigate the displacement caused by sectarian vio-
vide worldwide. We fully recognize the irreplaceable and brave role aid work-
lence and contribute directly to stabilizing displaced Iraqi populations and
ers play, and we will continue to do our part to ensure their protection.
to promoting long-term stability in Iraq and the region.

APRIL 2007 25
 THE  DECLARATION
Deepening Aid Effectiveness Through
the Paris Declaration Framework
By Brian Tomlison, Canadian Council for International Cooperation (CCIC)
T
he Paris Declaration is an
historic agreement be-
tween donors and partner
governments on principles
and goals for strengthening
the effectiveness of aid. The Declara-
tion identifies reform objectives and
targets that reflect the need to re-
spect and promote local ownership,
to align with developing country-
driven priorities, to make use of local
systems, to harmonize donor efforts
and to focus on results for which
there is mutual accountability.
To date, the Paris agenda has focused
exclusively on strengthening the ef-
fectiveness of aid through reforming
the mechanisms of donor/govern-
ment relationships. Civil society or-
ganizations (CSOs) have welcomed
these important reform initiatives,
and have been closely monitoring
progress, while seeking further re-
forms in related policy areas. These
have included the Reality of Aid
global network, which brings togeth-
er more than 40 major CSOs, on a
North/South basis, to advocate aid
reforms that effectively focus upon
and tackle poverty and inequality for
more than 15 years. Concord is a
coalition of country CSO platforms
and coalitions in the EU, which have
been closely monitoring progress on
aid commitments. The Association
of Women’s Rights in Development
(AWID) is a membership organi-
zation with over 6,000 individual
members and 200 institutional mem-
bers from all regions that have been
closely monitoring financing trends
for gender equality and women’s
rights.
The Paris Declaration implies that
its principles and goals are applicable
to all development actors, including
CSOs. Indeed, international CSOs
contributed $11.3 billion in 2004
26 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
ABOUT THE PARIS DECLARATION
By Kimberly Darter, InterAction
The overarching goal of the Paris Declaration, endorsed just over two years ago, on
March 2, 2005, is the harmonization and alignment of aid delivery. With over 100 signa-
tories that include government ministers, heads of agencies and other senior officials,
the Paris Declaration has become an established framework for aid delivery and devel-
opment programs, and is the basis on which many countries, and increasingly donors,
are moving forward with their aid delivery and development programs. Including both aid
recipient countries and donors in its stated commitments, the Paris Declaration seeks to
increase the efficiency, and thereby the effectiveness, of aid.
The core of the Paris Declaration is made up of five Partnership Commitments that
pertain to both donors and partner country signatories. These Commitments are in
the areas of: Ownership, Alignment, Harmonization, Managing for Results and Mutual
Accountability. The foundation for action in each of these five areas is based on the
development strategies, capacities and needs of the partner countries. The aim, in this
approach, is to increase the impact of current and future development funding. To do
this, the Paris Declaration lays out a framework that seeks to streamline the processes
used by donors and partner countries. This framework focuses on reducing duplication
and increasing the complementarity of funding, programs and monitoring. One example
of such a commitment, drawn from the Partnership Commitment on Alignment, com-
mits donor and partner country signatories to “work together to establish mutually
agreed frameworks that provide reliable assessments of performance, transparency
and accountability of country systems.” The Paris Declaration also lays out Indicators of
Progress to be used in monitoring the progress and effectiveness of this framework.
The Paris Declaration was signed at the Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development’s (OECD) 2005 High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Paris. The
Declaration was the culmination of core principles elaborated at a 2003 roundtable in
Marrakech and a subsequent Declaration adopted at the 2004 High-Level Forum on
Harmonization in Rome. The implementation of the Paris Declaration falls under the
responsibility of the OECD’s Development Assistance Committee (DAC). The next High
Level Forum (HLF3) is scheduled for September 2008 in Accra, Ghana. It is intended
to assess progress made to date in achieving the goals and commitments of the Paris
Declaration. HLF3 will also explore ways in which civil society organizations can be lever-
aged to advance implementation of the Aid Effectiveness agenda.
InterAction participated in a series of consultations with the DAC’s Working Party on Aid
Effectiveness in March 2007 in Paris, and is working with a number of other CSOs under
the leadership of CCIC, EURODAD and Reality of Aid to “deepen the Paris Declaration”.
The CSO agenda, as discussed and adopted in Paris in March, includes opening up the
Paris process for greater transparency and input from CSOs; influencing the outcome of
HLF3 in Ghana; and broader improvements to the aid system to address accountability,
and structural and conditionality issues.
CSOs argue that the only true measure of
aid effectiveness, for all development actors,
is its contribution to the sustained reduction
of poverty and inequality. In this regard,
civil society organizations have decades of
diverse on-the-ground experience, expanding
democratic political space in solidarity with
citizen’s voices challenging the adverse
conditions and policies that constrain their
development.
to international cooperation initiatives, equal to more than 20%
of bilateral aid in that year. Increasingly, donors, among them
CIDA, the Nordic development agencies, and DFID, have been
asking how non-state actors, and particularly civil society organi-
zations, can contribute to “the aid effectiveness agenda.”
CSOs are major actors in development in their own right, whose
roles are determined by country social and political contexts in
which they work and by international solidarity with efforts of
poor and marginalized populations, women and men, to claim
their rights, and not by the requirements of the international
aid regime. Consequently, CSO partnerships have an inherent
place in democratic governance, including but not limited to is-
sues of aid governance and effectiveness. CSO partnerships also
contribute significantly to the delivery of aid directly to poor
and marginalized populations. CSO partnerships are therefore
critical to the overall aid effectiveness framework and need to be
explored further.
CSOs argue that the only true measure of aid effectiveness, for
all development actors, is its contribution to the sustained re-
duction of poverty and inequality. In this regard, civil society
organizations have decades of diverse on-the-ground experience,
expanding democratic political space in solidarity with citizen’s
voices challenging the adverse conditions and policies that con-
strain their development. They have responded directly to the
capacity and material needs of poor and marginalized peoples,
sometimes augmenting the reach of government / donor sup-
ported services to beneficiary populations. CSOs create bridges
between often very local civic actions and national or interna-
tional initiatives for change, in which the rights of poor and mar-
ginalized people are given priority and promoted.
The roles assumed by CSOs clearly are not a substitute for the
obligations of governments to meet their responsibilities to all
their citizens. As such, governments must be supported in their
development efforts. CSOs are the expression of an active dem-
ocratic citizenship, without which little progress can be made
in relationships between governance and development. An ac-
tive civil society is an essential component of democratic culture,
which requires respect and encouragement of pluralities of views,
human rights, gender equality and policy and development al-
ternatives.
In the context of international aid partnerships, CSOs make ef-
fective contributions to national and local development efforts,
in the areas of education, health or productive enterprises, of-
ten in partnerships with communities, donors and local govern-
ments. But CSOs are not mere subsidiary instruments for carry-
FOOD FOR THOUGHT
The following questions might inform the Advisory
Group’s consideration of the principles and conditions
that shape civil society organizations’ aid partner-
ships that effectively contribute to reducing poverty
and inequality:
a Can the principle of “country local ownership,” so central to the
effectiveness objectives of the Paris Declaration, be reframed
as “democratic ownership” of development priorities and
policies, in which democratic participation of citizens, including
both men and women, and the transparency and accountability
of governments and donors are given priority? How could
current practices that shape donors and partner government
aid relationships be redefined to accommodate “democratic
ownership?”
a What are the guiding principles that should shape international
civil society aid partnerships so that they promote mutual
learning and benefit, respect and accompaniment of citizens’
initiatives in developing countries to further their own
development options?
a How do current donor policies and practices influence, positively
and negatively, the potential quality of CSO international aid
partnerships and thereby their effectiveness as development
actors?
a How might donors, partner governments and civil society
organizations find common ground on the considerations,
principles and goals that shape civil society’s contributions to
effective aid in time for the September 2008 High Level Forum?
ing out government national development plans; they are central
to “democratic ownership” of differing development priorities in
their country. CSOs create opportunities for citizens to engage,
and sometimes challenge, and hold governments accountable to
these plans. Indeed, the approach of donors, governments and
CSOs to development cooperation, in a given context, may also
sometimes be in tension. Divergent CSO experiences and voices
are both the sources of development innovation and active citi-
zenship in shaping development plans at all levels of society.
Aid effectiveness policies relating to roles for civil society in dem-
ocratic development for the reduction of poverty and inequal-
ity must start from an understanding of the broader principles
and operational needs that guide CSOs’ effectiveness inherent in
their diverse roles. What are the considerations that enable CSOs
to respond effectively to priorities set by beneficiary populations
and to contribute to democratic accountability of government
to their citizens? What is the role of aid within these consider-
ations? It cannot simply be assumed that the Paris Declaration’s
principles and goals that inform a donor/government aid ef-
fectiveness agenda are the same as those that strengthen CSO
effectiveness. The Advisory Group established by the Working
Party on Aid Effectiveness, chaired by Canada, will propose ways
to inform the High Level Forum in Ghana in 2008 on ways to
include broader discussion of CSO concerns regarding aid ef-
fectiveness.
APRIL 2007 27
Greater Scrutiny of NGOs Demands
Leaders’ Focus on HQ Effectiveness
By Richard E. Stearns, President, World Vision U.S.
“We’re good people doing good things and that’s good enough.”
I
have encountered this attitude a few times in my nine years as
president of the U.S. office of World Vision as a response to
scrutiny of charities. My response to this misguided philoso-
phy is, quite simply, “That’s not good enough.”
One of the most significant trends facing NGOs and non-profit
organizations generally is the increasing scrutiny by rating ser-
vices, most notably, the Better Business Bureau Wise Giving
Alliance and Charity Navigator. In addition, there has been a
heightened level of analysis by the news media, especially after
the September 11 terrorist attacks, as well as the Asia tsunami
in 2004 and Hurricane Katrina in 2005. While the Red Cross
and FEMA took the brunt of criticism, all charities suffered from
the public perception that millions of dollars in private dona-
tions and government funding were squandered after all three
tragedies.
While some criticism is focused on field effectiveness, there is a
growing demand for financial accountability and fundraising ef-
ficiency and transparency.
Overhead: Arbitrary Concept with Moral Implications
First, let’s look at overhead – a very arbitrary concept with moral
and ethical implications.
Suppose a hurricane devastates several countries in Latin America
and the staff in those countries desperately need a lot of money
quickly to respond to the needs of survivors. World Vision’s se-
nior marketing staff and I might have a hastily scheduled con-
ference call with our board. The marketing team would explain
that, over the next few days, there will be substantial media cov-
erage of the disaster, thereby heightening public awareness, and
World Vision likely could raise $2 million in cash donations if we
spend $1 million on advertising. Board members – sensing an ur-
gent need to make a decision – probably would give unanimous
and emphatic approval to the idea.
Wait a minute: Hasn’t the board just authorized an overhead
level of 50 percent?
As a result, World Vision is faced with a moral dilemma: If we
can raise $2 million to help those hurricane victims, shouldn’t we
do it? But by doing so, our organizational overhead rate of 13
percent would spike upward. How do you reconcile that?
This question leads to another: Who determined that 10-15 per-
cent overhead is reasonable? Some non-profits perform excellent
work for worthy causes, but their overhead rates exceed 20 or
even 30 percent. Why should they receive a poor rating because
of an arbitrarily set criterion for their administrative costs?
28 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
Suppose there is a small non-profit devoted to addressing prob-
lems associated with leprosy in the developing world. Fighting
leprosy is an honorable – though narrowly focused – cause. It
is a cause to which I myself might consider donating, since I
have personally witnessed individuals suffering from leprosy. But
it also is a cause for which it probably is difficult to raise funds.
How many Americans have personally met people afflicted with
leprosy and who might be willing to donate? Isn’t it much easier
to solicit donations for starving children or the environment or
causes associated with saving animals?
That leprosy organization may have an overhead rate of 25 per-
cent or more. Should that rate diminish its image among the
public, or adversely affect its rating by a charity watchdog group?
Of course not. But, regrettably, it does.
Moreover, overhead rates are deceptive. How and where chari-
ties raise funds are significant factors in determining overhead
rates.
Organizations relying almost exclusively on government grants
typically have low overhead rates because it costs much less to
raise funding through grants than to raise private cash. In con-
trast, there are many well-run humanitarian organizations that
rely exclusively on private cash donations. Because of the source
of their income and high marketing costs, these organizations
typically have much higher overhead rates. World Vision has a
diversified portfolio of funding – government grants, donated
products (“gifts-in-kind”) and private cash. The overall overhead
rate is 13 percent, because the higher costs of raising private cash
are offset by much lower costs of obtaining grants and donated
products.
The Answer to the Enigma
The question watchdog agencies should be asking is: How much
impact does an NGO have per dollar raised? But because this is
such a complex measurement, and different from one non-profit
to another, watchdogs have settled on overhead as a percent of
revenue as the key metric. And while it cannot be said that an
organization with a 10 percent overhead is more effective than
one with 20 percent, we all have a responsibility to be effective
stewards of donor resources.
I spent much of my first year at World Vision, U.S. examining
our operations, systems and functions: mass marketing and ma-
jor donor development, corporate relations, finance, information
technology (IT) systems, communications and other functions.
I have had the pleasure of meeting leaders of many other NGOs
and, regardless of our backgrounds, conversations usually lead to
 STAY UP-TO-DATE ON FORUM 2007! VISIT WWW.INTERACTION.ORG

FORUM
More than 600 leaders from the public, private and

2007
NGO sectors will come together April 18-20, 2007 in
Washington, DC to network, build skills, and share ideas
on best practices and work in the field. Register today!

SETTING A BOLD AGENDA FOR RELIEF AND DEVELOPMENT

Commission on the Advancement of Women Annual Breakfast Plenary Speakers Exhibitor Hall
Networking Reception Awards Advocacy Day Congressional Reception
Affinity Groups Networking Opportunities Workshops And more...

KEYNOTE SPEAKERS:
George Soros, Open Society Institute Condoleezza Rice, U.S. Secretary of State
WORKSHOP TOPICS INCLUDE:
Establishing Common Global Standards for NGO Professional Conduct
NGO Security Threats and Responses Civil Society Engagement: From Rhetoric to Reality
Investigating Allegations of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse
Assessing NGO Program Effectiveness: What Does it Take and How Do We Get There as a Sector?
Poverty Reduction and Development Assistance: What is Necessary to Achieve the First MDG?
Transitional Conflict and Peace Programming
Measuring the Impact of Relief and Development Communications
Using Evidence to Influence Policy: Why? What? How?
Transforming Transformational Diplomacy

anecdotes about how our organizations can be made more effec-
tive and efficient. I have yet to encounter an agency perfectly run.
The solution is not perfection; it is minimizing inefficiencies.
It is essential to apply rigorous business standards to an NGO
or any non-profit with the objective of driving down costs, cut-
ting wasteful spending and eliminating unnecessary or duplica-
tive systems.
For example, imagine your organization has four fundraising
programs, with an average fundraising cost of 10 percent. Upon
first review, that is pretty good. But, after probing a bit more,
you learn that three of the four have a five percent overhead rate
and the other has a 25 percent overhead rate. It is easy to see that
fourth fundraising program needs to be restructured, or phased
out, while the other three should be expanded.
As your rigorous review process continues, begin by clarifying
the mission statement of your organization. What really is its
purpose? Keep in mind that running the headquarters of an
NGO is quite different than administering programs in the field.
Refine goals and objectives; then identify ways to meet those
goals and objectives through key performance indicators (KPIs).
Those KPIs will lead you to departmental scorecards and, “drill-
ing down” further, to individual scorecards that eventually roll
up to your own scorecard as the senior executive.
Now the hard part: Be unrelenting in holding people account-
able.
At World Vision, our experience in rigorously applying business
principles has led to lowering overhead as a percentage of rev-
enue by about one-third in seven years. And we expect to lower
it further. The payoff is a dramatic increase in our “yield to the
field,” funding for World Vision’s work in developing countries.
Now, let me argue another side of re-engineering NGO adminis-
tration. There often are decisions to be taken that, at first glance,
seem to contradict efficiency measures. For example, paying
competitive salaries may seem to negate the concept of conserv-
ing resources. But in hiring the best people in key roles—people
who may be committed to your organization’s cause, but who
also need a certain minimum income—one frequently gets better
performance and a stronger “ratio” of salary to results.
Also, when I joined World Vision, our four or five “legacy” com-
puter systems created in the 1970’s were outdated, outmoded
and unable to interface with each other. After months of analysis
and debate, we “bit the bullet” and invested significant dollars
and staff time in a completely new system. The investment has
enabled the organization to more effectively track the giving of
our one million-plus U.S. donors and to identify trends to better
serve them. It also has fueled growth and improved efficiency.
We in the NGO sector need to focus on both sides of the ef-
ficiency-effectiveness equation, and recognize we live in a world
of increasing financial scrutiny. It is our sacred responsibility to
demonstrate effective stewardship to our donors and, equally im-
portant, to those we serve.
Richard E. Stearns is President of World Vision U.S., which he joined in
1998 after 23 years in the corporate sector.

APRIL 2007 29
 We asked our readers to tell us about about important
trends impacting relief and development.

Here’s what they had to say...

TREND
From the Chesapeake Bay to Super Chicken: Using Media for Social Change
By Michelle Galley, Senior Writer, Academy for Educational Development
The array of new tools seems endless. The pace is frenetic. The changing landscape of media can be both chal-
lenging and inspiring. Organizations working in development must be nimble and creative enough to take
advantage of new media outlets, and use traditional media in more creative and lasting ways.
Public-service announcements and paid advertisements have been the traditional staples of social change com-
munications. With the growing competition for viewer’s attention, and high production costs, this type of
media is facing stiff competition and must be edgy and creative to be effective.
When AED took on a project for the Chesapeake Bay Program and the state of Virginia to help protect the
bay, the team knew they had to avoid the “preachy” trap into which many environmental campaigns fall.
The final message: “Save the Crabs, Then Eat ‘Em.”
To help spread the message, AED teamed with some atypical supporters. Lawn care companies put bumper
stickers on their trucks and restaurant chefs wore T-shirts bearing the slogan. The result was that local news
outlets picked up the story because of the campaign’s witty message and unique partnerships. That “earned
media” amplified the reach of the paid campaign.

Super Chicken: People Need to Trust the Message

On the other side of the world, in Cambodia and Laos, AED is employing an unlikely spokesperson to fight
Avian Influenza. His name is Super Chicken. Surveys of backyard farmers and their communities showed
both a need and a desire for information on specific steps that could prevent outbreaks of bird flu. That’s
where the broad-breasted, red-caped rooster is stepping in. Through televised PSAs, posters, appearances and
booklets, Super Chicken provides credible information on the best ways to stop the spread of the bird flu
virus. An informal assessment conducted several months after Super Chicken was unveiled showed that the
character had a high level of recognition and that the public trusted his messages.

Great Journalism Means Big Change

In Kosovo, AED is using news programming, as opposed to advertising, to attempt to build awareness and
change attitudes. As a result of war and longstanding ethnic tensions, Kosovo Albanians and Serbs do not
share their opinions with each other very easily. There are separate news outlets and television stations for
Kosovo Albanians and Serbs. AED saw the media—in the form of television journalism—as a good place
to start a conversation between the two groups. In early 2006, teams of one cameraman and one journalist
from three Kosovo Albanian and three Serb television stations met with AED to map out how they wanted
to begin the dialogue.
The process was delicate, and none of the journalists were comfortable reporting on political issues. Instead,
they decided to produce a documentary film series that focused on what average people thought about
Kosovo’s future.
After interviewing and filming on their own, the group met again to produce their films together. The end
product was three 30-minute films from three different parts of Kosovo, each with both an ethnic Albanian
and Serbian perspective. The series, Looking to the Future, was screened first in local communities and then
nationally.
The camaraderie that built through this exercise in “peace media” was so strong that the teams continue to
work together. Now they are taking on subjects such as unemployment, internally displaced people and secu-
rity, and hoping to create more “safe spaces” for discussion.

Going Wireless
In neighboring Macedonia, once the least-developed country of all the former Yugoslav republics, AED
helped establish a relatively new type of media—wireless, broadband Internet access. By connecting every
one of the country’s 430 primary and secondary schools to a wireless network, AED built the backbone of a
wireless network that eventually expanded to include the whole country. Now Macedonia is the world’s first
“wireless nation” of its size or larger and 95 percent of its population has wireless Internet access. The Avian
Flu, Kosovo peace media and Macedonia projects were all funded by USAID.

30 MONDAY DEVELOPMENTS
Giving a Voice to Women at Risk
By Mike Wessells, Senior Child Protection Advisor, Christian
Children’s Fund
A significant long-term challenge in addressing gender-
based violence (GBV) is the lack of accurate information
about the prevalence of GBV, particularly in emergency set-
tings. Having a strong commitment to program quality and
to the prevention and mitigation of GBV, CCF-Uganda is
partnering with Columbia University’s Program on Forced
Migration and Health on the rigorous measurement of the
prevalence of gender-based violence in the camps for inter-
nally displaced people in Lira District of Northern Uganda.
The research, which is funded by a grant from USAID’s
Displaced Children and Orphans Fund (DCOF), combines
epidemiological, quantitative methods and qualitative data
that give voice to women at risk.
Sustainable Tourism as a Tool for Poverty
Alleviation
By Lelei LeLaulu, President, Counterpart International
Tourism is the largest voluntary transfer of wealth from rich
countries to poor countries. In 2005, international tourism
generated more than $2 billion per day, making it one of
the largest categories of international trade. Many nations,
from the islands of the Caribbean and South Pacific to Kyr-
gyzstan and Zimbabwe, have discovered the possibility of
harnessing tourism to reduce poverty.
Tourism is the only major industry where the consumer
goes to the producer, allowing destination communities
more control over their resources. Managing tourism pro-
vides a unique opportunity to meet tourist demands while
working toward the concept of ‘sustainable tourism,’ which
allows the benefits to be shared between home nations and
destinations, rural and urban populations, rich and poor for
years to come.
Governments, businesses, civil society organizations, local
communities and development organizations are all stake-
holders in designing, implementing and managing sustain-
able tourism strategies through cross-sectoral collabora-
tion. Tourism boosts investments in infrastructure and links
businesses around the globe, which creates wealth and im-
proves living conditions for the disadvantaged. Tourism is
a highly labor-intensive sector which increases employment
for locals and creates opportunities for small businesses that
provide products and services to the tourism market. In-
creasingly, travelers are demanding more adventurous trips,
more unique locations and higher standards – but they are
also becoming more discriminating about how their money
is being used, spending more on ‘green’ tours and buying
hand-made crafts for which profits are reinvested in the lo-
cal economy. When managed responsibly, such demands
can actually revitalize local culture and strengthen commu-
nities.
Though the thoughts of luxurious cruises, majestic resorts
and picturesque landscapes may be glamorous, the true
beauty of tourism lies in the opportunities of alleviating
poverty.
Integrated Food & Nutrition Security and
HIV/AIDS Programming
By Janine Schooley, Project Concern International
Malnutrition impedes survival in individuals with HIV and
is associated with increased risk of HIV-related infections,
complications and early death. Failure to address food and
nutrition security (FNS) risks the failure of both treatment
and prevention efforts, and the indefensible loss of millions
of lives.
Fortunately, recent policy milestones indicate a growing
awareness of the critical relationship between FNS and
HIV/AIDS. Over 200 front line practitioners from 20
countries shared experiences at the Africa Forum 2006
through hands-on approaches such as skills building ses-
sions and site visits.
Building this experience, Project Concern International
(PCI) and partners are developing an initiative to promote
integrated programs at the regional level, while fostering
partnerships to advocate for integrated HIV/AIDS and
FNS programming. Over the next five years, PCI and part-
ners will foster the scale-up of effective integrated HIV/
AIDS and FNS responses that can turn the tide on HIV/
AIDS treatment in Africa.
Fleet Management: The Billion Dollar
Challenge
By Dante A. Disparte, General Manager, Marketing &
Solutions Development, KJAER GROUP A/S
Vehicles are mission-critical to humanitarian operations
globally. Millions of people receive assistance from the
goods, people and services humanitarian fleets carry and yet
how these assets are managed leaves millions more in terms
of costs, people and safety unaddressed. Professionalizing
fleet management in the humanitarian sector can only take
place in earnest once senior management gives vehicle fleets
the attention, resources and priority they deserve. Looked
at another way, fleets represent the second largest risk and
operating costs after staff expenses, so the gains of proper
management are equal in size.
Water Reform
By David Alpher, Winrock International
Disputes over water allocations have grown in Central Asia
where agricultural production is falling, investment in ir-
rigation is limited, and local water management is weak
or nonexistent. Winrock International integrated sound
management practices with local culture and priorities to
help establish water user associations in the USAID-funded
Central Asia Water Users Association Support Program. Al-
though water use—not conflict resolution—is its focus, wa-
ter-related conflict has declined in project areas. Extensive
training, technical assistance and water reform legislation
are helping ensure continued progress.
More information online at at www.interaction.org
APRIL 2007 31