Submitted by Nina Carduner

Karen D. Turner, director at the Office of Development Partners for USAID, discussed how USAID pioneered the concept of public private partnerships in 2001. Yet, moving to partner with businesses has presented a challenge for USAID because often, the drivers for development are very different for private entities and there are many stakeholders to engage from social enterprises and diasporas to local and regional firms. USAID is here to facilitate partnerships. According to Turner, USAID has been successful in building public/private partnerships through internal education about how to meet the needs of the private sector and communicating with private sector about the internal workings of USAID. Both public and private enterprises need to understand the complexity of these partnerships and share with one another the best practices for making them transformational.

Rosemary Barker Aragon of Rotary International underscored the importance of understanding each partner’s area of expertise. For example, Rotary International is organized like a pyramid with the money at the top and many individuals on the ground at the local level in 200 countries. When entities approach Rotarians for partnership, they know they will excel at navigating effectiveness on the local level.

Christopher Elias of PATH discussed the ways in which PATH has successfully partnered with pharmaceutical companies around a common purpose. Uniting around a common purpose can add complexity to a partnership when the purpose relates to the core of a business’ product or service, yet this complexity also raises the level of engagement, which creates more leverage in the shared mission. Elias also credited “the rising awareness of global markets and systems for sustainable solutions” for the increasing the success rate of public/private partnerships. When public entities can recognize market changes, they can innovate and reinvent solutions that have prior success but are tailored to the differences between countries and regions.

NetHope’s Frank Schott gave praise to the expertise that private partnerships have have helped the non-profit achieve its mission to help facilitate the appropriate use of information and communication technologies in remote areas and during relief efforts. NetHope grew out of the resource pooling of seven non-profits. Pooling their resources enabled NetHope to attract private partnerships. He explained that, “while we use and appreciate [Microsoft and Cisco] products, the biggest contribution from them has been their expertise. Our supporters aren’t just donors, they are providing us with the technology, but more importantly, the expertise we need to leverage our programs and drive our mission.”

Submitted by Nina Carduner

Rogers Weed gave the closing keynote for the first day of the Global Washington Conference. As the director of the Washington State Department of Commerce, he summarized the current status of Washington’s economy as well as the increasing importance of global development for growing and improving the state of jobs in Washington.

After losing 3 million jobs in a period of 6-9 months, Washington has been hard hit by the recession. While the state is now gaining in employment, it is doing so very slowly. In Washington, the highest unemployment rates exist in the NE and SW counties of the state. The governor has been forced to make deep budget cuts and the state budget is in crisis. A big chunk of this budget is protected by the state constitution, which is focused on K-12 education and this limits flexibility. Unfortunately, the latest election results have squashed efforts to create opportunities for new revenues with sale taxes.

Weed did offer some good news for the state. Global trends including prevalence of software, the clean energy transition, and also the increasing influence of Asia are set to disproportionately benefit Washington. Thanks to the abundance of international non-profits and the general growth of development organizations in the state of Washington, Weed explained the development sector will enable Washington to achieve its goals of increasing international exports, study abroad programs, and building a broader international agenda. Meeting these goals, Weed stressed, will be essential for improving and growing jobs for the state and improving our local economy.

Submitted by Melissa Bird-Vogel Wilkes

Highlighting the emerging role of youth in international development, this panel offered insight into best practices, challenges and the future impact of youth involvement in finding solutions to global social and economic issues. Four young leaders who hold senior level or founder positions at Washington-based organizations lead the conversation.

Key takeaways from the conversation were:
– These young people are doing great things and bring a lot of new enthusiasm to the development community. The underlying voracity for social connection made possible through technology provides a unique opportunity to encourage others to contribute and helps build momentum behind projects and share new ideas. Additionally, the ability to for those young philanthropists to engage directly with potential beneficiaries through technology, increases awareness and fosters passion for making a difference.
– Lack of experience can be a challenge. As a result there is a need to find ways to integrate young people’s enthusiasm with institutional knowledge, so that new ideas thrive by leveraging best practices. For example, Jessica Markowitz, founder of Richard’s Rwanda, a local NGO has a board of older development experts who provide historical perspective.

Notable quotes from the conversation:
“We’re making things an EXPERIENCE and bringing it to the individual vs. making the individual come to us.”

“Our demographic grew up on Facebook, growing up on Twitter now, and utilizing mobile applications. It’s happening in general in the sector, but it’s really on the forefront of our organizations.”

“Crowd-sourcing is a huge advantage in solving problems- a tool that can help someone find the best hotdog in San Francisco can also be used to find the best loan in Ghana.”

Panelists:
Jessica Markowitz, Founder, IMPUWE/Richard’s Rwanda
Cole Hoover, Outreach Coordinator, Lumana Credit
Nadia Khawaja, Co-Founder & COO, Jolkona Foundation
Nandie Oothuizen, Founder & Executive Director, Hand and Heart Now
Moderater: Britt Yamamoto, Executive Director, iLEAP

Submitted by Sarah Mosely

Moderator Dr. Lisa Graumlich of the University of Washington’s College of the Environment led discussion with these well-informed panelists, practitioners affiliated with notable organizations – such as Seattle University, the Woodland Park Zoo, The Nature Conservancy, Water for Humans and Water 1st International – doing work to improve quality of and access to water, sanitation and conservation programs in communities throughout the developing world. Panelists discussed achieving sustainable and scalable results from their programs stems from a common set of activities: strong local partnerships; working with governments at the local level; gaining trust within the communities; and strengthening systems for monitoring, evaluation and communication, which is at the core of the work discussed. The panelists largely agreed that major challenges they all face include: a difficult economic environment; lack of sustained funding; chaos caused by redundant organizations working in the same areas; and first-world behaviors, namely consumerism. Overall, the panelists detailed their thoughtful approaches to program planning and implementation, and stressed that strong partnerships with local actors and government have been vital to success.

Panelists:
Kari Vigerstol, Hydrologist, Freshwater Program, The Nature Conservancy
Rick McKenney. Exec. Director, Water for Humans
Marla Smith-Nilson, Founder & Executive Director, Water 1st International
Lisa Dabek, Senior Conservation Scientist, Director of the Papua New Guinea Tree Kangaroo Conservation Program, The Woodland Park Zoo
Phillip Thompson, Engineers Without Borders and Associate Professor and Chair, Environmental and Civil Engineering, Seattle University
Moderator: Lisa J. Graumlich, Dean and Virginia Bloedel Professor, College of the Environment, The University of Washington

Submitted by By Yvette Gerrans

Just after lunch, and 100+ women and a minority of men drift in with expectation. We’re wanting to talk about investing in women and girls—why it’s needed, why it works, and how to do it well. Sessions like this have always felt like a long-distance meeting of “the sisterhood” to me, we women talking about women.

Geeta Rao Gupta (Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation) brings strength, warmth, humor and credibility in her opening comments. She talks about how women’s status depends on capabilities (health, education, nutrition), opportunities (economic, political), and concerns about safety (whether they’re actually beaten, or fear that they might be). “A lot of women live in fear of being physically beaten, and a lot of them make decisions about what they can and cannot do, and where they can and cannot go, based on that fear.” A few other stats that astound me but also project hope:
– Women do 66% of the world’s labor in return for less than 5% of its income.
– For every one year increase in education of women of reproductive age, child mortality has decreased by 9.5%. And, providing girls one extra year of education beyond the average boosts their eventual wages by 10-20%.
– A child’s probability of survival is increased 20% when household income is controlled by the mother rather than the father.
By now the room is full to overflowing, more chairs have been brought in, and we’re well on our way to a good discussion.

And a few highlights from the long and engaged conversation:
– Education for girls yes—but that’s not enough, and there’s a lot of poor education out there. What else is needed? Yes, you have to not only built the structure, but strengthen other elements as well. However, research in Northern Nigeria showed that girls who went to school—even if quality of schooling was bad, and they’d been there only two years, participated more in decision-making in the household than those who’d never been out of the home. In fact, not just school—those who had to step out of the home and go somewhere (to a community organization or wherever), used her power more in the home than those who didn’t. Of course that’s not enough, but start with what’s in front of you. Also, work at multiple levels. For example, in pursuing primary education nobody paid attention to what happens after primary education. So now parents are questioning why to give up labor of child to get the same job they would’ve anyway. So “do what you can” is partly correct, but also work at multiple levels.
– Often in past, construction of schools has been somewhat of an “edifice complex.” What about after that? It’s a challenge in working with community to develop internal things, maintain facilities. Ayni uses the metaphor that it “takes two hands to clap”—if the fund-raising happens without the other hand of community engagement, it will eventually stop. And vice versa. In one creative example in India, one organization worked with community around the question: Whose school-house is it? Government’s. Whose children go there? Now whose schoolhouse is it? On schoolhouse door, now have a paper that says: “This school-house will have: 8 benches, x chalk pieces, x slates, when is teacher to be absent / present.” So the community can now hold the government accountable, and they do.
– How do organizations “deepen” the conversation on these issues, especially about such personal / relational issues in the family. Can’t do it from outside. We talk about women’s empowerment—but we actually don’t empower women, they empower themselves. You can’t save the world. You can do a few things here and there to make it a better place, and hope that people take advantage of it. Can hear what they think is important and shift the resources a bit with whatever lever you have.
– Years ago, early in gender work we tried to get every individual in USAID or another agency to believe that women and girls were important. After years of trying to do that and failing, we finally decided we don’t really care what their attitudes are. Rather, we want them to see the importance of this issue to their work. In so many fora, men stand up and say: “I just want you to know, I treat my daughters and wife well.” This topic is somehow threatening to them. Geeta responds “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn.” (channeling Ret Butler in Gone with the Wind). The point is, we’re here to help you do your work better, that’s it.

In closing, the final question Geeta posed to the panelists was “what do you want every individual in this room to do?”
– Julie: Write your senator or congressman and tell them to make it a priority for international aid development into things like education, land reform, microfinance—those fields that affect women.
– Renee: When you hear about projects, ask people: what does your project do for women?
– Laura: As you hear about projects, ask where’s it coming from? Is it being imposed or has the community bought in on it. Hear what the people want themselves.
– Wenchi: Listen and think how to raise the value of girls—since that’s the root cause of all discrimination against women and girls. How do we change the societal views?
– Geeta: 1) Convention for the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women is being heard in the senate on Thursday at 2pm, for the first since 2002. So go to: CEDAW2010.org and sign on. The US is one of 3-4 countries that hasn’t ratified CEDAW (along with Sudan, Libya, Somalia—that’s the company we’re keeping). 2) Give—of your time, expertise, and money. Choose an organization you adore, or a leader that’s struggling so hard but doing good work.

Panelists:
Julia Bolz, Founder and Board President, Ayni Education International
Renee Giovarelli, Director, RDI’s Global Center for Women’s Land Rights
Laurie Werener, Director of Program, Agros International
Wenchi Yu, Senior Policy Advisor, Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Affairs, U.S. Department of State
Moderator: Geeta Rao Gupta, Senior Fellow, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Stephen E. Hanson, professor and vice provost for Global Affairs, at University of Washington discussed the policy recommendations developed by Global Washington in partnership with experts in Washington State. They came up with four principles to increase U.S. foreign assistance effectiveness. These include: transparency and accountability to U.S. taxpayers and international beneficiaries; coherence and coordination across efforts and actors to ensure development goals are prioritized; local ownership of policies by those who will be most affected by them; and targeting populations most in need of aid. Hanson also stressed the need for “patient” metrics because global issues are enormous and their solutions are multi-generational. Most initiatives need time to achieve their goals as well as time for those achievements to be measured accurately.

These policy recommendations set the context for the panel on “The Changing Environment of International Development” where Sam Worthington, President & CEO of InterAction, and Anita Sharma of the United Nations Millennium Campaign discussed the challenges, their recommendations, and the current needs of effective public/private partnerships in global development.

Both panelists discussed the lack of funding and support for foreign aid in our current economic climate. While many governments have pledged aid to support the UN Millennium Development Goals, many have yet to make good on these pledges, explained Sharma, and there is a real need for non-governmental entities and constituencies to continue to support global aid efforts. The U.S. security budget would do well to include international development efforts as a matter of national security.

Worthington underscored the shift of foreign aid from economic assistance toward a focus on economic growth in developing countries. He stressed that the biggest challenge to aid, aside from fiscal constraints, is identifying governments who trust their populations to take part in planning their own development. Part of this development will have to come from private entities, which Worthington argued are more focused on the people who will receive assistance, whereas aid from government entities tends to focus first on the relationship with the nation-state before its people.

Submitted by Nina Carduner

Melanne Verveer was the keynote speaker to a packed house at Global Washington’s second annual conference where the theme was “Bridges to Breakthroughs.” She is recognized as a leader for global women’s issues and is the co-founder and chair of the board of the Vital Voices Global Partnership, an international NGO that supports global women’s leadership. She also worked to advance women’s rights working as Chief of Staff for the First Lady during the Clinton administration.  Most recently, she has been established as the US Ambassador for Global Women’s Issues by the Obama administration. As US ambassador, she coordinates foreign policy for international women’s economic, social, and political empowerment.

Verveer discussed the vital importance of incorporating women’s needs and challenges for achieving success in development strategies. “Data shows that strategies that ignore challenges of women have little chance of succeeding…No country can get ahead if it leaves half of it’s citizens behind,” she explained. For example, the Asia Pacific region is being shortchanged $40 billion because women are not enabled to fully realize their economic potential.

Historically, women’s issues have been seen as “soft” issues and not part of the world’s toughest “hard” issues. As a result, development policies and strategies have not succeeded because men and women around the world face different needs. Verveer discussed the difference between male and female farmers. Women make up the majority of the world’s small farmers and face consistent barriers because they are women. Women farmers need micro-credit, land-rights, and access to economic markets. Applying the gender lens to policies that help farmers is critical for creating a lasting positive impact.

Fortunately, there is growing recognition that women’s entrepreneurship and empowerment is central to solve the world’s pressing challenges from climate change to bringing about peace in Afghanistan. Every year, the World Economic Forum (WEF) puts out a yearly report on the gender gap in four areas; health, education, political empowerment, and economic participation. The WEF measures this data because it recognizes that countries where the gap is closing are far more prosperous and economically competitive. On a global level, the gap is closing in health and education, but still lags behind for political and economic participation. Verveer explained that while the potential in women is everywhere, world development is still struggling to implement the strategies that will empower them economically and politically. Therefore, gender equality remains key to progress and sustainable development. Verveer quoted Hillary Clinton’s stance that “Until women around the world are accorded their rights and opportunities to participate fully, global progress and prosperity will have its own glass ceiling.”

Verveer concluded, “the only way we can heal our world and the challenges of our time is to incorporate the needs of and challenges faced by women and girls around the world.”

Submitted by Nina Carduner

By now it is old news- in the 112th Congress, the House will turn from a Democratic to a Republican majority.  Committee leadership and composition will change, with implications for U.S. policy in many areas. 

What will this change in leadership mean for development?  There are two committees where the change will matter most for U.S. development and foreign aid policy- the House Foreign Affairs Committee (HFAC), and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on State and Foreign Operations.  Congressman Berman will now be the ranking member (or minority leader) of HFAC, and Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen will step up to be the committee chair.  As chair of HFAC, Congressman Berman introduced legislation on foreign aid reform, HR 2139, and began to rewrite the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.  As ranking member of the committee, he could still rewrite this bill and introduce it in the House, but it would be up to the new chair to allow it to come to a vote in HFAC.

In Foreign Policy’s blog The Cable, Josh Rogin provides a profile of the new chairwoman, stating that, “[s]he isn’t likely to move Berman’s foreign-aid reform bill through the committee and she is likely to seek cuts in the foreign-aid budget in her authorization bill.”  Josh Rogin also reports in The Cable that Texas Congresswoman Kay Granger is seeking to chair the Foreign-Ops Subcommittee, and he notes that while she supported this year’s foreign-ops appropriation bill, she criticized the budget increase given our domestic economic concerns.

Other blogs are somewhat more cautiously optimistic about the future of development policy and foreign aid reform, such as the Center for Global Development: Views from the Center.  In this blog, Sarah Jane Staats writes that some good could come out of forcing the administration to work more closely with Congress, though funding will be tight.  She also wisely points out that development is not all about money, and the administration might find other ways to work with Congress on development issues, such as through making U.S. trade policy more effective for development.  President Obama could reach out to newly-elected Senator Rob Portman (R-OH), former U.S. Trade Representative under the Bush administration, on this issue.  (Greater policy coherence between trade and development also happens to be one of Global Washington’s policy recommendations on global development, so we would be interested in seeing this happen.)

And MFAN (the modernizing foreign assistance network) writes that the newly elected members of Congress can find common ground in reforming foreign aid, which is largely considered a bipartisan issue.  We need to continue to remind the new House majority party of this fact.  All it should take is a glance across the Capitol, where Senators Kerry and Lugar, the Democratic and Republican leaders of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, have worked together on foreign aid reform through S 1524,  the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009.

By Brian Pierce, guest blogger

Last week Global Washington co-sponsored a seminar on fair trade, along with the organizations Fair Trade Seattle, iLEAP, and Antioch University Seattle Center for Creative Change. Fair trade is undoubtedly a critical subject in global development, however the meeting was not an echo chamber of fair trade romanticism. Thoughtful critique by on-site participants of fair trade programs in Central America broke ground for meaningful discussion to sprout. While speakers naturally covered the “who’s who and what’s what” of fair trade, there was a significant degree of reflection and self-criticism. This kind of scrutiny is exactly what the fair trade movement needs when facing a force as domineering as world trade policy. Before fair trade can take on the world it must first address concerns like those raised by the on-site activists.

To begin with, what is fair trade? Stacie Ford Bonnelle, a presenter from Fair Trade Seattle and 10,000 Villages, described how fair trade can be defined in numerous ways: as a social justice movement, a tool for international development, or simply an alternative business model. FINE, an informal network of four Fair Trade Organizations (FTOs), provides the most widely accepted definition:

“A trading partnership, based on dialogue, transparency and respect, that seeks greater equity in international trade. It contributes to sustainable development by offering better trading conditions to, and securing the rights of, marginalized producers and workers – especially in the South. Fair Trade organizations (backed by consumers) are engaged actively in supporting producers, awareness raising, and in campaigning for changes in the rules and practice of conventional international trade.”              

So, the goals of fair trade are to empower marginalized people and improve their quality of life. These goals in their full flesh would certainly lead to a more equitable and prosperous world. There are problems, though. For instance, how does the socially conscious consumer know if they are truly purchasing fair trade items?

Identifying fair trade products can be tricky. There are numerous Fair Trade Labeling Organizations and FTOs pushing varying criteria including: Fair Trade Federation, Fair Trade USA, Fair for Life, World Fair Trade Organization, Equal Exchange, Global Exchange, and others. These organizations share common principals, but it is not unknown for an up-and-comer to promote their “better-than” fair trade goods. A consumer is liable to become helplessly entangled in the web of organizations.  Ms. Bonnelle argued that this system needs standardization, stating that “we need to make sure we have a standard and people know what these standards are.” Decentralization was not the only problem brought up by the panel.

Madeline Mendoza, an iLEAP Fellow and the Program Coordinator for Economic Justice at the Center for International Studies in Nicaragua spoke about how, while fair trade was improving the lives of the coffee producers she works with, changes are necessary. The global South continues to be trapped supplying the North with raw materials and are at risk of reinforcing an unhealthy agriculture export model of trade. This means that many developing countries continue focusing on cash crops like coffee and are then forced to import necessities like rice. Mendoza argued that fair trade is indistinguishable from its traditional market economy counterpart in this respect. Fair trade could be a perfect medium to address this disparity, but has thus far failed to do so.

From this inequality arises a clear point of contention from fair trade participants concerning the ownership of the system. Fair trade is meant to be an empowerment to individuals in developing countries, yet developed countries are the ones dictating the criteria for certification. The movement suffers from a lack of democracy in decision making; farmers feel as if they have none of the voice and the entire burden. As well, the great majority of goods currently affected by fair trade are agricultural cash crops. Mendoza argues that there needs to be a greater focus on local markets and diversification of products in her native Nicaragua, what she calls “food sovereignty.”

The notion that a huge burden of requirements is thrust upon fair trade growers was parroted by Mendoza’s counterpart, Agueda Ordeñana. Ordeñana, an iLEAP Fellow and member of the New Land Cooperative Union in Nicaragua described how certification expenses have fair trade participants questioning their decision. The cost of the yearly certification is about “one container of coffee out of twenty,” a cost that is almost wholly absorbed by the growers. To make matters worse, the fair trade price of coffee has remained stagnant even as conventionally traded coffee prices continue to rise. Ordeñana went on to say that if fair trade growers are to continue participating “we need results.”    

The goals of fair trade are vitally important. This enlightened system of trade has unquestionably provided a stable market and a means for growers from developing countries to dig up a piece of autonomy. However, the fair trade system appears to need review; open discussions like this can help bring about the changes needed for fair trade to meet its potential to truly empower the poor.

Those interested in aid reform may enjoy trying out QUODA, an assessment tool which tracks, compares, and ranks the quality of aid based on data provided by 31 donor countries and 152 aid agencies. QUODA was co-created by Nancy Birdsall, president of the Center for Global Development, and Homi Kharas, deputy director of the Brookings Institution’s Global Economy and Development program. They hope the tool will be a catalyst for dialogue, and help drive the movement to results based aid.

How It Works

The tool ranks quality using 30 indicators grouped into four aspects or “dimensions” of aid, which were identified through a consensus of actors including academics, donors, civil society organizations and INGOs. They are: 

Maximizing Efficiency – This gauge attempts to evaluate poverty alleviation efforts, against a global standard of how to best accomplish sustainable growth, and rewards donors for allocating more aid to poorer countries and better governed countries.

            Highest Ranked: Agency – Finnish Government, Country – GFATM

Fostering Institutions – refers to how well countries and agencies perform in terms of supporting local ownership and engagement in the aid process, fostering local institutions, and sustainable solutions in recipient countries.

            Highest Ranked: Agency – Japan Bank for International Cooperation, Country – Ireland 

Reducing Burden – this dimension ranks donors higher, who “decrease fragmentation, increase project size, contribute to multilaterals, coordinate their missions and analytical work, and use higher shares of program-based aid”.

Highest Ranked: Agency – New Zealand International Aid and Development Agency, Country – IFAD 

Transparency and Learning – reflects donor’s commitment to collecting, reporting and sharing program data with other donors and recipient countries, the frequency of sharing, and the degree to which donors support counties with good M&E frameworks, so they can track their own progress.

            Highest Ranked: Agency – Norway, Office of the Auditor General, Country – Australia

Where does the U.S. stand in ranking?

QUODA’s Quality of Aid Diamond tool enables users to quickly compare countries and agencies across all four dimensions.  The figure to the left demonstrates that the U.S. rates below the mean in all four dimensions, when compared to all other countries.

            Maximizing Efficiency: – 0.41 

            Reducing Burdon: – 0.64

            Fostering Institutions: – 0.87 

            Transparency: – 0.34

According to a recent Global Prosperity Wonkcast, the US ranked second to last in fostering institutions. This may be due, according to the authors, to a reliance on contracts (which may do a good job), but may be less likely to contribute to local ownership of projects.

QUODA offers thought provoking results.  At the same time, the tool is based on a specific set of standardized indicators with their own bias.  For example, one of the indicators used in the reducing burden dimension is median project size, and appears to reward larger size, standardized projects.  In the Global Prosperity Wonkcast, the tool co-creators point out there are approximately 80,000 new aid projects a year, and the medium size of an aid project is $70,000. While not all aid projects have to be huge, they indicate a need to have the ability to scale up a project.

One might argue that local projects in the poorest countries more often than not start out small, and may be successful in large part because they are a manageable size and less hampered by the bureaucracy often associated with large projects. There needs to be a balance between the efficiencies gained in standardization, and an appreciation for appropriate small scale projects, responsive to local conditions and resources.  

To their credit, Nancy Birdsall and Homi Kharas solicit suggestions and feedback on the QUODA web site.  They want to help make sure your aid dollars go into environments where they can have an impact, and where countries are determined and dedicated to promote their own development, so we are reasonably sure of success.

QUODA

Global Prosperity Wonkcast 

Good Aid? Bad Aid? QuODA Tracks How Donors Stack Up. Interview with Nancy Birdsall and Homi Kharas