Blog

Moldova and Europe: Change, Diversity, and the Future

“What is the strongest integrating force for this young country?”

This question, posed by an audience member, was one in a flurry of audience participation at an event to discuss post-Soviet countries with Global Washington member and volunteer, Liuba Ceban.  Ceban, a native Moldovan and Hubert H. Humphrey Fellow, answered that there isn’t necessarily a single uniting force for the young country. She explained that within the country, some people desire to reintegrate with Romania while others wish Moldova to be a prosperous nation of its own. The country is equally divided on matters of allegiance; arguments often erupt as to whether Moldova was better off under Soviet occupation and whether the country’s current trajectory towards EU membership is wise. Ceban closed the question with a resolute “it’s too soon to tell where the country will end up.”

It’s safe to say that little Moldova has been going through a lot of changes. The country, which historically has been primarily agrarian, has a mushrooming IT industry whose brisk pace left even Ceban surprised. She also mentioned the challenge that growing diversity will pose to Moldova. Today, the predominant faith is Christian Orthodox. But because of the country’s communist legacy, many other citizens still harbor resentment towards religion; the “biggest evil”, as it was sometimes called. Together with the very recent registration of Moldova’s Muslim community, these combating viewpoints have made the issue of religious freedom a very relevant one.

Ceban often returned to the theme “Eastern Europe cannot be thought of as a package.” The issue of religion is just one of many divergent points between the Eastern Europe states. Belarus, a country to the north of Moldova, has political freedom of religion but some intolerance among the community. Ukraine is even freer religiously, and Ceban attributed that to the previous leadership of the country’s more pro-EU policies and agenda. Moldova is also the only former soviet country with a strong, intact Communist party.

Ultimately, the message that Ceban brought to the discussion was that with the diversity of opinions and backgrounds and the rapid pace of change in Moldova, there’s no telling where the post-Romanian post-Soviet country will end up. But the country’s journey cannot be grouped with Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Belarus, and Ukraine, as if they all come from identical history and culture.

Liuba Ceban started a nonprofit called WIN (Worldwide Initiatives Network) Moldova alongside former Peace Corps volunteers, whose goal is to promote partnerships for sustainable change and development in Moldova and to work with at risk children. The institution will be running a promotional event on July 6th from 6:00pm to 8:00pm at the Watertown Hotel, 4242 Roosevelt Way NE Seattle, WA 98105.

Global Washington Continues Series on the Role of Tech in Development

Hope or Hype? Mobile Phones & Development

In South Africa, human milk banks are a critical component to combatting HIV transmission from mother to child. At these milk banks, staff heat a mother’s milk to a specific temperature, removing HIV from the milk without destroying antibodies critical for babies. While many urban milk banks have sophisticated systems to ensure milk is consistently heated to this critical temperature, rural milk banks often don’t have the resources to be so exact. This is the sort of problem that Gaetano Borriello, a faculty member of the computer science and technology department at the University of Washington, tackles with technology. Using temperature monitors in rural milk banks, Borriello and his team build censors that connect to cell phones. The censors send temperature information to a central quality assurance manager who monitors the heating graph and sends an “approval” back to the rural milk bank – again via cell phone – that the milk is safe for infant consumption.
Borriello was one of three panel members at a recent event, the second  in Global Washington’s series on the role of technology in global development.  This panel consisted of three experts in technology from diverse backgrounds and perspectives: Kentaro Toyama from UC Berkeley and formerly with Microsoft’s India program; David Edelstein from Grameen Foundation’s Technology Center; and Gaetano Borriello from UW. Each panel member discussed his experience in using technology in global development as well as his thoughts on the successes and failures of those attempting to use technology in this way.

Technology can deliver information to a wider audience and allow organizations to track and revise programs in real time but must be adapted to the needs of developing countries

Borriello began by discussing the role of mobile devices in “provid[ing] an opportunity to deliver educational information and decision support to a wider circle of more lightly trained workers.” However, he cautions, “consumer devices need to be adapted to the needs of lower income countries…usage models and business models may differ greatly from one context to another.” For example, with the increased availability of smart phones in developing countries, desktops – particularly in rural areas – are not desirable.
Edelstein discussed the role of technology in disseminating and collecting information via a trusted intermediary with an illustration of a Grameen Foundation program in Uganda. In this program, community knowledge workers – the trusted intermediary in this context – are able to provide information on agriculture to rural farmers. In one visit to a rural farmer whose chickens were diseased, a community knowledge worker was able to input the chicken’s symptoms into a database on her smart phone, diagnose the disease and get information on local, low-cost mechanisms to cure the chickens.
Community health workers, armed with this smart phone technology, are also able to provide the Grameen Foundation with real time data, which allows Foundation staff to track and revise their project as they go.

“Technology only amplifies human intent and capacity”

Kentaro Toyama stressed his conclusion that “technology only amplifies human intent and capacity.”  For more on Toyama’s thoughts on the pros and cons of technology, see an earlier post on a previous presentation Toyama gave to Global Washington members. Toyama asked Global Washington audience members a question to illustrate this point: If Bill Gates and a rural Indian farmer were both given the same smart phone and 24 hours to raise as much money as possible for vaccines, who would raise the most money? The audience agreed with Toyama that Gates would far surpass the farmer. Why? Because smart phones are only a tool which amplify Gates’ wealthier contacts and his experience in fundraising.

How one program can be an example of both good and bad technology use in global development

Following the presentation, Global Washington Executive Director Bookda Gheiser opened the audience discussion with a request that each speaker highlight a good and bad example of mobile technology use in global development work. Among other examples given, Toyama discussed an example that showed both the good and bad sides of technology. A Catholic Relief Services project in Niger, aimed at improving adult literacy via a two year program with eight months of adult literacy education, showed that those in the program who used SMS service progressed further. This was an example of technology as a tool to positively impact global development. But, Toyama cautioned, this can quickly be flipped to a negative example of technology if other global development programs take away the message that “mobile phones help with adult literacy.” This, in fact, was not the case. Toyama argues that without the critical services of Catholic Relief Services and its entire literacy program, one could not replicate the literacy results, regardless of the technology used.

“Key ingredients” for successful technology use in global development

The event closed with each panel member addressing a Global Washington member’s question on the “recipe” for successful use of technology in global development.  “Key ingredients” include:

• – Consider the long-term business model and sustainability plan for the technology’s use
• – Understand the target user and their needs
• – Ensure the ability to continually tweak projects based upon real time results
• – Always be in the field or closely connected to those working in the field
• – Understand the effect of the program with the technology as compared to the program without the technology
• – Align with programs and organizations that have end goals focused on development, versus technology

Global Washington’s mission is to convene, advocate, and strengthen the international development sector in Washington State, with an emphasis on the sectors of Global Health, Global Education, Environmental Sustainability, and Poverty Alleviation.  In this role, Global Washington brings together its members and the community to discuss critical global topics.. Consider attending the next event in Global Washington’s technology series with Kentaro Toyama, “The Dark Side of ICT” on August 9^th. You can sign up at globalwa.org.

Written by Bridgette Greenhaw

MFAN proposed legislative standards –an important step towards global Development

The strategic and effective use of foreign assistance resources is important to respond to global needs, make the world safer and help people better their lives. It is vital to U.S national security and to establish the United States as the global leader on international development. While the release of QDDR, USAID Forward Initiative and the launch of Caucus for Effective Foreign Assistance are substantive steps taken in this direction; MFAN’s proposed eight legislative standards for global development will go a long way making foreign aid more effective, efficient and accountable in the 21st century.
MFAN has laid down Eight Reform standards to be used as guidelines by policymakers, advocates and other global development stakeholders, while making new development legislations. MFAN, believes that the legislations should work towards:
• Achieving an Overarching Global Development Strategy (GDS)
• Reducing Funding Directives
• Empowering Developing-Country Citizens through Investment in Local Capacity Building
• Adopting an Integrated, Coordinated, Long-Term Approach to Development that is Flexible Within and Across Sectors and Agencies
• Focusing on Impact, Transparency, and Accountability
• Utilizing and Strengthening Existing Structures and Authorities
• Partnering with Other Public- and Private-Sector Donors and Actors
• Relying on Evidence-Based Policies and Analysis and Committing to Rigorous Impact Evaluation
MFAN proposed standards for crafting new legislations are consistent with Global Washington’s four principles of aid effectiveness 1) Transparency and Accountability; (2) Coherence and Coordination; (3) Local Ownership; and (4) Targeting.
Like MFAN Global Washington believes in robust monitoring and evaluation of all assistance programs. It calls for a coherent and well-coordinated approach to foreign assistance efforts and stresses the importance of partnering with private sector and philanthropic community. Global Washington understands that development plans must be tailored to recipient’s cultural, social and economic conditions and should be locally led and owned .It emphasizes the need to focus on building local management capacity and leadership skills to help countries promote growth.
MFAN’s eight reform resonates with Global Washington’s foreign aid policy and can be an important step in improving the structure of U.S foreign assistance and the way it is delivered.
For more detail on each of MFAN proposed standards.
http://www.modernizeaid.net/2011/06/16/mfan-introduces-legislative-standards-for-global-development/