Newswatch: May 2012

A range of stories were in the media over the weekend, including the sad news of a magnitude 6 earthquake in Italy. Here's a brief round-up:

Italian Earthquake

At least seven people have been killed and numerous buildings destroyed after a M6 earthquake and aftershocks in northern Italy.

Waste Disposal in the Maldives

A shocking video shows the nature of waste disposal in the tourist hotspot of the Maldives. The video raises a number of questions about the environmental impact of tourism, and the importance of sustainable, effective waste disposal

US Boost for Food Security 

The US have announced a major investment in food security in Africa, and the topic is being discussed at the G8 meeting. Although we've not analysed the details of this investment, it is an important step to see this issue receiving such high-profile attention.

Malnutrition in Niger

On the subject of food security, serious malnutrition is being reported in the African nation of Niger. Reports suggest around six million people there are affected with numerous more across Western Africa.

Write to Your MP: UK to Double Support for Water and Sanitation

Last week we posted on our Facebook wall the fantastic news that the UK Government has decided to double its support to water and sanitation projects in the world's poorest countries. The UK Department for International Development (DFID) will work to secure access to clean drinking water and proper sanitation for more than 60million people over the lifetime of this parliament.

As we have posted numerous times, access to clean water and good sanitation has a knock-on benefit to many other areas of life. It means children will no longer have to walk many miles to collect water, thus increasing the time they can spend at school. It means health problems, many avoidable diseases, can be reduced. This is turn can improve the life expectancy of mothers giving birth and young children especially. Improved health, through drinking clean water, can mean less days are lost to sickness and so people have the freedom to work and generate income. In fact, for every £1 spent on water and sanitation in the developing world, it is estimated by the United Nations that a staggering £8 is returned in reduced health costs, saved time and better productivity.

Alan Duncan, Minister of State at DFID, recently stated in a debate to mark World Water Day:

"Ensuring access to water and sanitation for the poorest is, to pick a metaphor, the bread and butter of development. When we get it right, so much else follows: children become more likely to reach their fifth birthday, and they are healthier and in a better position to benefit from education; women, who carry most of the world’s water, are empowered; and economic growth and prosperity are enhanced and facilitated. While we fail to deliver those most basic necessities, not only are there an estimated 2.4 million preventable deaths each year, but generations of people become trapped in poverty."

Any increase in the support the UK gives to water projects is fantastic news and deserves to be celebrated. We are asking those readers of the GfGD Blog who are UK Citizens to take this opportunity to write a brief letter to their constituency MP to express your support for this decision. It is important to let our MPs know when there is something we are happy with, as well as something we are not happy with. There is much debate about the UK aid budget at the moment, and it will be great for many MPs to hear that we think giving more support to water projects is the right thing! 

Some of you may be regular letter-writers to your MP, others may have never done it before. Here's our simple step-by-step guide:

(1) Work out who your MP is by putting your postcode into this website

(2) Write a letter addressed to your MP, stating why you are writing, why this is important to you and what you'd like your MP to do. 

(3) The letter can be very brief - the more concise the better. You can use some of the information in this blog post or other posts, or do further research if you'd like. Make sure you are polite.

(4) Post the letter to your MP (!)

At a cost of 50-60p for a stamp and about 10 minutes of your time - there's no real reason not to get involved in this GfGD activity! Once you've sent your letter - why not comment on this blog, stating who you are, what you do (e.g. PhD Student at King's College London) and which MP you wrote to. It will be great to see how many different MPs we've managed to contact to tell them that clean water and good sanitation save the lives of many of the world's poorest communities!

Immunisations, Diarrhoea & The Missing Link

The decision today to pledge a further £814million towards a vaccination programme (GAVI) to reduce the impacts of pneumonia and diarrhoeal diseases is admirable and welcome. In these times of economic difficulty the decision to make international development a key part of coalition policy must be applauded. We cannot balance our books on the back of the poorest people and it is fantastic that the UK can be global leaders in this sector. The percentage of our GDP that we spend on overseas aid is very small, currently 0.56% rising to 0.7% in 2013 – less than 1p for every pound that we earn. Yet this contribution can and does make a significant difference in the lives of people around the world. Our aid budget costs each person in the UK around 44p a day to help some of the billions around the world who have to live on less than £1.50 a day. That 44p each day puts millions into school, improves access to healthcare and vaccinations, prepares communities for natural disasters to reduce the impacts and cost of rebuilding, gives people clean and safe water – stopping them walking for hours to collect some… and many other things.

However the announcement today, in particular the immunisation programme to reduce deaths due to diarrhoeal diseases must be set into its correct context:

Firstly… The vaccination to reduce the number of deaths from diarrhoeal diseases is only for those cases caused as a result of the rotavirus, accounting for on average 39% of childhood hospitalisations as a result of diarrhoeal diseases. In order to fully address the problem of diarrhoeal diseases there also needs to be significant investment in, and prioritisation of access to clean and safe water, improved sanitation and more hygiene promotion (WASH). Simple measures such as increasing handwashing can reduce the number of deaths by anything between 33-44% – but this requires investment in sanitation facilities, community hygiene workers and education programmes. Investment in clean water supplies is also fundamental to reducing the risk of disease. Oral rehydration cannot be done without clean and safe water. Dirty water carries bacteria and viruses, which can result in serious disease and adverse effects on health.

Secondly… Funding for the vaccination itself is the easy part; the difficult part is the administration of this vaccine. Investment in the health-sector to ensure there are health-workers to administrate the vaccine is required also. This point was raised in David Cameron’s Q&A session following his speech by Save the Children, and Cameron recognised this as a requirement also.

Thirdly… There are the challenges of infrastructure, and poor access to many of the poorest communities due to lack of or very poor roads. These vaccines are no use in a box, on a shelf, in a storeroom… they only have use if administered to those in need.

In conclusion, the reduction of diarrhoeal diseases requires an integrated approach and cannot be done solely through immunisation. The UK contribution to GAVI must be welcomed, however it would be good to see an integrated strategy to deal with this preventable disease through both immunisation and significant improvements to water, sanitation and hygiene promotion. Earlier posts have set out the fundamental role of geologists in locating and developing water resources – and this case study highlights why clean water sources, improved sanitation and hygiene promotion are fundamental to the reduction of disease and poverty in communities across the developing world. Immunisations are a good and positive step forward - but the 'missing link' is improved WASH... which should be playing a much more prominent role in the discussions and debates taking place today.

Fighting The Case For Overseas Aid

For those keen watchers of the BBC political programme Question Time, you may remember a few weeks ago Melanie Phillips, the Daily Mail columnist, stating her belief that the Department for International Development should be closed down. Since then the Daily Mail have published a few articles and columns such as this one yesterday, followed by numerous comments from members of the public supporting the view that aid should be slashed and very few in favour of our overseas aid spending (although this could partly be due to the fact that the Daily Mail moderate their comments, perhaps giving a somewhat skewed opinion). 

The public perception of overseas aid is difficult to state outright. Melanie Phillips' comment that DFID should be closed down was overwhelmingly booed by the Question Time audience - although this again is probably not a reasonable representation of the UK view overall. The Daily Mail comments section is probably not completely representative either. It's more likely that opinion is somewhere between these two extremes, regretfully nearer to the Daily Mail side than the Question Time side according to some surveys. Around the time of the Emergency Budget this time last year, one survey suggested only 6% of people thought DFID's budget should be ringfenced and 43% thought it should be slashed.

Andrew Mitchell, Secretary of State for International Development, has reportedly stated that the decision by the Coalition Government to ringfence this budget, and increase spending to 0.7% of GDP is one that needs "daily justification" to members of the public. Although he is supported by the vast majority of MPs from all political parties, as stated before the public are wary about this in the current economic climate. I've been impressed by the Government's attempts to persuade people, and their attempt to push other G8 nations into meeting their pledges - although there is still a lot of work to do before public opinion shifts. Andrew Mitchell is due to appear on Question Time this week - it will be interesting to see if overseas aid is discussed again (Thurs 9th June, BBC 1, 10.35pm).

A while ago, when DFID announced the results of their Aid Review, I wrote an article outlining why it is the right thing to spend money on international development. I understand there is a need to address issues of corruption and accountability, but the key point is that we are doing the right thing in spending money on international development. As someone who therefore believes in the importance of international development, believes in the huge responsibility we have to reduce poverty and improving the conditions of life for people across the globe, and someone who has seen firsthand the benefits this can make - I also have a duty and desire to work to bring the British public on board. My sphere of influence will obviously be far smaller than Andrew Mitchell's but I can still comment on articles in the media, draw people's attention to the good work DFID, NGOs and overseas governments are doing, and make a reasoned case for the 0.7% GDP pledge - making and fighting the case for overseas aid. If you also believe in the importance of this... why not take five minutes to write to your MP, local newspaper etc to outline why you support this crucial and important work!

An excellent resource you could use to outline why it is so important for us to take a lead can be found at www.ifitweremyhome.com/index/GB. This site contrasts what life would be like if we were born in, and lived in another country. For example if I was born in Tanzania, I would be 31 more times likely to have HIV/AIDS, over 14 times more likely to die in infancy, die 26.7 years younger and make 96% less money. This site helps you to put life in perspective, empathise, and hopefully makes it hard to say no to spending less than 1p from every pound earned in this country, on overseas aid.

Global Platform 2011 - Why is DFID ending aid to the UNISDR?

Earlier this year, DFID announced the results of two major aid reviews. The first, at the start of March, was the UK Aid and Multilateral Aid Review. The second, at the end of March, was the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review (HERR), conducted by Lord Paddy Ashdown. One of the key findings of the HERR was the importance of making disaster risk reduction (DRR) an intrical part of DFID's work, increasing anticipation, resilience and innovation. These are tasks in which geologists have the potential to play an important role. The HERR, interestingly, came after DFID announced earlier that month that they were ending their contributions to the United Nations International Strategy for Disaster Reduction.

The core mandate of the UNISDR, as stated on their website, is to serve as the focal point in the United Nations system for the coordination of disaster reduction and to ensure synergies among disaster reduction activities. The UNISDR main work includes:

- COORDINATING and sustaining partnerships to build disaster resilience and promote disaster risk reduction.

- CAMPAIGNING to build awareness of disaster risk reduction and reduce communities vulnerability to the impact of hazards.

- ADVOCATING for greater investment in disaster risk reduction

- INFORM and connect people by providing practical services and tools.

DFID's justification for the decision to end funding was based upon an assessment of value for money, effectiveness, results, leadership and accountability. In the Multilateral Aid Review, it states:

"UNISDR has not performed its international co-ordination role well. Other more effective institutions such as UNDP and GFDRR are judged to provide better value for money and DFID will increase its funding to them. UNDP is central to the delivery of the MDGs and is at the heart of the UN development system and currently plays an important co-ordination role on disaster risk reduction at the national level. GFDRR is more effective at mainstreaming DRR and climate change adaptation in country development strategies.

The UK will still be a member of UNISDR as it is part of the UN Secretariat, but DFID will no longer provide additional voluntary funding. This funding averaged £0.9m between 2002 and 2010."

However, in light of the HERR, was this the right decision to make? I recently came across an interesting article by Dr Tom Mitchell, who works at the Overseas Development Institute, which discusses the possible reasons behind DFID's decision. In the article, Dr Tom Mitchell suggests a number of reasons for this decision, labelling them as either wrong, very unlikely or very likely. The suggested reasons include things such as... was it very expensive to the taxpayer, is DRR not a priority for DFID, is there a better organisation to take its place or is DFID following a global trend in ending funding - all of these were labelled very unlikely or wrong. The reasons labelled as likely are more related to the appearance of a 'co-ordinating agency' in an era of results and weaknesses in the Multilateral Aid Review process. Dr Tom Mitchell concludes with an assessment that this was the wrong decision, and a hope that the HERR will stimulate a rethink.

So these are the two sides of this debate, and I'm sure there are many other points that others could contribute to this discussion. Dr Tom Mitchell states that many in the field would recognise that the UNISDR has considerable shortcomings - so it seems clear that there is a need for reform and improvements, the key question is whether DFID short be withdrawing its funding, and whether that decision should have been made before the HERR? Disaster risk reduction needs to be a central part of the UK's development programme - its results are not always obvious, until after a disaster happens, but it has the potential to make a significant difference - it is preventative, rather than a cure... and that surely must be an important part of global development.

Any thoughts, comments, feedback very welcome.

The Role of Geologists in Humanitarian Emergency Response

As reported on Monday, a review into the UK’s response to humanitarian emergencies has been conducted by Lord (Paddy) Ashdown and released yesterday. The review outlines ways in which the UK can improve its response to such emergencies, and anticipate such emergencies. Incorporating these into the core of DFID’s work is crucial – making sure their development work and humanitarian assistance are integrated. 

The report highlights seven threads to the approach needed to be adopted including:

1.   A more anticipatory approach – using science to aid in the prediction of and preparation for such emergencies. It is important to be preparing for disasters as well as reacting to them (including equipping at-risk governments/civil society with the means to act).

2.   Resilience – working with local people to strengthen the community’s capacity to be resilient to an event. This was highlighted as an area that needs to become much more central to DFIDs development activities. Resilience will mean the damage is less lasting and communities can recover more quickly.

The report cites an interesting example where Mozambique asked in 2006 for £2million pounds to invest in preparing for the impacts of floods – which it could not receive. Soon after, the international community had to spend £60million pounds responding to a flood season

3.   Improve the strategic, operational and political leadership of the international humanitarian system, including pushing for reform within the UN’s response procedures.

4.    Innovate to become more efficient and effective – using the best of new technologies and science, new processes and practices, and new ideas from those affected. More investment needs to happen in research and evidence.

5.   Increase transparency and accountability towards both donor and host country populations. More conversation needs to occur between donors and communities to ascertain exactly what they need, how they can be helped and who can help them. Vulnerable people can often be overlooked. On the flip side, measuring the impacts of resources is a key way to ensure accountability to donors.

6.   Create new humanitarian partnerships to allow DFID to better influence and work within an increasingly complex humanitarian system. The need for multilateral work in this area is crucial, and while DFID is commended for adopting this approach it suggests they should work to enable new partnerships with emerging nations, NGOs, faith groups etc

7.   Defend and strengthen the humanitarian space – humanitarian workers should be granted access and protection as they give assistance in areas affected by conflict. DFID should work with agencies that can access and help those in need and humanitarian aid should not be politicised.

The full report can be found here.

Over the past couple of years we have witnessed some awful natural disasters that have required significant humanitarian assistance. Earthquakes have rocked developing countries such as Haiti, as well as more developed countries such as Chile, New Zealand and Japan. Floods have been catastrophic in Pakistan, and Australia, and large landslides and flooding have hit Brazil. The way in which the UK responds to such disasters – especially in developing countries where the effects disproportionately affect the population is very important. The UK is the second largest bilateral global humanitarian donor, although in terms of its percentage of GNI trails behind a number of countries.

The results of the Humanitarian Emergency Response Review are broadly welcomed. As developing countries are urbanising, vulnerability to disaster is in many ways increasing and steps need to be taken to ensure the international community’s response to disasters matures, as well as the anticipation of disasters and building of resilience develops.

Geologists have a very important role to play in the factors of anticipation, resilience and innovation.

ANTICIPATION: In disasters such as earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, floods, landslides etc – geologists study the science of how they occur and can use their skills to understand and recognise vulnerable areas. While prediction is not always possible, understanding of vulnerable areas, frequency and magnitude can be understood to a certain degree

For example: The study of palaeoseismology can provide information on the frequency of historical earthquakes and their magnitude. This information can help inform governments and civil societies to prepare. The UK for example knows to expect earthquakes up to approximately magnitude 6 following the M5.3-5.9 earthquake in the late 1500’s (although this size is extremely rare (See here for more info on UK Seismic Hazard). In Chile, they must prepare for earthquakes significantly bigger than this, at Magnitude 9 or greater.

Data for some hazardous areas can be significant, but often in developing countries the data is gathered at a much slower rate, and so is less sizeable, as governments can invest less in their own monitoring and evaluation programmes. Geologists can play a major role in building up knowledge of the mechanisms of hazards, their appearance in history and the likely impacts of the hazard.  

From: http://www.afronline.org/?p=3835

RESILIENCE: Building resilience to minimise the damage of the hazard is another area of humanitarian work that geologists can play a crucial role in. The education of communities to understand how hazards are triggered can help people recognise the warning signs for a number of hazards. Understanding the relationship between landslides and water can help communities construct simple drainage mechanisms, avoid the undercutting of slopes and ensure deforestation doesn’t occur on vulnerable slopes. Understanding the relationship between earthquakes and tsunami’s was not understood by many communities in the tragic 2004 Boxing Day tsunami in Indonesia, understanding the risk of a tsunami following an earthquake can give communities that vital extra time to move inland. Education can involve a community led, participatory approach in order to build a sustainable programme.

As well as education, improving physical structures can develop resilience. Geologists can play a major role in identifying which areas of the city are must vulnerable and how resilience methods can change from place to place. The types of buildings required to withstand earthquakes will differ from one rock-type to another for example.   

INNOVATION:  With regards to innovation, geologists are doing various pieces of research, and must do more, to improve the understanding and preparation for humanitarian emergencies. Geologists and other scientists must work closely with social scientists in order to develop and improve better risk assessments for developing countries – including the development of multi-hazard risk assessments. Research into the effects of global climate change at a local scale, and mitigating any risks, is fundamental research to be collated, as is how increased urbanisation will impact the consequences of disasters.

The response DFID gives to this review, and the speed at which they respond, will be very interesting. DFID must take seriously the importance of Disaster Risk Reduction, and the economic benefits of it, and ensure it is integrate into the core of its work. The crucial role that scientists can play in this sector must also be recognised further – not only in terms of health and agriculture – but also with regards to geology and engineering.

Humanitarian Emergency Response Review

A review into how UK Aid is spent responding to humanitarian emergencies, such as natural disasters, is to be published shortly. The review, by Lord (Paddy) Ashdown, examines how the UK Government can best respond to emergency situations, such as the Pakistan floods and Haiti earthquake, how the best value can be got from UK Aid and the nature of the leadership required in these situations.

In an article for the BBC News, Paddy Ashdown states..."If resilience is the key of this then it (DfID) can't deal with humanitarian emergencies simply as a little sort of pimple, off-shoot of its job... It has to take that into the core of what DfID does and it has, above all, to include that in its development policy so part of your development policy - which DfID regards as its core task, rightly so, too, and does a very good job there - has to be about building up resilience in at-risk countries."

It will be interesting to read the entire report, and see how DFID responds in terms of its 'Disaster Risk Reduction' strategy. Investment in disaster risk reduction (DRR) can not only save huge numbers of lives and protect property, but in many cases can result in a much lower rebuilding cost following a disaster. Some reports suggest that for every £1 spent on DRR, around £7 can be saved in economic losses (The World Bank) - yet in many developing countries affected by natural hazards, DRR is not made a priority. Supporting developing countries in building resilience to natural hazards should be a key component of any aid and humanitarian strategy.


Further information and comment will be published when a copy of the report has been seen.


Editors Note: The report can now be accessed on the DFID website here with DFIDs initial description of the report here. More comment to follow.

Response to UK Aid Review

Today saw the UK Government announce its Review of UK Aid. Andrew Mitchell, Secretary of State for International Development in the Coalition Government, announced that the UK Government would honour its commitment to spend 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) by 2013 – in accordance with the Millennium Development Goals. In the UK that means that for every pound of tax that is paid, less than a penny of that will go to helping some of the world’s poorest people. Yet, this relatively small amount of money would make a tremendous difference to so many lives. Both Andrew Mitchell and Harriet Harman (Shadow Secretary of State for International Development) highlighted the moral responsibility we have to this commitment.

If you watch programmes such as Question Time, read the letters pages of national newspapers or talk to many people it will be easy to find large numbers of people who are opposed to the UK spending money on global aid, with the phrase ‘charity starts at home’ often being used. The UK Government does have a primary responsibility for the safety and security of their citizens, however they also have a significant responsibility to ensuring a fairer, more just, safer, world.

Tanzania: Unprotected Water Source

The poverty in many of the countries that this aid goes to is of a level significantly greater than anything we see in the UK. In Tanzania there are women and children walking several miles to get clean, safe water, and others who have to walk similar distances just to find any source of water. There are women in villages in Uganda giving birth in their homes, built of mud and straw, banana leaves used as a roof. They have no access to health workers and hygienic practices. There are very young children who should be in school herding cows, ploughing fields and collecting water, as their parents can’t afford to send them to school. There are the millions of children who die each year due to diarrhoeal diseases – so easily avoided with simple interventions. Millions relying on the crops they grow in their small plots of land, so when the rains don’t come they are left hungry and without a source of food.

Tanzania: Hand-Drilling for Water

In my own experiences in some of the countries that DFID sends aid to (Tanzania, Rwanda, Uganda), I have seen the need and poverty that people live in – and am overwhelmingly convinced by the need for the UK to spend money on international development programmes. The things we take for granted - education, food, water, toilets, electricity, free health care, social security, and infrastructure - they simply do not always have and cannot take for granted. The look on a community’s face when you meet with them for the first time and tell them that you are going to begin surveying for water and hope to put a water source in their village is remarkable. They are not indignant – “it’s about time” they are overwhelmed with joy and gratitude. They are willing to do everything they can to help, provide food, labour, gather sand and rocks to help make cement, dig through sand, clay and rock.

There will be many questions from this statement today, are we putting money into the right countries, the right sectors and the right organisations? In the midst of those questions it is first and foremost essential to remember that we are doing the right thing in committing to meet our spending targets on international development. Overseas aid is morally right and, as Andrew Mitchell stated today, can work miracles if well targeted and properly spent. The 1p in every £1 from your tax (even less than that!) can be the miracle that a child in Sub-Saharan Africa or Asia has been longing for, can be the thing that changes a woman feeling nothing but fear during her pregnancy – to feeling hope and excitement for the future. It can be the life-saving well that brings clean and safe water to a community for the first time.

Tanzania: Shallow Well