Hot topics

Natural Disasters?

News of floods, droughts and other natural disasters seem to arrive more frequently at our doorstep.  But does this really mean that the number of humanitarian catastrophes has risen?  And if so why?  Over the past years, we have received an unprecedented number of requests for humanitarian aid from our partners and others; so at World Accord, we found ourselves asking these very questions.

The better coverage social media and 24-hour news sources provide help explain why we seem to hear about disasters more frequently. But this is only part of the story.  Experts tell us that there are more hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts and other weather-related natural disasters today than over the last several decades. Once we knew this, it didn’t take much additional looking to learn why this is so: Scientists have also been warning us for some time that more erratic, severe weather events are connected to human-created climate change. 

So Who’s Responsible?

A carbon footprint is the estimate of how many tonnes of carbon a typical person puts into the air in a year.  It measures the pollution created by all our activities, including driving a car, heating a home, and buying goods manufactured in a distant corner of the world.  In other words, most things related to maintaining our material standard of living.  By this generally accepted measure, a typical Canadian puts almost 20 tonnes of carbon into the atmosphere.  This is 25% more than someone living in Britain, and over 600% times more than a citizen of China or Bolivia, but still less than the typical American, who puts almost 29 tonnes of carbon into the air.  You can calculate your own carbon footprint here.

So despite the rapid growth of countries like India and China, it is wealthy countries, like ours, that as a whole still pollute the most.  Countries already rich and industrialized are also responsible for most of the carbon that is already up in the atmosphere.

Stay tuned.  In future blogs, we will continue to explore why climate change is affecting poor and developing countries disproportionately, how climate change affects the communities where we support development work, and what they are already doing to adapt.  We will also try to disentangle some of the issues shaping international debates around climate change.  Most importantly, we want to start a discussion about how we can begin to respond.

Chris Foster is a student at the University of Waterloo focusing on microbiology and international development. Chris has just completed a social media internship at World Accord , and contributes this piece as a guest blogger.

Food Aid or Food Sovereignty?
I was pleased to read about Joint USDA-CRS food assistance program in Guatemala.  It is a partnership, with an on-the-ground agency that knows the challenges of food security in Guatemala.  So far, so good.  The project will purchase surplus food in Guatemala to provide food rations to families struggling with drought and food shortages.  That is also good.  However, it’s a stretch for the USDA to say it’s developing agricultural infrastructure, and promoting international food security.”  It’s a food aid project providing beans, corn and flour to families in exchange for labour for road and school repairs, and for reforestation and construction initiatives.  This would be fine if the goal were to convert farmers to into construction workers. How does help these families ensure future access to and control over their food supply?

In the past, many donor countries dumped their own excess grain as food aid.  This type of help often flooded the local market in the receiving country, bankrupting local farmers and making everyone more dependent on food imports and food aid.  It’s worth noting that the excess grain in rich countries is often subsidized, that for years this practice artificially held international food prices low, and that this hurt farmers in poor countries.

The USDA’s pilot project is a step forward, as long as the surplus food is bought from small farmers or cooperatives in Guatemala.  From a development standpoint, to do otherwise is to miss an opportunity to help local farmers and stimulate the local economy. 

To better understand what is going on in Guatemala right now, you must understand what these farmers are faced with year after year: inadequate access to land and agricultural inputs, and a market that historically undervalues their products.  Together these factors contribute to an extremely low margin for error for families to whom agriculture is both a source of food and a source of income.

Another obstacle that Guatemala’s rural communities face:  staple crops have shot up in price due to droughts and floods. Locally, this increase results from the drought afflicting that region, but international trends like higher fuel prices, climate change and market speculation are also responsible for putting adequate food out of reach of poor Guatemalans – not just the ones participating in this project.

Measuring Impact
If you did the math on the number of families USDA is reaching with the US $1.75 million they have allocated, it would look like this:
(Assuming, the 1.75 million is all used solely for the purchase of food - no admin costs, USDA staff oversight, Logistics, Evaluation of the program from outside source etc.)

*Information/stats provided by Unicef.org

*All funds using US currency

US $1.75 million initially seems like a lot of money. It is not when measured from this standpoint.  It is even less so given the scope of the crisis. 

A Sustainable Approach
These funds could be used more effectively by allocating a portion to long-term activities directed at helping rural families begin to farm again.  Specifically, consultations, access to inputs and technical accompaniment.  That’s all great, but you’re probably asking yourself, what about the immediate need for food NOW?  I agree, short-term access to food is very important, but it must be done in a manner that ensures the dignity of the communities and ensures that “beneficiaries” can achieve sustainable livelihoods in the long-term. Some of the features we have learned are important include:

1.    Local consultations: What kind of intervention do the people receiving food aid want?  Experience has taught us that unless local communities get to decide what type of assistance they need, and how to best deliver it, good intentions are ineffective or even harmful.  In fact, the only way to ensure sustainability is to involve local people from the start, and to foster local ownership over the project.  Sadly, this critical factor is too easily overlooked by agencies providing short-term aid.
2.    Credit and inputs: These make it possible for farmers to access to land, seeds, fertilizers, irrigation systems, transportation and the other components critical to growing food and getting it to market.
3.    Technical support & knowledge exchanges:  Continuous training, ongoing advice and accompaniment from an expert or a seasoned farmer are critical to ensuring farmers recover successfully from a crisis, and that they become resilient in the face of future ones.  Small-scale, inexpensive, and appropriate techniques to help poor farmers become less vulnerable to natural disasters abound.  But expert support and monitoring is necessary.  In places with low literacy rates, spaces where farmers can share learnings and validate best practices are also important to help farmers adopt sustainable farming techniques successfully.

I do feel that the work done by the USDA is a step in the right direction.  But I can’t bring myself to give them a pat on the back.  The political and military interference of past US governments is responsible for a good part of the strife and inequality in Guatemala. Is it too much to ask that they now provide the right kind of aid?

So for now, I guess small NGO’s like World Accord, will continue to work with local partners, repairing the harm that foreign Band-Aids do, and working with communities. They will do that at a fraction of the cost it takes wealthy agencies and governments.  They will, because truthfully, they want to see communities in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and other countries, flourish with prosperity and independence for the long-term.  They will do it because that is what they have learned through local communities themselves.

I keep hearing about people who want to send school supplies, clothing or shoeboxes full of "stuff" for Christmas. There seems to be something gratifying to those of us who "have" to send "stuff" to those who don't. I just think perhaps we might take a closer look and the impact of sending "stuff" instead of the less gratifying method of helping – supporting a local NGO in our target country with plain old money.

If you wanted to start up a small stationery store, would you do that if people in your neighborhood were getting free school supplies?   I sure wouldn't.  It would be too risky! I wouldn't be able to make any money with the products I seek to sell being given away. So every time we good heartedly send pencils and paper into a developing community, are we preventing a small business in the supply of those products from starting up?

Haiti has been plastered for years with Superbowl "Losers" t-shirts. Companies print up hundreds of thousands of Superbowl Champion t-shirts for BOTH competing teams so they can have the correct ones ready to sell immediately after the big game. The incorrect ones that show the actual losing team as "champions" are dumped proudly on Haiti – doing a good thing for the people.  But is it?  Did I just hear another shirt seller in Port o Prince closing their doors for the last time?  A local textile industry will have a hard time starting and growing amidst all the clothing we in the north are "dumping" on the poor with the best of intentions.

So we go to the store and purchase goods (which helps our economy) so that we can feel good about stuffing shoeboxes and in the process, unwittingly inhibit the growth or possibilities for small local suppliers in the developing communities.  Is there something wrong with this process?  Could it be that they don't have access to pencils locally because we keep sending them pencils from here?

If we sent money instead we wouldn't really hurt our own economy.  We wouldn't have to spend the energy to ship stuff to remote areas.  The local NGO could help the communities with small business training and small loans to help the eager participants get started.  Someone could set up – for instance – a small stationery shop.  Instead of our money being spent "here" to provide free stuff "over there", our funds would help the poor to earn money so they could buy their own locally supplied "stuff".

There has been much focus in North American society and elsewhere about buying "local".   The reasons are clear.  This is important and WE NEED TO LET THE POOR BUY LOCAL TOO!

At times forcing the removal of trade barriers on poor countries has opened the floodgates for us to get rid of excess production or last years fashion or heavily subsidized agro. products at prices that effectively kill local industries in the poorer countries – removing jobs and ensuring EVERYTHING they have or use must come from us.

You tell me!  Do you still think we should be sending "stuff" to the poor people in developing countries?

Photo:  courtesy of SunSentinel.com

The continuing chronicles of World Accord Volunteer Katherine O'Connell

MIRAR, OIR, OLER, SENTIR: (See, hear, smell, feel) Embracing Culture

From a bicycle ride through the streets of Antigua to the sights and sounds of central park to the tip of el Volcan de Pacaya, I was able to experience part of true Guatemalan history, culture and scenery in just one week. Antigua is full of rich culture and history. Once the capital of Guatemala, Antigua now holds the ruins of some of the country’s most beautiful colonial churches. While in Antigua, I had the opportunity to go on a guided bicycle tour with my roommate to visit many of the numerous churches that surround the city. The stunning architecture and beautiful symmetry give this city a unique, eclectic feel that makes you want to come back for more.

The streets are always alive during the day but at night Central Park and the shops that engulf it are where you want to be. The park is surrounded by restaurants with live bands and internet cafes. I had the opportunity to visit a couple restaurants with one of my roommates for a traditional Guatemalan meal. The aroma of freshly cooked quesadillas and the beat of live traditional salsa music filled the air. The experience was both entertaining and satisfying.

During the day, however, Central Park paints a much different picture. The park is filled with street performers, traditional Mayan women selling garments, rows of shops waiting for the next paying customer and a small orchestra playing music. The sights and sounds could not be more uplifting.
While in Antigua I also had the opportunity to take a day trip to el Volcan de Pacaya. The one-and-a-half hour drive to the park was definitely worth the wait. At the bottom of the volcano I met some other foreigners who were ready for the 2,300m trek. Most of us started off walking, but as we approached 800m or so many of us opted for the horse to take us up the rest of the way. The journey was one that was steep and very challenging.

When we made it to the top the view was astonishing. I couldn’t believe my eyes. I had never experienced anything like it in the world. Steam poured out of the sides of the volcano and hardened volcanic rock lay all of the ground from last year’s eruption. I quickly grabbed a few pieces to take as souvenirs and was on my way further up the volcano. As we got closer we were able to see many small crevices and holes that steam poured out of. Several of us braved it and went right in. It was very warm, much like a sauna or steam room. It was pretty cool to experience this. I have to say that I have done a lot of travelling over the last four years but this is one experience that I found to be quite something.

PARA ARRIBA Y A VOLAR: To go up and to fly -  I’m Leaving on a Jetplane…

As my first week ended, I greeted my roommates and host family goodbye. So much had happened in the last week. My real journey was about to begin. I would arrive in San Pedro Sula, Honduras in less than 5 hours and would be kindly greeted by a familiar face that I had met four years ago.