In February, U.S. Representative Ted Yoho (R-FL). proposed an overhaul to foreign aid. This April, with the support of U.S. Representative Adam Smith (D-WA), and Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Coons (D-DE), the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act (BUILD Act) has gained significant momentum.
The International Development Finance Corporation
The BUILD Act, also known as S.2463, aims to consolidate the disparate U.S. agencies currently providing foreign aid into a single, new agency, to be called the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC). More specifically, there would be a consolidation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), USAID’s Credit Authority, USAID’s Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise, and USAID’s Enterprise Funds. According to U.S. Representative Yoho, this consolidation would increase efficiency of foreign spending, and promote U.S. security, economic and diplomatic interests abroad.
The proposed agency will also benefit recipients of U.S. foreign aid. More streamlined and efficient spending in the U.S. government will allow for other countries to become stronger trading partners; in doing so, this change would also open new markets, and encourage self-sufficient economic development in communities worldwide. Supporters of the BUILD Act argue that it will help combat humanitarian concerns that plague many developing nations, including poverty, hunger and disease.
In recent weeks the BUILD Act has been publically supported by the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Representative Ed Royce (R-CA), the committee saying that older agencies such as OPIC need to be modernized, and as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, will strengthen American foreign aid and make the U.S. competitive.
What is the BUILD Act?
So what exactly does the BUILD Act propose? It gives the new agency, the IDFC, grantmaking capability, the ability to make equity investments, and an increased spending cap. These capabilities increase U.S. foreign aid spending, and encourage the participation of private sector capital to complement development assistance objectives. It is important to note however, that there is a regulation on how much of foreign aid spending can be used to make equity investments.
The text of the bill describes the purpose of the BUILD Act in Section 101 of the bill as, “to mobilize private capital in support of sustainable, broad-based economic growth, poverty reduction, and development through demand-driven partnerships with the private sector that further the foreign policy interests of the United States,” highlighting the benefits of the BUILD Act going both to the U.S. and international aid recipients.
While some are concerned about how the organization will actually take over USAID’s and OPIC’s duties, many are excited by the fact that the creation of the IDFC will create further accountability and cost no money, making it an increasingly appealing bill. While more work needs to be done concerning the transition, oversight on the IDFC will fall to Congress, and external auditors, who will preform regular audits of the organization.
Allied For a Cause
U.S. Representative Adam Smith, a co-sponsor on the initial proposal, announced a press release that reads: “Through our partnerships with friends and allies, we work to raise up local communities – strengthening institutions, combating hunger and disease, and ensuring that development projects have sustainable, long lasting impacts.” Representative Smith identifies how this increased spending on development improves the lives of individuals abroad.
The BUILD Act is gaining momentum in Washington, and purports to improve efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid deployment.
– Katherine Kirker
Photo: Flickr
The Varied Impacts of Violence on Girls’ Education in Syria
Prior to the civil war that has plagued Syria for six years, the Syrian government created a movement to end illiteracy by 1991. These efforts were fruitful, with enrollments stretching towards 100 percent.
At the onset of the conflict, however, education took a huge hit, with enrollments dropping drastically — 92 percent in 2004 to 61 percent by 2013 (for primary education). Just as one can see in non-government controlled eastern areas like Aleppo where as little as 6 percent of kids attend school, girls’ education in Syria has been affected most drastically.
Girls’ Education in Syria
This drop in schooling has created a consolidation of hardships. Not only are children subjected to violence and loss, but their acquisition of skills and knowledge falls behind the norm. In many areas, middle-school-aged kids are unable to complete first-grade math problems. This drag in skill alters the students’ self- esteem and perception, and leaves long-term effects.
The decline in scholastic enrollments can be directly and indirectly attributed to the Syrian conflict. School bombings and shootings have left facilities destitute, while simultaneously created an environment of fear surrounding schooling. In eastern provinces, 40 percent of schools have been shot at or bombed; as a result, more parents are inclined to keep their children out of school from fear of an attack.
Impact of Destruction
Buildings have been destroyed while others have been converted to emergency shelters, which are structural decisions that create a lack of space for education. In addition to an absence of physical space, the war has created a shortage of teachers — school staffing has fallen 22 percent due to death, emigration and fear of returning to work.
Many schools have suspended activity indefinitely to keep students out of harm’s way; others have been forced to move classrooms to secret locations, often underground, or have opted to replace glass windows with bulletproof plastic.
The violence has led to nearly 3 million of the 4.8 Syrian school-aged children to leave schools — about 2.2 million children within Syria and another half of a million Syrian child refugees.
Displaced and Uneducated
Syria has the most displaced persons out of any country in the world. Among refugee children, only 17 percent are in school. Language barriers coupled with political prejudice and financial inadequacy have made enrollment extremely difficult. While aid agencies have attempted to help refugee children, the well of information necessary for refugees to navigate a new and unfamiliar system remains largely untapped.
The war has been even more detrimental to girls’ education in Syria. In many cases, rape has been used as a weapon against young girls, inciting parental prejudice against female educational opportunities. Education is directly linked to opportunities and empowerment, particularly for young girls; interestingly, in areas of extreme conflict, girls are almost two and a half times more likely to be out of school, thus causing them to fall behind their male counterparts.
Save the Children
While many organizations — such as Save the Children and UNICEF — have intervened to help protect the children, in order to foster an environment conducive to learning, schools must be safeguarded against violence. Save the Children currently supports 53 schools in the northern regions of the nation through security, funding and promoting more sensitive teaching approaches. UNICEF advocates a similar approach by encouraging innovation for classrooms and supporting international responses to refugee children’s educational opportunities.
The protection of education and particularly girls’ education in Syria is necessary for economic recovery and social stabilization. Failure to address issues surrounding schools will only perpetuate the conflict and the issues left in its wake.
– Jessie Serody
Photo: Flickr
Mustard Gas Effects and the Geneva Gas Protocol
Roughly one hundred years ago, one of the deadliest chemicals ever concocted was introduced to the global stage. This chemical creation was mustard gas. Known officially as sulfur mustard, mustard gas was created at the latter end of World War I. Often referred to as the chemists’ war, World War I proved to be a breeding ground for chemical weapons.
World War I
In July 1917, British soldiers garrisoned in Ypres, Belgium reported a glimmering cloud of vapor in the air. Not too soon after, cases of blisters and sores were reported. British personnel was also reportedly coughing up blood, and according to Cancer Research UK, approximately 10,000 casualties were reported in Ypres alone.
Although British soldiers were issued gas masks per military regulation, mustard gas proved to be deadly regardless of whether an individual was wearing a gas mask or not. Mustard gas can be effective in virtually all conditions. Individuals can be exposed to the chemical through skin and eye contact; additionally, mustard gas is equally deadly if breathed through the air.
Forms of Mustard Gas
As a chemical, mustard gas can appear in multiple forms. Mustard gas was mainly used as a vapor during World War I; however, it can also appear in the liquid form. For example, mustard gas can be mixed with water which can lead to poisoning of water supplies.
Sulfur gas has been described as having a peppery or mustard-like smell, but mustard gas can also be odorless in nature making exposure difficult to document.
In general, exposure to sulfur mustard is not fatal. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, mustard gas accounted for roughly 5 percent of deaths during the Great War. Symptoms of exposure to the chemical vary widely.
The largest factor in the severity of symptoms is the total exposure to the gas itself. Individual symptoms of a mustard gas depend on a person’s susceptibility. Symptoms may not occur until 24 hours have passed.
Short-Term and Long-Term Effects
The severity of the effects differs greatly between the short- and long-term. Redness and itching of the skin may occur in regard to short-term mustard gas effects. Eye irritation in the form of swelling and tearing are common. Within 12 to 24 hours the respiratory tract may be damaged, leading to a runny nose, shortness of breath, and coughing. Mustard gas impacts the digestive tract in the form of abdominal pain, diarrhea and vomiting.
Long-term mustard gas effects can include much graver consequences. If sulfur gas is not removed from the skin relatively quickly, second and third-degree burns may appear. Breathing-based exposure may lead to chronic respiratory disease or in some cases death. If not treated, sulfur gas has been documented to cause blindness. A person’s risk for lung and respiratory cancer also largely increases as a result.
Geneva Gas Protocol
Sulfur gas was officially banned in 1925 at the signing of the Geneva Gas Protocol. After the trauma and horror of the First World War, the global community largely agreed that chemical weapons must be prohibited from use in all cases.
Upon studying mustard gas effects, it becomes apparent that the Geneva Gas Protocol was essential in protecting human rights across the globe. With chemical weapons banned, the chances of continued use of the substances/liquids/gas has become much rarer. However, chemical weapons are still being used in war-torn areas across the globe today. It is the responsibility of the international community to ensure that all countries adhere to global treaties.
– Colby McCoy
Photo: Flickr
US Representative Ted Yoho’s BUILD Act Gains Support
In February, U.S. Representative Ted Yoho (R-FL). proposed an overhaul to foreign aid. This April, with the support of U.S. Representative Adam Smith (D-WA), and Senators Bob Corker (R-TN) and Chris Coons (D-DE), the Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development Act (BUILD Act) has gained significant momentum.
The International Development Finance Corporation
The BUILD Act, also known as S.2463, aims to consolidate the disparate U.S. agencies currently providing foreign aid into a single, new agency, to be called the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC). More specifically, there would be a consolidation of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), USAID’s Credit Authority, USAID’s Office of Private Capital and Microenterprise, and USAID’s Enterprise Funds. According to U.S. Representative Yoho, this consolidation would increase efficiency of foreign spending, and promote U.S. security, economic and diplomatic interests abroad.
The proposed agency will also benefit recipients of U.S. foreign aid. More streamlined and efficient spending in the U.S. government will allow for other countries to become stronger trading partners; in doing so, this change would also open new markets, and encourage self-sufficient economic development in communities worldwide. Supporters of the BUILD Act argue that it will help combat humanitarian concerns that plague many developing nations, including poverty, hunger and disease.
In recent weeks the BUILD Act has been publically supported by the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, U.S. Representative Ed Royce (R-CA), the committee saying that older agencies such as OPIC need to be modernized, and as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, will strengthen American foreign aid and make the U.S. competitive.
What is the BUILD Act?
So what exactly does the BUILD Act propose? It gives the new agency, the IDFC, grantmaking capability, the ability to make equity investments, and an increased spending cap. These capabilities increase U.S. foreign aid spending, and encourage the participation of private sector capital to complement development assistance objectives. It is important to note however, that there is a regulation on how much of foreign aid spending can be used to make equity investments.
The text of the bill describes the purpose of the BUILD Act in Section 101 of the bill as, “to mobilize private capital in support of sustainable, broad-based economic growth, poverty reduction, and development through demand-driven partnerships with the private sector that further the foreign policy interests of the United States,” highlighting the benefits of the BUILD Act going both to the U.S. and international aid recipients.
While some are concerned about how the organization will actually take over USAID’s and OPIC’s duties, many are excited by the fact that the creation of the IDFC will create further accountability and cost no money, making it an increasingly appealing bill. While more work needs to be done concerning the transition, oversight on the IDFC will fall to Congress, and external auditors, who will preform regular audits of the organization.
Allied For a Cause
U.S. Representative Adam Smith, a co-sponsor on the initial proposal, announced a press release that reads: “Through our partnerships with friends and allies, we work to raise up local communities – strengthening institutions, combating hunger and disease, and ensuring that development projects have sustainable, long lasting impacts.” Representative Smith identifies how this increased spending on development improves the lives of individuals abroad.
The BUILD Act is gaining momentum in Washington, and purports to improve efficiency and effectiveness of U.S. foreign aid deployment.
– Katherine Kirker
Photo: Flickr
How Partnership Drives Development in Agra, Malawi and Tanzania
Empowering and creating partnerships with local actors is a longstanding tenet of effective development projects. When those in need rely too heavily on outside influences, regardless of their intentions, they risk losing control of the resources and decision-making best left to those closest to the problem. Partnership with local actors gives development projects the best chance of being effective and sustainable. Here are three examples of how partnership drives development.
Agra
In 2009, the community of Agra, India — home to the iconic Taj Mahal — suffered from a water sanitation crisis. Waste collection and disposal became nonexistent and a large majority of residents practiced open defecation. As waste flowed into the Yamuna river of which locals relied for irrigation and drinking, residents risked exposure to polio, typhoid, dysentery and cholera.
In partnership with the Center for Urban and Regional Excellence, a USAID-supported non-governmental organization (NGO), Agra’s governing municipality constructed a wastewater treatment plant to protect the water source used by the 2,000 community members living in Agra.
The plant employs natural processes requiring minimal power and maintenance; however, the true indicator of the project’s success came in 2017, when Agra’s municipality took over all operations from outside actors and ensured clean drinking water for the people of Agra for years to come.
Malawi
In another example of how partnership drives development, the Human Resources for Health in 2030 (HRH2030) program is partnering with the government of Malawi to recruit and hire 300 medical workers to combat the HIV epidemic. In Malawi, more than 900,000 people currently live with HIV. To add to the problem, the country suffers from a severe shortage of healthcare professionals needed to address this issue.
While the program only started in November 2017, facility managers from the HIV-freighted Lilongwe and Zomba districts have already noted the positive impact of the increase in workers. Furthermore, the local government has signed an agreement to take on financial responsibility for the new workers by 2020, committing to self-reliance and sustainability.
Tanzania
In addition to increasing access to a network of health professionals, the community of Tabora, Tanzania highlights the effectiveness of another way of combating HIV — male circumcision. Studies suggest that male circumcision reduces transmission in heterosexual men by near 60 percent, and is a powerful preventative tool, especially in combination with other approaches.
In an example of how partnership drives development, The USAID-funded Strengthening High-Impact Interventions for an AIDS-free Generation (AIDSFree) project is partnering with the Tabora regional health administration to increase access to voluntary medical male circumcision (VMMC). A standard bearer of the cause, traditional healer Albert Cosmas acts as a VMMC ambassador, encouraging other men to have the procedure and thereby helping reduce the HIV footprint in Tabora.
When development agencies make top-down decisions without partnership with local actors, they risk harming the communities they aim to serve. Indeed, “acting in collaborative partnership” is explicitly included in the United Nations 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. These three stories illustrate the powerful impact of a bottom-up approach that empowers local actors with the capacity to carry progress into the future.
– Whiting Tennis
Photo: Flickr
Top Problems in the World That Can Be Solved
Top Problems that can be Solved
The Copenhagen Consensus Center, a think tank that researches the smartest solutions to global issues, organized a panel of five distinguished economists in 2012 to set priorities for fighting the 10 top problems in the world that can be solved:
The panel was asked to describe the best ways to advance global welfare, specifically that of developing countries. The experts then assembled a prioritized list of thirty solutions.
Solutions to the World’s Issues
The number one solution was “bundled interventions to reduce undernutrition in pre-schoolers” and addressed the challenge of hunger and education. Some other proposals high on the list were subsidies for malaria combination treatment and expanding childhood immunization coverage.
The group of experts covered topics besides health, with solutions ranging from investing in early warning systems for natural disasters to increased funding for green energy.
With this list in mind, world leaders at the U.N. Sustainable Development Summit adopted the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development in Sept. 2015. On Jan. 1, 2016, the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) replaced the eight Millennium Development Goals of 2015.
The new 17 SDGs were to:
A New Set of Problems
80,000 Hours, an independent nonprofit organization that researches how graduates can make the biggest difference possible with their careers, came up with another list defining problems in the world that can be solved. Drawing from research from groups such as the University of Oxford’s Future of Humanity Institute and the Copenhagen Consensus Center, 80,000 Hours created a framework to rate global issues.
The organization based its scoring on how solving the problem would reduce the risk of extinction, raise the global economic output, increase the income among the world’s poorest 2 billion people and save years of healthy life. It also used factors like the amount of good done compared to the percent of the problem solved and the number of resources required.
Risks from artificial intelligence topped 80,000 Hours’ list out of 11. Also on the list were biosecurity, developing world health and climate change. Other issues 80,000 Hours has yet to rate include science policy and infrastructure, cheap green energy and promoting human rights. The group indicates that improving health would be more beneficial than topics like empowering the poor and education.
Due to how differently each solution overlaps with others there are various ways to rank a list of top problems in the world that can be solved. Thankfully, experts are doing their best to target issues to focus on and world leaders are taking calculated steps to implement solutions to such issues.
– Connie Loo
Photo: Flickr
Malala Visited Pakistan for the First Time Since 2012
The story of Malala Yousafzai’s survival is widely known around the globe. Recently, Malala visited Pakistan for the first time since 2012 when she was shot in the head by the Taliban.
Returning to Pakistan
In 2018, Malala returned to Pakistan and, under security protection, visited her home in the northwest town of Mingora. Back in 2012, Mingora was controlled by the Taliban under the rule of Mullah Fazlullah. At the age of 15, Malala was already vocal about female education, something that wasn’t supported under Taliban rule.
The Attack and Recovery
One day, Malala was traveling on a school bus with other students when it was stopped by men who were part of the Taliban. They boarded the bus, asking for Malala by name. When her friends turned to look at her, the trigger was pulled and she was shot in the head.
Malala was rushed to the hospital, where her recovery was difficult. Within the first 72 hours of being shot, her brain swelled and she got an infection. She was transported to England to receive rehabilitative care at the Queen Elizabeth Medical Center, which specialized in emergency and rehabilitative care. Malala survived her attack after various surgeries but was left with some facial paralysis and deafness in her left ear.
Continuing the Fight for Education
After recuperating, Malala continued her fight for the education of girls. She became the youngest Nobel laureate in 2014 when she received the Nobel Peace Prize for her “struggle against the suppression of children and young people and for the right of all children to education.”
Malala has a foundation in her name, which is set up to support groups in Pakistan, Nigeria, Jordan, Syria and Kenya that support education. Apple has also partnered with Malala and the Malala Fund to help girls get an education.
According to 9 to 5 Mac, Apple will help the Malala Fund reach its goal of providing secondary education to more than 100,000 girls who would otherwise be unable to attend school.
Since the murder attempt in 2012, Malala has become the biggest advocate for girls education in Pakistan. She has become a beacon of hope. After Malala’s last visit to Pakistan, she hopes to return to live there after she finishes her studies in England.
– Valeria Flores
Photo: Flickr
Girls’ Education in Guatemala Becoming More Accessible in Rural Areas
Attending school in Guatemala presents many challenges. In a country where poverty and inequality are prevalent, indigenous females are the most disadvantaged and vulnerable group. With little protection of the rights of adolescent girls, many girls and women do not attend school and are forced into child labor. More than two million children in Guatemala are not attending school; the majority of these are indigenous girls living in rural areas.
Barriers to Education in Guatemala Affect Girls Most
The prevalence of child labor is higher in Guatemala than anywhere else in Latin America. With more than half the population living below the poverty line, many children can not afford the cost of school. Dropout rates for girls are high. According to the Cooperative for Education, a nonprofit organization providing educational resources and opportunities to indigenous Mayan schoolchildren, an indigenous Guatemalan woman stays in school for an average of 1.8 years. They often leave school early to help support their family, take care of siblings or get married.
Furthermore, more than half of the Guatemalan population is indigenous and less than 30 percent of poor, rural indigenous girls are enrolled in secondary education. By age 17, only 26 percent of indigenous girls are still enrolled in school.
Even for those who are able to attend school, particularly in rural schools and in indigenous communities, they find that they are poorly funded and do not have adequate books, curriculum guides, literacy materials and exam prep guides. Nine out of 10 schools in rural Guatemala lack books. Another problem, especially in rural areas, is a lack of proper training for teachers. This stems from the challenges of recruiting and retaining quality teachers in rural schools.
USAID Partners with Guatemalan Ministry of Education
Despite these challenges, there are actions being taken by organizations to improve the quality of education. USAID works in partnership with the government of Guatemala to improve primary level reading skills and provide educational opportunities for out-of-school youth. These efforts have resulted in improvements to the education system in many ways, as the Ministry of Education has now developed strong K-9 national education standards.
USAID has also implemented an innovative assessment system for entry-level teachers using standardized testing in Spanish and nine Mayan languages to hire and place teachers. It was also through USAID support that the ministry improved its transparency and efficiency of its processes, which led to it receiving an international certification of its management system. The ministry is the first public institution to meet this standard.
Girl Up Gives Special Focus to Girls’ Education in Guatemala
The need for investment in girls’ education in Guatemala is crucial. Education can help fight the disadvantages indigenous girls in Guatemala face, such as limited schooling, early marriage, frequent childbearing and chronic poverty. Work supporting girls’ education in Guatemala is progressing. Girl Up supports adolescent girls in Guatemala by funding a United Nations joint program which delivers an integrated and comprehensive package of services in partnership with national partners and local implementing organizations. The programs address complex challenges which limit indigenous girls’ opportunities for success.
Girl Up has four strategic goals, including:
It also works to strengthen government support and capacity with a specific focus on indigenous girls in rural areas with Guatemala’s Ministry of Education, Ministry of Health and the National Institute of Statistics to support adolescent girls from around the country.
Building partnerships with local organizations is also a focus of Girl Up. Through this, it has implemented activities that have strengthened the social skills of hundreds of adolescent girls from rural communities. Girl Up supports U.N. programs in two of the most excluded and vulnerable regions of Guatemala, Totonicapán and Huehuetenango. This support has included providing educational materials in indigenous languages to make learning easier and giving girls forced to drop out of school a second chance.
Through these investments in girls’ education in Guatemala, lives will be changed. Girls will have the ability to achieve their goals, improve their futures and change their communities.
– Ashley Quigley
Photo: Flickr
10 Facts About Poverty in Russia
Russia is a highly controversial country today, with many people questioning what the government’s policies are and how the citizens of Russia truly feel about their leaders. In any case, poverty in Russia is a problem. From wealth inequality to political corruption, Russia’s poverty challenges are multi-dimensional.
Russia’s poverty rate is on the rise
In the late 1990’s Russia’s poverty rates rose to 29 percent. In the early 2000s, incomes increased and allowed a significant amount of people to rise above the poverty line. Poverty rates in the early 2000s stayed constant at around 10 percent. Unfortunately, the poverty rate has seen an increase in recent years, with 13.5 percent of Russians living in poverty in 2016.
Politics drastically affect poverty in Russia
Russia’s longtime leader Vladimir Putin secured a fourth term on March 18 and has been widely criticized by many leaders around the globe for aggressive military actions and corruption. The U.S. imposed sanctions on Russia after the annexation of Crimea and the ongoing conflict in Ukraine. These sanctions have led to increased poverty in Russia, as well as food shortages.
Falling oil prices have led to an increase in poverty
Along with economic sanctions, rapidly falling oil prices have severely reduced Russia’s revenue from oil exports. As a result, the economy in Russia has been hit hard and its people have seen an increase in poverty rates.
Wealth inequality is a major problem
The contrast between the rich and the poor in Russia is apparent. Studies have shown that Russia’s most affluent 10 percent control roughly 77 percent of the wealth. Despite this, Putin has made it clear that he wishes to invest in infrastructure in Russia and do everything possible to decrease economic dependence on Western powers.
The embargo on western foods has not helped Russia
In 2014, the Russian government banned the importation of many food products from Western countries in response to Western-imposed sanctions. This embargo was meant to hurt the West, but it also led to a heightened food scarcity, especially for those struggling with poverty in Russia.
Russia’s agricultural sector struggles
Russia has been known to have large amounts of barren farmland, which makes food production difficult. Coupled with the embargo on Western products, it has led to a very turbulent economy and a lack of confidence in food security over the last 10 years.
Rural citizens are providing poverty solutions
Russia’s rural citizens often enjoy a higher quality of life due to their ability to grow food and produce products others need. With the food embargo, many of Russia’s rural citizens have been pressured to produce more and, as a result, have found new ways to produce more products domestically.
Short-term solutions are unlikely
Russia would undoubtedly benefit from more friendly relationships with Western territories and its neighbors in the East. While this is unlikely given Putin’s recent military actions and opinions on Western power, the poverty-stricken citizens in Russia would benefit from a long-term lift of sanctions and embargos.
Russia needs a more cohesive strategy to fight poverty
Russia needs to build more cohesive poverty-fighting strategies if it wishes to increase the quality of life for its citizens. Putin has said that his government wishes to increase domestic spending on infrastructure and poverty reduction, but have not clearly stated what actions it will take or where it will get the funding.
Russia’s battle with poverty is far from over
Russia’s economic hardships are not going to see an end overnight. Many of its issues are long-standing and notoriously difficult to improve. With new conflicts arising with the West and Russia’s neighbors, it’s hard to envision a quick path to poverty resolution.
Poverty in Russia is ongoing and multi-dimensional. Diminishing oil profits, one-dimensional economic conditions and government sanctions play a major role in the poverty problems in Russia. A struggling agricultural sector and sanctions on U.S. goods cause serious problems for food security in Russia. The country has a long road ahead in an attempt to reduce poverty within its borders.
– Dalton Westfall
Photo: Flickr
WASH United: Working to Achieve Clean Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
Undernutrition is a major cause of disease and death that affects millions of people worldwide. A direct cause of undernutrition is disease indirectly related to factors such as contaminated drinking water and poor sanitation and hygiene. WASH United aims to fulfill the basic human right to clean drinking water and sanitation as recognized by the United Nations General Assembly in 2010.
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene the Building Blocks of Global Health
Since 2010, the United Nations International Children’s Emergency Fund (UNICEF) has been working to improve water, sanitation and hygiene services and practices in more than 100 countries worldwide. Last year, nearly 14 million people were provided with access to clean water and more than 11 million with basic toilets.
WASH is the unified term for water, sanitation and hygiene. Although each is a separate issue, success in one category is dependent on the other. For example, without clean water, basic hygiene is not possible; without toilets, sources of water become polluted. By focusing efforts on these dependent factors, WASH United hopes to increase the awareness of and access to clean drinking water, sanitation and hygiene.
Water
Each year 800,000 children are killed by diarrhea caused by dirty water, poor sanitation and lack of hygiene skills. This is more than the number of children killed by AIDS, malaria and measles combined. UNICEF reports that the risk of diarrhea can be reduced by almost 50 percent by washing hands with soap before eating and after using the toilet. WASH United works to make hand washing a habit for everyone through interactive games and positive messaging.
Sanitation
Worldwide, 2.4 billion people lack access to a hygienic toilet while 946 million have no access to a toilet of any kind. Instead, they use open places in and around their communities such as railroad tracks and ditches. Even with access, there are tens of thousands of toilets in South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa that are abandoned and unused. WASH United strives to change attitudes through innovative tools around sanitation and create a demand for toilets.
Hygiene
A 2013 UNICEF study reported that one out of three girls in South Asia knew nothing about menstruation before starting their period, while 48 percent of girls in Iran and 10 percent of girls in India believed that menstruation is a disease. WASH United aims to educate women about important components of hygiene during menstruation and work closely with communities to motivate positive practices.
To date, WASH United has reached 500 million people through campaigns and media work and has trained 200,000 children in good WASH behavior. However, there is still work to do. WASH United aims to achieve water, sanitation and hygiene for all people by 2030, and aspires to reach the World Health Assembly global nutrition targets by 2025. These targets include:
Although there is still much to achieve, WASH United has already impacted the lives of millions. To date, it has reached 500 million people through campaigns and media work and has trained 200,000 children in good water, sanitation and hygiene behavior.
– Anne-Marie Maher
Photo: Flickr
Democracy, Monarchy and Dictatorship: Types of Government Systems
Aristotle was the first to define three principal types of government systems in the fourth century B.C. These consisted of monarchy, aristocracy and polity. Since then, many more have been formulated, but the main themes and ideas have remained. Today, the five most common government systems include democracy, republic, monarchy, communism and dictatorship. This list details what to know about each.
Five Types of Government Systems
A democracy can be defined as a government system with supreme power placed in the hands of the people. It can be traced back to as early as the fifth century B.C. In fact, the word democracy is Greek for “people power”. While most use the United States as an example of a democratic government system, the United States actually has what is called a representative democracy. The difference lies in the method of civilian participation. In a direct democracy, every citizen is given an equal say in the government. In a representative democracy, citizens elect representatives who make the law. The difference is significant when put into action. Other examples of democratic states include Aruba, Bulgaria, Canada, Costa Rica and the Dominican Republic.
In a republic government system, the power also rests with the people, as they are in charge of electing or choosing the country’s leader, instead of the leader being appointed or inheriting power. Broadly defined, a republic is a government system without a monarch. A republic may be governed by a group of nobles, as long as there is not a single monarch. Some examples of countries with a republic government system include Argentina, Bolivia, Czech Republic and France.
In a monarchy, state power is held by a single family that inherits rule from one generation to the next. In a monarchy, an individual from the royal family holds the position of power until they die. Today, the majority of monarchy governments have transitioned to constitutional monarchies, where the monarch is head of state but only performs ceremonial roles and does not have state power. Only a few countries still have systems where the monarch retains control; these include Brunei, Oman, Saudi Arabia and Swaziland.
A communist government system is usually based on a particular ideology of communism taught by Karl Marx or Vladimir Lenin. A single party or group of people usually runs communist states. In some cases, citizens of a communist state are given certain jobs or life duties in an effort to obtain collective citizenship for the state. Examples of communist states include China, Cuba and Vietnam.
In a dictatorship, a single person, a dictator, has absolute power over the state. It is not necessarily ruled by a theology or belief. It is an authoritarian form of government where one person is in charge of enforcing and enacting the law. Aspects often include military organizational backing, unfair elections (if any) and various human rights violations. A dictator does not usually inherit their power like a monarch does; they either seize control of the state by force or through (usually unfair) elections. Dictators are not held accountable for their actions and thus are free to do as they please, including limiting citizens’ rights. Burundi, Chad, Equatorial Guinea and North Korea are contemporary examples of countries run by a dictator.
While these types of government systems all vary, they have at least one similarity: the allocation of power. Whether it be the allocation of power to a single person, a group of people, or evenly distributed to everyone, power is the shared theme of all types of government systems.
– Haley Hine
Photo: Flickr