How does reducing global poverty create U.S. jobs? When people in developing nations transition from barely surviving, to middle and upper-class, they go from consumers of basic needs, like food or toothpaste, to consumers of more luxurious items like clothing, travel and technology. Reducing poverty opens giant, untapped markets for the United States. Luxury items like these are primarily operated by American companies, and an increase in demand for product stimulates more American jobs.
One in five American jobs is related to international trade in some way. In the last forty years, the impact that trade has on the U.S. economy has tripled.
The fastest-growing markets in the world are in developing countries, and 45 percent of the United States exports go to these areas. Foreign Policy Magazine states that the world’s poor is the largest untapped market on earth. “By building new markets overseas for American products, the International Affairs budget creates jobs and boosts the economy here at home,” says Governor Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security.
In fact, the majority of the U.S.’s top trading partners (the countries who buy our products, pouring money into our economy and providing jobs to thousands of Americans) used to benefit from U.S. foreign aid that helped them reduce poverty.
This is shown by the Marshall Plan. Implemented after World War II, the United States invested the equivalent of 110 billion dollars in both ally and enemy countries across Europe, helping them rebuild and reduce poverty.
Today, 240 billion dollars of American goods are exported to EU countries each year. The United States has made back double what their initial investment was in just one year of trade. What if this same principle is applied to developing countries?
The largest corporations in America understand the economic potential of untapped markets throughout the developing world, the subsequent boost in American jobs that accessing these markets could provide and the dire need for the United States’ foreign policy to invest in developing countries through aid.
In July 2012, over 50 major companies collaborated and sent a letter to Congress in support of the International Affairs Budget. It is in the economic interest of Google, IBM, CitiBank, Coca-Cola, Campbell Soup Company, Cargill, John Deere, Land O’ Lakes, PepsiCo, Walmart, Kraft, Johnson & Johnson and others to alleviate global poverty.
These companies wrote, “As business leaders, we know that U.S. economic growth is linked with global trade and the world’s economy like never before. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has noted, overseas markets represent 95 percent of the world’s consumers and 80 percent of global purchasing power. Trade already supports one in three U.S. manufacturing jobs, and these trends will become even more pronounced in the future. For all these reasons, we urge you to support a strong and effective International Affairs Budget. While just 1 percent of the federal budget, these programs are vital for achieving a more prosperous future for American businesses and the U.S. economy.”
One example of the economic potential that exists in developing nations is Indonesia’s 2011 Boeing deal. As Indonesia’s national poverty level diminished and their economy grew steadily, they became classified as a middle-income country, with help from aid investments by the U.S. and other nations. Boeing announced its largest deal in company history: 230 jets for 22 billion dollars with Indonesia’s Lion Air. Indonesia’s poverty decline has stimulated millions of new consumers of United States products, which also creates countless American jobs.
Tech companies see the consumer potential that exists in Africa; some estimate that there are over 1 billion untapped potential users of technology in Africa today. For this reason, companies are attempting to connect Africans to the internet. In Google’s Project Loon, high altitude balloons supply remote regions with beams of WiFi. Facebook has plans to fly 11,000 solar-powered drones to give Africa access to WiFi. Microsoft’s 4Afrika initiative is a 20-year plan. “ The Microsoft 4Afrika Initiative is built on the dual beliefs that technology can accelerate growth for Africa, and Africa can also accelerate technology for the world,” says their website.
Other companies are rushing to invest in Africa. Marriott estimates that Africa will be the next Asia in terms of economic development, and spent $200 million that will provide 23,000 more rooms across Africa. “Africa has significant untapped potential for travel and tourism, both as a destination and source of new global travelers. The continent’s GDP is anticipated to grow at over 5 percent annually over the next several years which we expect will raise more people into the emerging middle class,” said Arne Sorenson, CEO of Marriott.
The support that important American companies give to international aid, the rush of companies to become involved in developing regions, the United States’ history with aid investment and the importance of trade in the American economy all support the dire need for international aid investment in the world’s poor.
– Aaron Andree
Sources: The Borgen Project, Microsoft, Rural Poverty Portal
Photo: CNN
Top Businesses Doing the Most Good for the World
1. Intel
As of 2014, Intel became a conflict-free microprocessor manufacturer. According to Fast Company, this means that Intel does not source its raw materials from areas involved in armed conflict and human rights issues in order to make its processing devices. The company established this goal in 2012. Ever since, the company has worked to verify more conflict-free suppliers. Intel now looks to produce all of its products in the same way. This decision has a huge social impact because it places people above profit, demanding smelting companies to do the same if they wish to continue selling to Intel.
2. Warby Parker
The eyeglass company follows the TOMS business model: buy one, give one. At Warby Parker, every pair of glasses bought donates the equivalent dollar amount to Warby’s nonprofit partners, like VisionSpring. The money is then used to train aspiring optometrists in developing countries to properly conduct basic eye exams and how to sell eyeglasses to their communities at affordable prices. The great thing about Warby’s business approach is that it aims to create sustainable change by investing in building livelihoods. The Warby Parker website explains the importance of a single pair of frames: a single pair can increase productivity by 35 percent and increase monthly earnings by 20 percent. Today, 703 million people do not have access to eyewear, but thanks to Warby Parker, more than 18,000 people in over 35 countries have improved their eyesight.
3. TOMS
The founder of the “one-for-one” model has clothed the feet of more than 2 million children and has increased maternal healthcare participation by 42 percent as a result of shoe donations. TOMS’ work also enrolled 1,000 new students in Liberian primary schools and identified 100 children as malnourished, thanks to shoe-integrated health screenings in Malawi. The business currently works with more than 100 giving partners and aids more than 70 countries worldwide. Not only does TOMS work to give shoes, but the company also invests in supporting responsible shoe industries, providing safe water and quality education, training birth attendants and supplying birth kits. TOMS even works with bullying prevention centers in the United States by funding programs and training crisis employees to run Crisis Text Line.
4. Roshan Telecom
Afghanistan’s leading telecommunications provider is also one of the world’s most socially responsible businesses. It is a certified B Corporation, which means that it meets high and demanding standards for ethical business practices. It also works to proactively further the social and economic welfare of less developed areas. In 2014, the company expanded internationally, bringing its professional and humanitarian services along to countries like Burundi, Uganda and Tanzania. The Aga Khan Fund for Economic Development, another humanitarian player, largely owns Roshan Telecom. Together, they provide e-learning, telemedicine and environmentally friendly educational facilities. Roshan also works in East Africa to establish and strengthen mobile infrastructure.
5. Oliberté
The fair-trade, eco-friendly footwear factory supports workers’ rights in sub-Saharan Africa. Tal Dehtiar, the founder of Oliberté, began his work in 2009, partnering with factories and suppliers in Africa. In 2012, the company moved into its own factory in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. In September 2013, it became the world’s first Fair Trade Certified™ footwear manufacturing factory. Oliberté follows the motto “Trade. Not aid.” It works to create social enterprise by providing safe and ethical working environments, in addition to recycling profits into factory and job creation. So far, Oliberté has locations in Ethiopia, Liberia and Kenya. Dehtiar is looking to develop more factories in Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and Zambia. The ultimate goal is to enable a healthier generation, where men and women can earn a salary, kids can go to school and one proud family can give birth to another.
6. Bloomberg Philanthropies
The Foundation Center follows founder Michael R. Bloomberg’s humanitarian works. The American politician, business mogul and philanthropist served as the 108th Mayor of New York City and dedicated his life to investing in a better, cleaner and safer future. Bloomberg Philanthropies focuses on bettering public health, education, the environment, government innovation and the arts, among many others. Bloomberg Philanthropies’ work is quantifiable and supported by data. For example, The Foundation invested $53 million over a five-year time frame to fix the overfishing problem in Brazil, the Philippines and Chile. So far, 7 percent of the world’s fisheries, and counting, are being revived, thereby bringing back countless jobs and livelihoods in addition to revitalizing ocean life. As of 2013, Bloomberg Philanthropies distributed $452 million to humanitarian projects worldwide.
7. Sanergy
Sanergy works to provide sustainable sanitation in urban slums. So far, the company has opened 701 Fresh Life Toilets, each of which comes with toilet paper, sawdust, soap, and water for handwashing, according to the Sanergy website. Each toilet also provides a waste receptacle, a sanitary bin for women, a mirror, a coat hook and a solar lantern for early morning or nighttime trips. Access to the facilities is priced, but it is comparable to informal settlements. Fresh Life Toilets prices even offer more bang for their buck because they include all the products and services that other toilets do not offer. Thanks to Sanergy, waste removal is safer, more sanitary and even eco-friendly, as the waste is converted into fertilizer and electricity. Since the company’s start, 5,446 metric tons of waste have been properly transported and treated, and 727 jobs have been created.
– Lin Sabones
Sources: Fast Company, Warby Parker, TOMS, Oliberté, Sanergy
Photo: Designed Good
Tools for Achieving Foreign Policy Goals
Effective Tools for Achieving Foreign Policy Goals
Diplomacy
Diplomacy is the act of working and negotiating with representatives of foreign nations to reach consensus and set the stage for future rules. This can involve working on the development of accords, treaties, alliances and conventions. Diplomats form relationships with officials from other countries to understand their perspectives, while simultaneously portraying and promoting the values and position of the United States. Although there are many images in the media depicting diplomatic meetings regarding large-scale foreign policy decisions, most diplomatic relations — especially those of particular importance — occur behind the scenes through private discussions and negotiations. In addition to discussing issues with foreign officials, diplomats meet with many other members of foreign societies, ranging from business officials to representatives of nongovernmental organizations. By cultivating connections throughout civil society, diplomats can gain a better understanding of a country’s culture in order to find common ground on which to base relations and actions.
Foreign Aid
States can use foreign aid to achieve foreign policy objectives abroad, build relationships with other nations and address issues of humanitarian concern. There are various forms of aid, including foreign military aid, humanitarian assistance, food aid and general development aid. Foreign military aid involves augmenting another nation’s supply of military equipment and technological capabilities. Military aid can help a state indirectly influence the balance of power in areas abroad, therefore increasing a country’s sphere of influence. Military aid can also serve to help another country defend itself based on commonly shared ideals and values. Alternatively, states can give economic aid to other countries in order to stimulate growth or help with specific project development. The United States currently spends less than one percent of its budget on foreign aid.
Sanctions
Countries can use sanctions in an attempt to change another country’s behavior. Sanctions can be used to express dislike for a current behavior, limit opportunities for such behavior to continue and deter other countries from taking similar courses of action. Different types of sanctions include arms embargoes, trade embargoes, asset freezes and travel restrictions. Historically, sanctions have been put in place in an attempt to take a stand against human rights violations.
Military Force
Using military force — or hard power — in foreign relations involves states using their military to influence the behavior of weaker nations or directly involve themselves in the c0untry. The United States currently has the most powerful military in the world.
Deterrence
States can deter other states from taking an action by convincing opponents that the costs will exceed the benefits. This can happen through diplomacy or the threat of military action.
When making decisions that affect the international community, as many decisions do, states either behave unilaterally, bilaterally or multilaterally. Unilateral action indicates that a state is acting alone, independent of common norms or rules of world order. Unilateral actions tend to be based on self-interest rather than on international standards of behavior. Meanwhile, bilateral action indicates that two states are acting together. Finally, multilateral actions indicate a multiplayer coordination of efforts based on commonly shared norms. A nation’s approach toward cooperation with other nations in dealing with its foreign policy agenda is very influential in the effectiveness of each of the tools.
The foreign policy tools actually used are largely dependent on a nation’s foreign policy agenda. Most contemporary issues are seen to be multifaceted in nature, and will thus need to be approached with a combination of these instruments. The established goals of a state’s foreign policy agenda will also affect the choice of tools. In reality, the actual usage of these tools is not only dependent on what goals are being pursued, but on what resources are available.
– Arin Kerstein
Sources: Global Issues, Government of the Netherlands, United States Diplomacy Center
Photo: Council on Foreign Relations
Young Leaders of America Initiative
In a visit to Jamaica in April, President Obama has unveiled plans to increase opportunities for youth in the Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) region through the YLAI fellowship, which allows young men and women from LAC countries that have vested interests in business, social entrepreneurship and technology development, to join with their counterparts in the United States. These partnerships will build the skills of the Western Hemisphere’s emerging youth population as well as providing them with opportunities that may not be available in their home countries.
ShareAmerica said, “The fellowship will develop the knowledge, skills and networking capabilities of young leaders across the Western Hemisphere. Through the initiative, we will be able to significantly expand ties between the most promising entrepreneurs and civil society activists in Latin America and the Caribbean with their counterparts in the United States.”
According to The White House, the YLAI was designed particularly for the large youth population in the LAC region. Approximately 58 percent of the region’s population is under 35, and many LAC countries have a youth population of at least 70 percent. Unfortunately, many young people do not get to accomplish their dreams of becoming the next big entrepreneur or tech developer due to the prevalence of unemployment, limited access to jobs and education and poverty. These harsh realities often result in young people turning to illicit activities to produce income, which greatly reduces their chances of ever entering the workforce.
However, YLAI is working to address these issues by allowing a group of 250 ambitious young people to participate in a comprehensive program that will give them specialized training in their chosen field, either entrepreneurial or social/civil development. Similar to The Young Leaders of Africa Initiative launched in 2010, YLAI will also allow participants to connect to young people in the U.S with their same goals, and work to develop a stronger system of transnational ties.
The White House said, “The preponderance of the fellowships will take place at universities, incubators and non-governmental organizations across the United States, while follow-on exchanges will send Americans to Latin America and the Caribbean to continue the collaboration. YLAI fellows will receive ongoing support through a continuum of networking, mentorship, and investment opportunities.”
YLAI fellows will begin their fellowships with a comprehensive six-week training as well as becoming fully immersed with a social or business organization that will provide mentoring and networking opportunities. The fellowship will conclude with a summit in Washington D.C, where participants will continue to build on the connections that they have made throughout the fellowship.
Seventy million dollars has been committed to the YLAI and a pilot program has already been launched that includes a total of 24 participants who were selected by U.S embassies. Though the status of participants is unknown, such programs as the YLAI demonstrate the growing need to invest in the youth population of the world, so that they may contribute to the emerging world market.
– Candice Hughes
Sources: Devex, Share America 1, Share America 2, White House,
Photo: Share America
The Difference Between Urgent and Important Foreign Policy Goals
The existence of human rights on a global scale is not only in the best interest of foreign nations but of the United States as well. Successful U.S. foreign policy in defense of human rights often results in the decline of national security threats and the maintenance of the balance of power among nations. U.S. involvement in global affairs also works toward cooperative foreign trade and global economic interaction.
Creating specific U.S. foreign policy is often a balance of interests in which diplomats and leaders must decide which issues require direct and immediate attention at a given moment. Henry Kissinger, National Security Adviser and Secretary of State under Presidents Nixon and Ford, stated that when creating foreign policy it is necessary “to separate the urgent from the important and make sure you’re dealing with the important and don’t let the urgent drive out the important.”
One only needs to read the latest newspaper headlines to find that the U.S. government has recently focused heavily on the urgent threats of Iranian nuclear capabilities and Russian force against Ukraine. Although the most urgent foreign affairs have assumed much diplomatic attention, the Obama Administration has recently chosen to shift some of its focus to U.S. relations with Cuba. Affairs in Cuba are at the moment a less urgent national security issue but an important human rights issue.
Goals of foreign policy with Cuba, as listed on the state department’s website, aim at re-establishing diplomatic relations, empowering the Cuban people by “adjusting” regulations and facilitating more travel to Cuba for U.S. businesses. The potential for future health collaboration may also provide greater opportunities to advance the well being of Cubans.
The Department of State hopes that the increased flow of information and goods – up to $400 in Cuban goods, $100 of which can comprise alcohol and tobacco products – will expose the Cubans to democratic society. However, Cuban President Raul Castro still hopes to partake in dialogue with the U.S. that “acknowledges our profound differences, particularly on issues related to national sovereignty, democracy, human rights and foreign policy.” Castro plans to maintain a “prosperous and sustainable Socialism,” which could prove a point of contention between the Cuban government and American businesses that settle in the Latin American country.
No policy change in regard to the 1962 embargo with Cuba will occur until Congress officially changes the law, but international progress and cooperation between the U.S. and its offshore neighbor have already returned Cuban and American hostages to their home countries and advanced one of the most important goals of foreign policy, human rights.
– Paulina Menichiello
Sources: The White House, The Guardian, USHistory.org Pew Research Center, The Washington Post 1, The Washington Post 2, CNN, NewsWeek
Photo: The Washington Post
How Bindis Could Help Treat Iodine Deficiency in India
Iodine deficiency can cause health problems such as goitre, an enlargement of the thyroid gland, and other thyroid conditions that can lead to breast cancer or fibroids. Iodine is especially important for pregnant women, who generally require double the amount than is typically needed. Pregnant women with iodine deficiencies can give birth to children with developmental problems or neurological conditions such as cretinism.
Iodine does not have to be ingested for one to receive the nutritional benefits. It can also be absorbed through the skin. This was the idea behind the Life Saving Dot, a bindi designed by the Grey for Good organization and the Neelvasant Medical Foundation and Research Center.
The bindi has religious significance for Hindus, but Indian women often wear it as a fashion statement regardless of religious affiliation. Bindis can be applied with colored powder, but many now wear sticker bindis, which come in endless shapes, colors, and sizes. The Life Saving Dot looks exactly like a real bindi, yet doubles as an iodine patch.
This bindi slowly releases the necessary amount of iodine, 150-200 micrograms, over the course of the day. It fits easily into the daily routine of any woman who normally wears a bindi, making it a convenient source of iodine. These bindis have been put into circulation by medical facilities in 100 villages and have been distributed to about 30,000 Indian women. Women receive a month’s supply, which costs 10 rupees or 16 cents.
While the Life Saving Dot shows success, there are concerns that the iodine solution will evaporate and leave very little to be absorbed by the body, especially in the harsh sunlight. Therefore, they may need to carry a larger dose than the standard 200 micrograms. Many tests will need to be done before it can be certain that the bindis are effective. These include estimations for urinary iodine, radio-iodine uptakes and thyroid hormones.
Even if the bindis do not make a significant impact on iodine deficiency in India, the organization has already achieved another goal. They wanted to bring more attention to the issue of iodine deficiency, as many do not understand its importance. In order to reach more women, Grey for Good is beginning more widespread distribution efforts, and in time, the Life Saving Dot could help end iodine deficiency in India.
– Jane Harkness
Sources: About Religion, GOOD Magazine, NPR, Scroll, Times of India
Photo: Fashion Lady
Reducing Poverty Creates US Jobs
How does reducing global poverty create U.S. jobs? When people in developing nations transition from barely surviving, to middle and upper-class, they go from consumers of basic needs, like food or toothpaste, to consumers of more luxurious items like clothing, travel and technology. Reducing poverty opens giant, untapped markets for the United States. Luxury items like these are primarily operated by American companies, and an increase in demand for product stimulates more American jobs.
One in five American jobs is related to international trade in some way. In the last forty years, the impact that trade has on the U.S. economy has tripled.
The fastest-growing markets in the world are in developing countries, and 45 percent of the United States exports go to these areas. Foreign Policy Magazine states that the world’s poor is the largest untapped market on earth. “By building new markets overseas for American products, the International Affairs budget creates jobs and boosts the economy here at home,” says Governor Tom Ridge, former secretary of homeland security.
In fact, the majority of the U.S.’s top trading partners (the countries who buy our products, pouring money into our economy and providing jobs to thousands of Americans) used to benefit from U.S. foreign aid that helped them reduce poverty.
This is shown by the Marshall Plan. Implemented after World War II, the United States invested the equivalent of 110 billion dollars in both ally and enemy countries across Europe, helping them rebuild and reduce poverty.
Today, 240 billion dollars of American goods are exported to EU countries each year. The United States has made back double what their initial investment was in just one year of trade. What if this same principle is applied to developing countries?
The largest corporations in America understand the economic potential of untapped markets throughout the developing world, the subsequent boost in American jobs that accessing these markets could provide and the dire need for the United States’ foreign policy to invest in developing countries through aid.
In July 2012, over 50 major companies collaborated and sent a letter to Congress in support of the International Affairs Budget. It is in the economic interest of Google, IBM, CitiBank, Coca-Cola, Campbell Soup Company, Cargill, John Deere, Land O’ Lakes, PepsiCo, Walmart, Kraft, Johnson & Johnson and others to alleviate global poverty.
These companies wrote, “As business leaders, we know that U.S. economic growth is linked with global trade and the world’s economy like never before. As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce has noted, overseas markets represent 95 percent of the world’s consumers and 80 percent of global purchasing power. Trade already supports one in three U.S. manufacturing jobs, and these trends will become even more pronounced in the future. For all these reasons, we urge you to support a strong and effective International Affairs Budget. While just 1 percent of the federal budget, these programs are vital for achieving a more prosperous future for American businesses and the U.S. economy.”
One example of the economic potential that exists in developing nations is Indonesia’s 2011 Boeing deal. As Indonesia’s national poverty level diminished and their economy grew steadily, they became classified as a middle-income country, with help from aid investments by the U.S. and other nations. Boeing announced its largest deal in company history: 230 jets for 22 billion dollars with Indonesia’s Lion Air. Indonesia’s poverty decline has stimulated millions of new consumers of United States products, which also creates countless American jobs.
Tech companies see the consumer potential that exists in Africa; some estimate that there are over 1 billion untapped potential users of technology in Africa today. For this reason, companies are attempting to connect Africans to the internet. In Google’s Project Loon, high altitude balloons supply remote regions with beams of WiFi. Facebook has plans to fly 11,000 solar-powered drones to give Africa access to WiFi. Microsoft’s 4Afrika initiative is a 20-year plan. “ The Microsoft 4Afrika Initiative is built on the dual beliefs that technology can accelerate growth for Africa, and Africa can also accelerate technology for the world,” says their website.
Other companies are rushing to invest in Africa. Marriott estimates that Africa will be the next Asia in terms of economic development, and spent $200 million that will provide 23,000 more rooms across Africa. “Africa has significant untapped potential for travel and tourism, both as a destination and source of new global travelers. The continent’s GDP is anticipated to grow at over 5 percent annually over the next several years which we expect will raise more people into the emerging middle class,” said Arne Sorenson, CEO of Marriott.
The support that important American companies give to international aid, the rush of companies to become involved in developing regions, the United States’ history with aid investment and the importance of trade in the American economy all support the dire need for international aid investment in the world’s poor.
– Aaron Andree
Sources: The Borgen Project, Microsoft, Rural Poverty Portal
Photo: CNN
Annual Corporate Philanthropy Awards
The Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy (CECP) is an international group of business executives focusing on increasing levels of corporate philanthropy. The committee is comprised of over 150 CEOS from large-scale companies across industries that account for almost half of the reported corporate philanthropy in the United States.
Since 2000, CECP has honored two companies annually that stand out most in their Corporate Philanthropy Awards, according to its four Standards of Excellence in Corporate Philanthropy: CEO leadership, innovation, dedication to measurement and partnership. The committee identifies winners for the Chairman’s Award for companies with revenues of $20 billion and more and the President’s Award for companies under that threshold. These Excellence Awards are the widely-recognized form of honor for corporate giving. Every year, the committee collects an independent jury from various disciplines to decide the recipients of the awards. The jurors base their discussions off of companies’ applications.
The Washington Business Journal, Nashville Business Journal and Philadelphia Business Journal also hold annual Corporate Giving Awards Ceremonies on a smaller scale.
At the CECP Board of Boards CEO event in February in New York City, the committee announced that the winners of the 2015 Excellence Awards are PepsiCo and PwC US.
PepsiCo received the Chairman’s Award for its prioritization of providing clean water in alleviating global poverty. CECP presented the award for the company’s support for The Water Cellars for Mothers project, which provides residents of the Guangxi Province of China with access to safe water. PepsiCo has committed to providing over 6 million people with access to clean water this year.
PwC was awarded the President’s Award for its $160 million “Earn Your Future” commitment to promote fiscally responsible behavior to students across the United States in order to better prepare students for the future. In its third year of implementation, this multi-year commitment has reached over 1.2 million students and educators and has provided more than 530,000 hours of service.
CECP announced that after 15 years of presenting Excellence Awards, it is changing the award system. The committee hopes to expand its reach in the coming year to be able to honor more corporations for their dedication and success in promoting philanthropy across the globe.
– Arin Kerstein
Sources: 3BL Media, Committee Encouraging Corporate Philanthropy, Double the Donation
Photo: SmugMug
Feed the Future Helps Small Farmers in Africa
Most Tanzanian farmers do not have the training or equipment required to properly use chemical fertilizers and pesticides. They use untreated seeds planted at random distances apart in sunken beds and often rely on rainfall for precious irrigation. These inefficient techniques result in lower yields, farms that are more vulnerable to extreme weather and high levels of pollution caused by chemical runoff.
In September 2014, Obare attended a farmer’s convention in Mbeya called the Nane Nane Fair. There, he met members of the Tanzania Horticultural Association, a group run by Tanzanians and supported by USAID.
With their help, Obare learned more modern farming techniques and dramatically increased his yield. “My lifestyle has completely changed. For instance, my daughter, who was in a government school, has been transferred into a private school that has more facilities. I can confidently pay 1.5 million TZS [$740] for her annual school fees,” Obare said.
Obare’s experience in Tanzania is indicative of a greater trend throughout Africa. USAID’s Feed the Future initiative works in 12 African nations supporting groups like the Tanzania Horticultural Association. The programs differ by country, from the small farmer training and support in Tanzania to trade hub programs in Zambia, Lesotho, Swaziland, Namibia, South Africa, Botswana, Malawi and Mozambique.
“The trade hub provides targeted technical assistance to governments, the private sector and civil society organizations to advance regional trade within southern Africa while incorporating gender integration, environment compliance and strategic outreach in all activities,” a USAID report stated.
Feed the Future is ultimately trying to give developing nations a strong economic base in sustainable agriculture. Their initiatives focus on efficiency, resilience in the face of a changing climate and gender equality. Their impact has been felt by small farmers and administrators alike.
James Bever, a former mission director for USAID, is enthusiastic about the program’s potential. When asked about the Feed the Future programs in Ghana, he told reporters that agribusiness has the potential to really take off, especially in northern Ghana.
“It is a sustainable model and we are extremely excited about it,” he said. “I think Ghana is in the path to an agricultural revolution that really can turn the northern part of the country to a bread basket and reduce imports. The north is where there is a real potential for quick improvement in grain production such as rice, white and yellow maize and sorghum, which are marketable.”
The dedication of local agricultural groups is turning USAID’s support into skills and their goals into reality. More farmers are being helped every day, and despite the challenges they face, small farmers in Africa are living markedly better lives.
– Marina Middleton
Sources: Feed the Future 1, Business Ghana USAID 1, Feed the Future 2 USAID 2
Photo: Flickr
Clinton and Sanders on Foreign Aid
Wondering how the two Democratic presidential candidates match up in terms of foreign aid support? As always, foreign policy is one of the key issues in the upcoming election. But perhaps in this election, a key focus will be put on foreign aid, rather than the military.
During the two candidates’ times as Senators and Representatives, they voted on many of the same bills. Here is how they match up:
Overall, Clinton and Sanders both voted to support foreign aid bills. The only exceptions — Clinton not always voting and Sanders rejecting emergency aid bills.
Both Clinton and Sanders are solid in their support of foreign aid. According to an article by One.org, Clinton strongly stressed that U.S. foreign aid is an investment. As for Sanders, a concern is that he will avoid voting for aid to any organizations that register or tax American guns.
– Clare Holtzman
Sources: ONE, Slate, Vote Smart 1, Vote Smart 2
Photo: People
What is the 151 Account?
Altogether, International Affairs is approximately 1 percent of the total U.S. Federal budget. This means that the 151 account, dealing with all matters of international development and humanitarian assistance, is even less than 1 percent.
All of the aid that can support efforts to reduce poverty and injustice is less than 1 percent, as these efforts fall under account 151. The account also assists with efforts including supporting the generation of demand for U.S. goods to help build and maintain stable trade relationships, advancing human rights and democracy and demonstrating the goodwill of the American people.
In fact, according to Oxfam’s Foreign Aid Guide, all of the humanitarian and development aid done by the United States is only 0.7 percent of the total national budget. Imagine what could be done globally by the United States if we were expanding the budget.
By increasing the International Affairs Budget, the United States would be able to improve philanthropic efforts, create a more positive image for itself as a foreign power for war-riddled nations, advance human rights and able to promote peace in war-torn countries – the list is endless.
While some would argue that increasing the 151 account would encourage terrorism in other countries by giving them supplies without seeing an immediate reward, this has been disproven with many examples of peace. Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden all demonstrate the effects of positive spending within foreign aid. Perhaps it’s the United States’ turn to give it a try.
– Alysha Biemolt
Sources: Center for Global Development, OXFAM America
Photo: Flickr