Posts

, ,

Pressing Freedoms: How a Free Press Reduces Poverty

Free Press Reduces Poverty
Strong governments and effective leadership offer lasting improvements for those living in poverty, as they provide social and economic structure for a nation. Efficiency and transparency of government actions and regulations are the first steps toward protecting individual rights. The promotion of transparent governments leans toward a democratic governing system, where citizens may have the right to elect their officials and representatives. The free press and its contributions to democracy in helping to eradicate poverty may not always be at the forefront of aid organizations’ initiatives. Many organizations, however, do recognize that journalists help provide transparency about the states of governments to the people and that a free press reduces poverty.

What is a Free Press and Who Has One?

A free press means that private and public newspapers, magazines or radio programs have the right to report the news without being controlled by the government. This critical freedom from the government’s powers means that the press may act as the people’s eyes and ears for the shifts and changes within the institutions of power.

Unfortunately, more than a third of the world lives under presses that are not free or media coverage that their governments highly control and censor. In the Reporters Without Borders’ 2019 World Press Freedom Index, it is unsurprising that more developed and economically stable countries find themselves at the top of the ranking. Norway comes in first, followed by Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Denmark. Ranking at the bottom are countries with highly restrictive governments or some of the poorest nations, such as Yemen, Syria, Sudan and Turkmenistan.

How Does a Free Press Reduce Poverty?

A free press reduces poverty by allowing for an open exchange of information and opinions among ordinary citizens; there is no need for government clearance to learn about the day to day government actions. Journalism provides transparency which helps decrease the risk of corruption in governments and holds them accountable for their actions. A free press helps provide a channel of information about government actions for public assessment and debate. Citizens can see exactly how governments spend taxes or what revenues from big industries they receive. They can even see inside houses of governments where administrators sign laws. Knowledge about the government and freedom to express opinions without fear empowers ordinary citizens.

Debate and exchanging information and ideas is a foundational component of democratic practices. Free presses allow for free debate among the people and not just the political leaders. While debates among community members may not immediately change laws, the debate itself establishes self-autonomy, because everyone participates in conversations and decisions that affect their lives.

Countries with stronger economies and less poverty require strong and stable governments to utilize their resources and to participate in foreign markets. Strong governments strive to enable the political voices of even the poorest populations. Improving governance includes maintaining fair laws, respecting human rights and combating corruption. By promoting all of these, a free press can reduce poverty.

Who is Fighting for Freedom of the Press?

The USAID is one organization that has recognized how a free press reduces poverty. By strengthening journalistic skills, building economic self-sustainability of media outlets and working to legally protect press independence, USAID promotes freedom of the press in 35 countries. The organization’s work in Afghanistan produced a national network of 50 Afghan-owned and operated radio stations.

Reporters Without Borders advocates for a free press in order to promote democracy, development and individual empowerment. It helps journalists gain access to equipment anywhere from bulletproof vests to insurance. Working in countries across five continents, the organization monitors a great number of countries’ treatment of journalists and their rankings of press freedom.

The Windhoek Declaration

Some countries, like Namibia, decided to take matters into their own hands. The 1991 Declaration of Windhoek on “Promoting an Independent and Pluralistic African Press” helped establish a foundation for a free press in Africa by joining the forces of journalists, editors and media owners across the continent. The Windhoek Declaration helped spark the establishment of the Media Institute of Southern Africa (MISA). MISA’s continental email alert system hoped to make the world aware of violations of media freedom as soon as they occurred, bringing national attention to the power and importance of journalists. Inspired by the success of the Windhoek Declaration, similar support for free press like the Declaration of Santiago in Chile, the Declaration of Sana’a in Yemen and the Declaration of Sofia in Bulgaria, soon followed.

The globe recognizes the Windhoek Declaration and leaders of the conference even consulted with the U.N. for the implementation of International Press Freedom Day every May 3rd. The Declaration has inspired and allowed journalists to start their own independent newspapers like MediaFax in Mozambique and The Monitor in Malawi.

The purpose of a free press is to empower ordinary citizens, no matter their economic status. By providing honest information, journalists help hold political leaders accountable and decrease government corruption. Through the democratic power of debate, even the poorest populations can have a political voice.

– Maya Watanabe
Photo: Flickr

, , ,

How Transparency Leads to Sustainable Development

How Transparency Leads to Sustainable Long-Term Development
Ever wondered where that money you donated went? The U.S. government, in partnership with USAID, has made a commitment to track international aid to more closely monitor sources of aid abroad and hold international leaders accountable for development. Up-to-date, truthful data about where international funds are going helps governments, civil service organizations and private sponsors track their money and increase the efficacy of donations.

The government recently signed on to the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI), an international organization that encourages NGOs, governments and international aid organizations to report data on foreign aid spending. This group estimates that $4.8 billion of EU-given aid, $2.8 billion U.S.-given aid and $13.8 billion in international donor aid was not visible. The initiative aims to have 80 percent of aid be visible; this amount, it estimates, will make the aid useful. This makes development easier to track and organizations more transparent in how they use their funds. It will encourage further donations and trust in the work of these organizations. Furthermore, IATI has developed a tool to compare spending by different aid groups and the amount of money going to different countries.

Anyone with Internet connection can now track the U.S. government’s aid efforts by country, sector and year on www.foreignassistance.gov.

Through this initiative, USAID has made a commitment to increasing its transparency in regards to foreign aid spending. Through developing a cost management plan, the organization upped its accountability and made it clear to donors where their money goes. As a result of this, USAID’s Aid Transparency Review jumped 20 points in the last year, from the “fair” category to the “good” one. The organization predicts improved donor understanding and confidence in its future projects and improvement in international development through its and other organizations’ efforts at increased accountability.

Progress does not end at transparency, however. USAID hopes to improve the knowledge base of its donors so that they can better understand the organization’s international efforts, understand where funds are going and hold governments, both those donating and accepting aid, accountable.

Through initiatives like these, international aid can become more sustainable, efficient and successful.

– Jenny Wheeler

Sources: USAID, Road To 2015
Photo: The Spectator

Canadian Energy Transparency Law Sets Example for US Policymakers

energy_transparency_law
Earlier this month, the Canadian government passed the Extractive Sector Transparency Measures Act (ESTMA), an energy transparency law that aims to shed more light on the financial activity of energy companies in foreign countries. The law applies to nearly 2,000 energy companies that are registered in Canada or listed on Toronto’s stock exchange and will require them to publish detailed records of payments made to foreign governments.

The ESTMA came just before the G7 Summit on June 7, and is the product of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s commitment at the 2013 G8 Summit to establish stricter standards for the reporting of financial activity by Canadian extractive companies.

The stated purpose of the law is “to foster better transparency to ensure that the resource extractive industries support proper development in the countries where they operate, while at the same time making it harder to conceal illicit payments.” According to Canadian Securities Law, the Act will require affected companies to report any payments made in relation to the commercial development of oil, gas or minerals that exceed either the amount prescribed by regulation or $100,000 on a number of types of payments, including royalties, production entitlements, dividends and infrastructure improvement funding.

While a similar U.S. transparency law has existed since a 2010 amendment to the Dodd-Frank Act, no rules have been officially implemented for extractive industry activity abroad. The Securities and Exchange Commission threw out regulations written in 2013 after a lawsuit from the American Petroleum Institute – the oil industry’s principal U.S. lobbying organization – claimed the regulations were too punitive for its member companies. In the fall of 2014, Oxfam International filed its own lawsuit against the SEC for failure to implement previously mandated regulations and expects a decision “any day now” on whether or not a federal court will set a timeline for the SEC.

As of now, the majority of the world’s largest oil companies, including Exxon Mobil and Chevron, are nor required to report payments made to foreign governments.

For civilians in oil-rich countries, the detriments for allowing foreign energy corporations to extract their resources often outweigh the benefits they realize for hosting them.

“In many countries that are rich in oil, gas and other non-renewable natural resources, the communities from whose territory the resources are extracted bear the brunt of environmental and human rights impacts associated with extractive activity but see few tangible benefits,” said EarthRights International (ERI) in a statement in 2014. “We, along with our partners in Burma and elsewhere, believe that knowing what governments receive from extractive companies is an important step for communities to hold governments responsible for the use of natural resource revenues and to advocate for a fair share of the benefits.”

Since 2009 ERI has worked with Oxfam and other members of the Publish What You Pay Us (PWYP) coalition to fight for revenue transparency in the extractive industry. The stated mission of the PWYP is to “[help] citizens of resource-rich developing countries hold their governments accountable for the management of revenues from the oil, gas and mining industries.”

“Natural resource revenues are an important source of income for governments of over 50 developing countries,” states the PWYP coalition. “When properly managed these revenues should serve as a basis for poverty reduction, economic growth and development rather than exacerbating corruption, conflict and social divisiveness.”

Proponents of stricter oversight of extractive industries note that a lack of financial transparency raises doubts as to how much civilians in host countries benefit from the extraction of their resources by foreign energy companies. Detailed records published by energy companies will reveal more precisely who is benefiting from extractive industry spending and whether – and to what degree – recipient governments use that spending to benefit their own people.

– Zach VeShancey

Sources: Canadian Securities Law, Devex, Earthrights, Publish What you Pay
Photo: The Star

, , ,

The Various Colors of Transparency in Foreign Aid

helicopter_transparency_in_foreign_aid_black_blue_sky_countries_spending
Last year, the International Aid Transparency Initiative (IATI) released its Transparency Index where the Millennium Challenge Corporation or MCC ranked first among 57 international aid organizations. While this merits a celebration for the U.S. in leading the pack, other U.S. agencies did not fare so well. The U.S. Treasury and USAID ranked 19th and 22nd respectively in the fair category, the Defense and State Departments ranked 27th and 40th respectively in the poor category and finally PEPFAR, a program from the State Department, ranked 50th in the very poor category. More importantly, in addition to the above mentioned there are 20 other U.S. agencies involved in providing foreign assistance that are not reporting to ATI or the Foreign Assistance Dashboard.

In their effort to make foreign aid spending more transparent, in 2013, both the House and the Senate introduced The Foreign Aid Transparency and Accountability Act of 2013 (H.R.2638 & S.1271). Receiving strong bipartisan support, this bill promises to improve accountability, transparency and efficiency in foreign assistance programs. If signed into law, it would require the President to implement disclosure and reporting guidelines for all agencies providing aid. All data would be made public through the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, which the administration had already launched in 2010.

More recently, following the path towards more transparency in foreign assistance, the White House has revamped the Foreign Assistance Dashboard, to which until last year only as few as six agencies had posted their information. This shows a strong commitment by the Obama administration towards improving transparency, accountability and efficiency in foreign assistance.

However, while the promise of accountability, transparency and effectiveness is commendable, according the Modernizing Foreign Assistance Network or MFAN, its success will greatly depend on strict enforcement measures. The absence of a clear timetable and the level of detail required from agencies to report their data makes for very inconsistent reporting. Moreover, MFAN has stated that linking the legislation more closely to the mission and work of IATI would provide for better and more useful information.

Notwithstanding some of the changes and efforts needed to bring about consistency, accountability and transparency in foreign aid, experts say we are on the right track. According to George Ingram, making foreign assistance data available is important on several levels. First, it helps donors and recipient countries make informed decisions. What is more, “it allows citizens to be better informed on government decisions and therefore better able to hold government accountable.”

At the citizen level, the benefits of an online hub for aid spending data are twofold. On one hand, it allows citizens to see for themselves how much of the national GDP is actually spent on foreign aid, instead of how much they think it is. On the other, it carries the promise of driving people to be more supportive of foreign aid assistance as they get a clear picture of how it is allocated and the global issues it is addressing.

Until now, one thing that remains clear is that everyone, from the White House to donors to the average citizen, can stand behind the idea of transparency. However, it is necessary to implement better guidelines and enforcement tools in order to achieve real transparency in foreign assistance.

– Sahar Abi Hassan

Sources: Brookings, Brookings, MFAN
Photo: Bayanihan

,

Where Did My Money Go?

bono_poverty_where_did_my_money_go_humanitarian
There are many television and internet advertisements that call for help to reduce global poverty. Even though people make their donations to charity groups, they often do not get feedback about the progress of eradicating global poverty. Therefore, people sometimes wonder, “Where did my money go? What did my money get spent on?” and “Did I really make a difference?” It is essential for people to know that their money is well-spent and they are indeed making a difference in the world. The good news is that everyone is making a difference and global poverty has been decreasing due to advocacy and financial support.

In Bono’s TED talk on 26 February 2013, he shared his data on global poverty. The results shows that humanity is moving to a brighter future. “Forget the rock opera, forget the bombast, my usual tricks. The only sings today will be the facts,” said Bono. In his speech, statistics show decreases in malaria deaths by almost 75% and decreases in people living in extreme poverty from 43% in 2000 to 21% in 2010. In addition, more than eight million AIDS patients have received medicine. His study indicates that global poverty will be eradicated by 2018 if the support remains the same.

In another TED talk with Hans Rosling, Mr. Rosling also shows progress in decreasing mortality in both developed and developing countries. In his interactive graphs, the age expectancies are increasing yearly and developing countries’ age expectancies are catching up to developed nations’ age expectancies.

The war between humanity and global poverty has been an intense and drawn out battle. However, humanity is winning this battle when global poverty is in a sharp decline. Together, the people who support the cause should give themselves a pat on the back for the job well done. Even though global poverty still exists today, with the support of people from different nations, the world is gradually becoming a better and happier place.

– Phong Pham

Sources: Ted, One
Sources: Ted

, ,

For Agencies, Foreign Aid Transparency is Key

relief_aid_transparency
The Obama Administration released data on United States foreign aid earlier this week while Congress is pushing legislation that will make such transparency law. These efforts seek to make aid more effective and to create a more open government. This is by no means, a recent occurrence.

For the past decade, the U.S. has moved toward making foreign aid accountable and transparent, which was started in 2004 with the creation of the Millennium Challenge Corporation. Initiated during the Bush Administration, it sought to generate publicly available data on foreign aid and selected which countries to give aid grants to based on how well they do in areas such as rule of law, trade policy and civil liberties.

USAID is revamping a self-audit program that seeks, in addition to being extensive and impartial, for the evaluations to be a spring of learning that the agency can build from. In this vein, they have named their first major series of evaluations USAID Forward.

The benefits of this transparency are multifold, but one of the major boons is that citizens have the ability to become better informed on what the government is doing to combat global poverty. This could do untold good since the majority of Americans vastly overestimate the amount that the United States contributes to foreign aid. The general public believes the U.S. spends 25 percent of the Federal Budget on international aid, when, in actuality, expenditure is only a paltry 0.2 percent.

In the Philippines, the Department of Budget and Management launched the Foreign Aid Transparency Hub, anagrammed as FAiTH, which provides information on what is being done with the aid received in the aftermath of Typhoon Haiyan. This is likely in response to allegations of corruption scandals in relation to foreign aid.

The accountability of aid is a high priority, and Benigno Aquino III, President of the Philippines, says that this accountability stems from gratitude: “Ultimately, FAiTH is more than a hub of information: it is an expression of appreciation for the kindness of those who stand in solidarity with our countrymen.” The pair of accountability and appreciation seems a strong one in winning further donations.

With 3,976 people dead, 1,600 missing, and another 4 million displaced and in need of basic amenities, there is great need for aid. More than $270 million has been donated thus far, and FAiTH is helping ensure further aid does not diminish amid the graft. An oft-used excuse for not donating is that the money never makes its way to those in need. Transparency is an active foe to this pernicious way of thinking, and one that is dramatically making ground.

– Jordan Schunk 

Sources: Brookings, Ingram and Adams, Huffington Post, Inquirer News

, , , , ,

What is an NPO?

NPO
A nonprofit organization is an organization that, pursuant to Section 501(c) of the United States Internal Revenue Code, does not retain its surplus revenue as profit. Instead, any surplus money is used to sustain the organization in its execution of a specific goal or set of goals, as designated by its bylaws and charter. In contrast to for-profit organizations, NPOs are largely project-driven ventures as opposed to product-driven ventures.

Before applying to be a 501(c) organization, a board of trustees must be assembled. The board will be committed to governing the execution of the organization’s goals. Once assembled, the board is responsible for drafting a clear and precise set of bylaws outlining the organization’s goals and the ways in which those goals will be pursued.

The bylaws must be recorded and, along with some necessary accounting paperwork (which varies according to different concessions granted by Section 501(c)), submitted to the IRS and the department of the secretary of state where the organization plans to operate in.

Once this paperwork is filed with the state, it may take up to a year for an organization to get approved as a 501(c). Most NPOs use this interim to prepare for launch immediately upon receipt of approval. Much of this time is spent identifying and communicating with potential donors, writing grants and taking other measures to secure funds for when the organization is approved.

Following state approval, a 501(c) organization must adhere to the bylaws it established in order to maintain its tax-exempt status. Its operation is limited by the bylaws it imposed on itself, and its tax-exempt status is contingent upon adherence to those bylaws. If an organization is not working effectively to accomplish its outlined mission, its tax-exemption will be revoked.

Under 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, an NPO may receive one of 29 different designations according to its mission. These designations determine what kind of tax exemptions the NPO will receive, as well as the kind of economic activity it is permitted to engage in. These designations are determined by an organization’s goals, the parties it engages with economically, and the recipients of any aid the organization is providing.

Most NPOs involved in the fight against poverty are designated as 501(c)(3)s. By law, a 501(c)(3) falls under one of the following categories: religious, scientific, charitable, educational, literary, public safety, the fostering of international or national amateur sports or the prevention of cruelty to children and animals. Organizations that actively fight against poverty can fall under any number of these categories. As well as tax-exemption, 501(c)(3)s receive reduced postage rates, and are permitted to generate receipts to provide donors with tax write-offs. They are, however, prohibited from participating in any political campaigns.

For an  NPO engaged in the campaign against poverty, transparency is of utmost importance. Strict adherence to bylaws and charter are necessary. If the secretary of state perceives that an organization is straying from its mission, its tax-exempt status will be lost. This renders the organization far less effective in the abolition of poverty. Not only does this cost an organization financially, it costs the world’s poor.

– Matt Berg

Sources: 501c3, Cornell Law, IRS, IRS
Photo: GuideStar,

How the U.S. can Spark A Transparency Revolution

g8-summit-obama-revolution
The G8 Summit provides a golden opportunity for G8 leaders to help inspire a “transparency revolution.” While the U.K. holds the presidency of the G8 this year with Prime Minister David Cameron as its representative, President Obama and the U.S. have the opportunity to make transparency a priority at the G8.

The Obama administration has been a global leader in tax transparency, requiring American citizens to disclose their foreign financial accounts, foreign financial institutions to report their American clients, and pressing other countries to share tax information in an effort to curb tax evasion.

At the G8 Summit, President Obama should work to ensure that developing countries are invited to participate in automatic tax information exchange systems, even if they currently lack the capacity to provide information themselves. The U.S. government should also commit to support foreign tax and revenue authorities in developing countries so that they can effectively use and share tax information in the future.

To both complement its efforts on tax transparency and to curb robbery by “phantom firms,” the Obama administration should also take meaningful steps to take the “anonymous” out of anonymous shell companies, fake corporations that serve as fronts for financing terrorism, drug trafficking, human trafficking, money laundering and arms trafficking and that enable corruption and resource exploitation.

President Obama should reiterate his strong support for removing the veil of secrecy that enables phantom firms to operate and encourage other leaders to take bold steps. Greater transparency about who actually owns and controls companies would make it easier for developing countries to crack down on corruption and retain and invest more of their own resources.

The U.S. government has been a leader in transparency for the extractive industries by requiring oil, gas and mining companies to disclose their payments to governments. Measures like this help ensure that citizens of resource-rich countries have access to information necessary for holding their government accountable.

Just earlier this year, the European Parliament approved similar rules, and the Government of Canada announced its intent to follow suit, which is great news. The Obama administration should also encourage other governments – including Australia, Brazil, Japan, and South Africa – to implement similar rules and help set a new global transparency standard for the oil, gas and mining industries.

The Obama administration should further encourage African governments to become transparent in their foreign assistance, extractives, budgets and financial flows. To do this requires real progress on establishing open data standards and teaching citizens’ groups how to use data unleashed by the transparency revolution to hold their leaders accountable.

Finally, the U.S. government should commit to and establish local, multi-sector “transparency partnerships” with developing countries so that citizens and accountability institutions can use data to follow the money flowing in and out of their countries. This can strengthen accountability of the government and deliver improved development results.

Through these policies, the U.S. government can leverage the agenda so that the G8 can put into motion the transparency revolution that we need.

– Matthew Jackoski

Sources: ONE, Thomson Reuters Foundation
Photo: The Guardian

London Hunger Summit Funds $4 Billion

London Hunger Summit Funds $4 Billion
The London Hunger Summit this year encouraged global leaders to take a stand on global hunger and poverty and make a difference. As a result, by the end of the day, $4 billion of funding had been secured to go towards ending hunger and malnutrition across the world. The Summit was a global accomplishment, with donations coming from businesses, governments, charities, and foundations in many countries.

The money will be distributed to several different causes, and some countries specified where they would like their donations to be spent. For example, Australia asked that their $40 million donations go towards improving nutrition in the Pacific Ocean area, and the British company Del Agua’s $670 million donations will be spent throughout the following years on providing clean drinking water in Rwanda.

However, even though raising $4 billion is a huge accomplishment, the U.K. can still improve to do even more for the world’s poor by more closely monitoring donations to determine where they are most needed. Some donors are not as transparent as they should be when they give back, so the U.K. doesn’t have the best data to learn where those donations are going and how much is actually making it to the people who need help. By monitoring how much money is given and which areas are receiving the help, the U.K. can decide which areas still need assistance, therefore maximizing efficiency and helping the most people possible.

– Katie Brockman

Source Huffington Post, The Guardian

AidData and China’s Foreign Aid Policy

AidData and China's Foreign Aid Policy
In the past decade, China has committed at least $75 billion to aid and development in Africa. Since 2000, there has been up to 1,700 projects, and China’s commitment to development in Africa stands as one of the strongest of any donor country. Research in the U.S. has created a large public database of these projects, named AidData, in order to analyze China’s efforts.

While this ongoing data collection could create debate over China’s interests in Africa, it is clear that Chinese engagement in the continent strengthened infrastructure, energy generation, and supply and communications. The ability to measure this aid will allow for transparency in China’s aid processes and strategies. Chinese aid is performed through direct investment “without state involvement and NGO aid” so that there is no middleman and the money can go directly where it is needed. However, this makes it more difficult to track where the money goes, and how it is used.

Ghana, Nigeria, and Sudan are the biggest aid recipients, receiving a quarter of a trillion dollars over the past 10 years. As was earlier mentioned, the biggest priority for Chinese aid is infrastructure. This means that empowering women, providing food aid, and creating education systems rank much lower on the priority list. AidData has suggested that because these are areas that the West tends to focus on the most, China has taken a different route.

In spite of this reasoning, according to AidData, China has backed hundreds of health, transport, and agricultural projects. Doctors and teachers have been sent into Africa as well, while African students have been encouraged to study in China. Some insist that China is only interested in the continent for its natural resources, yet it is clear that China is interested in supporting Africa for the future.

– Sarah Rybak

Sources: The Guardian, ONE
Photo: China Daily