Group Since Oct 20, 2005
Drag to set position!
Share
In Memoriam: πρώρα (Prora)
7:04pm, 28 March 2007
The report is recommended reading for anybody concerned with the implementation of the goals. Its contents make for mixed reactions; in some respects there have been advances but all too often they are lagging behind the targets set in 2000. There is need for all of us to ensure that our governments do not fail, as has happened in the past, to fulfil their pledges.
Here are the chapter headings:
The Millennium Development Goals Report 2006
Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger. Asia leads the decline in global poverty.
Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education. Universal primary education is in sight, though sub-Saharan Africa lags behind.
Goal 3. Promote gender equality and empower women. Women inch forward in labour markets of all regions, though deep inequalities remain.
Goal 4. Reduce child mortality. More children are surviving their first years of life, though sub-Saharan Africa trails far behind.
Goal 5. Improve maternal health. Maternal mortality remains high where most deaths occur.
Goal 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases. Prevention efforts are proving successful in some places, but deaths and new infections continue to increase.
Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability. Rapid deforestation continues, but the net loss of forest area is slowing down.
Goal 8. Develop a global partnership for development. Led by debt relief, development assistance increases sharply but still falls short of targets.
Here are the chapter headings:
The Millennium Development Goals Report 2006
Goal 1. Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger. Asia leads the decline in global poverty.
Goal 2. Achieve universal primary education. Universal primary education is in sight, though sub-Saharan Africa lags behind.
Goal 3. Promote gender equality and empower women. Women inch forward in labour markets of all regions, though deep inequalities remain.
Goal 4. Reduce child mortality. More children are surviving their first years of life, though sub-Saharan Africa trails far behind.
Goal 5. Improve maternal health. Maternal mortality remains high where most deaths occur.
Goal 6. Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases. Prevention efforts are proving successful in some places, but deaths and new infections continue to increase.
Goal 7. Ensure environmental sustainability. Rapid deforestation continues, but the net loss of forest area is slowing down.
Goal 8. Develop a global partnership for development. Led by debt relief, development assistance increases sharply but still falls short of targets.
In Memoriam: πρώρα (Prora)
15 years ago
Under the title How America is betraying the hungry children of Africa last Sunday's Observer newspaper carries a detailed article on the problems of food aid, and notably the contributions of the US to aid to Africa.
The basic criticisms are that US aid has provisions, vigourously supported by congressmen from the farming states, that the food must be from the US, and that 75% of the transport and other logistics must involve exclusively US companies. The food is more costly than local supplies (and one of the countries involved, Malawi, has a bumper crop of maize which the farmers need to sell to earn money for clothing, schooling for their children and so on), the cost of transportation cuts into the grant substantially - US carriers charge $171 per tonne compared with $100 which the UN World Food Programme pays its own contractors. It is estimated that only a third of the money for US food aid goes for food, the rest is spent on transport and administration. Moreover transportation over these long distances can mean up to four months delay before the food gets to the people needing it and can result in the food being contaminated or infested by insects.
Increasingly other countries are providing money to the agencies working in the needy countries, who can spend it locally - both ensuring that the delays and costs of transportation are minimised and that the local farmers benefit by being able to sell their produce.
It needs pressure on the US administration to remedy this chronic waste - which is, in effect, a disguised subsidy to US agriculture and industry.
The basic criticisms are that US aid has provisions, vigourously supported by congressmen from the farming states, that the food must be from the US, and that 75% of the transport and other logistics must involve exclusively US companies. The food is more costly than local supplies (and one of the countries involved, Malawi, has a bumper crop of maize which the farmers need to sell to earn money for clothing, schooling for their children and so on), the cost of transportation cuts into the grant substantially - US carriers charge $171 per tonne compared with $100 which the UN World Food Programme pays its own contractors. It is estimated that only a third of the money for US food aid goes for food, the rest is spent on transport and administration. Moreover transportation over these long distances can mean up to four months delay before the food gets to the people needing it and can result in the food being contaminated or infested by insects.
Increasingly other countries are providing money to the agencies working in the needy countries, who can spend it locally - both ensuring that the delays and costs of transportation are minimised and that the local farmers benefit by being able to sell their produce.
It needs pressure on the US administration to remedy this chronic waste - which is, in effect, a disguised subsidy to US agriculture and industry.