Right before recess last week, Congressman Gerry Connolly (D-VA) re-introduced the Global Partnerships Act (H.R. 1793), the first major rewrite of foreign assistance legislation in decades. The bill is an enormous accomplishment, created through a three-year effort led by former House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, Howard Berman.

Source: Brookings Institution, 2006.

A rewrite of the Foreign Assistance Act is long past due. US Foreign Assistance programs have not been reauthorized since 1986; the underlying law dates from 1961. The problem isn’t just the quaint and kitschy references to Kampuchea, East Pakistan, or Zaire; it’s the fact that good legislation should actually help US government implementers do their job well, and should help Congress conduct effective oversight. On both counts, the existing system is failing miserably (see chart).

Like most huge pieces of legislation, this one offers something for (almost) everyone—Pollyannas and pessimists alike. Cynics will be quick to point out that, with 889 pages and no Republican co-sponsors, this bill is hardly on a fast track to enshrinement in the US Code.

But such cynicism misses the point. An effort like the Berman/Connolly bill is not only important once it becomes law. It can also be important for the conversation it drives among different stakeholders. As we’ve noted before, the most important reason to update foreign aid legislation is to try to get a new consensus between the President, the Congress, and the American people about what we’re actually trying to achieve with our development programs and what success looks like. And the Berman/Connolly bill provides a wealth of specific improvements for policymakers to convene around, including, but not limited to:

• linking US funding priorities to country-level planning (Sec. 1018);
• greater aid transparency and predictability (Sec. 8301); and
• better coordination of US efforts to promote trade & investment in partner countries (Sec. 7002).

Oxfam has heard from local leaders in the field that recent US reform efforts are starting to get noticed. But few of these reforms have actually made it into law. Without legislation to protect these reforms—and more important, without political consensus around them—it’s possible many reforms won’t stick long enough to really pay off for people in the developing world.

We don’t expect Congress is going to swallow the Berman/Connolly bill whole. But it’s worth them spending some time chewing on it, trying to figure out where they can make real progress towards a new political consensus around US development efforts.

***

Here’s what else I had to say about the bill from last week’s InterAction Forum:

Five Minutes at Forum with Greg Adams from InterAction on Vimeo.

David Waskow is Oxfam America’s climate change program director.

In a year of crippling droughts around the world—from West Africa to the US Midwest—the outcome at the major UN climate negotiation in Doha, Qatar, was itself an unfortunate drought of climate action.

This was a paradoxical COP—both a stepping stone and a cliff-hanger—with developing countries hanging from the finance cliff by their fingertips.  Even though several European countries pledged climate finance for the upcoming 2013-15 period, developed countries were unwilling to commit collectively to any funding level for the upcoming period or clarity about how they’ll ramp up toward the international goal of mobilizing $100 billion a year by 2020.

The United States, arguing that it was constrained by the fiscal cliff budget negotiations, refused even to commit to maintain the funding level of the past three years of ‘fast start’ climate finance agreed during the Copenhagen climate summit in 2009. All the final text says is that developed countries are “encouraged” to maintain fast start levels. Meanwhile, there was little done at Doha to further reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

Qumrunnessa Nazly from Bangladesh held an empty basket amidst a field of dead corn set in front of the glittering Doha skyline to demonstrate the grave impact of a changing climate on food supply and food prices, and the crucial importance of the UN climate change negotiations in providing a solution. Richard Casson/Oxfam.

A few limited but hopeful elements in the Doha outcome: an agreement to convene a high-level dialogue on climate finance at the next COP in 2013; an agreement to work this coming year to develop an international mechanism to address “loss and damage,” the effects of climate change that cannot be adapted to; formal agreement on how some countries, particularly the European Union and Australia, will continue the Kyoto Protocol until 2020; and agreement on the process for negotiating the planned 2015 comprehensive climate agreement that will take effect in 2020.

The US made a verbal commitment to work for climate finance in Congress this coming year and try to continue the finance at current levels. (Todd Stern, the US special climate envoy said that “we have every intention to continue to press forward with funding of that same kind of level, to the greatest extent that we can.”)

But beyond the minimalist outcomes agreed in the texts, one of the most noteworthy outcomes at Doha was the growing strength, breadth, and depth of engagement and collaboration by civil society organizations. A press conference last week demonstrated this growing collaboration:  Oxfam, WWF, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Christian Aid, and ActionAid, with the chairs of the Least Developed Country and Africa negotiating groups, stood together to say that the climate talks were failing to produce meaningful change and that governments needed to shift gears dramatically.  Representing a range of perspectives, their joint statement was not just a marriage of tactical convenience—it demonstrates a real confluence around jointly shared objectives of equity and sustainability, with climate issues a central, though hardly the sole, issue.

Perhaps most important, advocates are shifting focus toward the national and local levels and bridging or even bypassing the old divides between development and environmental agendas. There’s a strong belief that this increased energy and action will eventually also flow upward back into the global level process. And home-grown advocacy on climate change is already blossoming in many developing countries. This came home for me while working with developing country partners from Nepal, Philippines, Uganda, and Zambia, partners in a new initiative to press for adaptation finance that’s accountable at the local level. They have been building strong civil society networks over the past several years and are pressing effectively for national level policy change, as well as engaging the international process.  For these groups and many others in developing countries, building advocacy from the ground up and seeing past environment-development divides are self-evident truths.

The pump is primed to water our advocacy from these sources. But there’s also an immediate question about the focus of our advocacy agenda in the US—especially on the climate finance front in coming months. We must work for robust levels of climate funding at least at the level of the past several years, joined to a public recommitment by the administration to the President’s Global Climate Change Initiative.  And we must seize opportunities to push forward on innovative sources of finance, such as a mechanism for international aviation that can limit emissions while producing financial resources.

Doha was parched—but there are oases on the horizon that we can and must move towards.

“Wear a dark suit. You’ll be wearing an over-sized cardboard mask.”

This is not a set of instructions I expected to hear in my new job as a writer, but here I was, being asked to play the Senate Majority Leader from Nevada.

As the newbie, what was I going to do? Say no?

The next day, my new colleagues scurried around as onlookers and the Congressional police force carefully eyed what we were doing. The image of the 18 foot high inflatable yellow duck against the backdrop of Congress’ hallowed halls was certainly a site to behold.

As I danced around to Benny Hill music with “Nancy Pelosi”, “Mitch McConnell”, and “John Boehner”, I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t think, “What have I gotten myself in to?”

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5yTYh7pz9A&feature=youtu.be[/youtube]

In the two weeks since my stint as Harry Reid, my time at Oxfam has been less eventful, but no less exciting. I’ve been drinking from a fire hose, manned (and womaned) by a group of intelligent, talented, and committed people in Oxfam America’s Washington DC office that I have affectionately named “The Wonk-tivists.”

As I read my team’s annual plan, it became clear that these are folks who know that people lift themselves out of poverty. That’s why they are focused on making international aid more effective and more responsive, a topic near and dear to my heart.

But first, we must protect the tiny proportion of poverty-reducing aid that is part of the federal budget, hence the need for the lame duck stunt. (Check out some of the media coverage here and here.) Humanitarian and development aid is less than 1% of the federal budget. And although cutting aid won’t prevent Congress from jumping off the fiscal cliff, it will prevent us from upholding our responsibilities to people around the world who are working hard to bring change in their communities.

Before coming to Oxfam, I worked with over 300 grassroots organizations in southern and east Africa. What is undeniable to me, in my decade of service in the international aid and philanthropy sectors, is that assistance to vulnerable families within their immediate locales builds on long-standing African traditions of community-level sharing of agricultural labor, assistance in times of drought and other calamities, and shared child care. In fact, across Africa, the poorest and most vulnerable people set up indigenous and resilient coping mechanisms such as self-help groups, church groups, burial associations, grain loan schemes, and rotating credit and loan clubs (Lwihula & Over, 1995; Mutangadura et al., 2000; Wilkinson-Maposa et al., 2009).

Earlier this year, the Aid Effectiveness Team at Oxfam America conducted research with these local change-makers in seven countries to help describe the experience of people living and working on the ground where US foreign aid is delivered. Their findings and collection of stories show how threats to Congress’ foreign aid budget puts the results accomplished by people like Emiliana Aligaesha at risk.

Emiliana Aligaesha of Karagwe, Tanzania. Oxfam/MaishaPlus2012

Emiliana Aligaesha and her fellow community members are part of a community group that formed a local private company in Karagwe, Tanzania. They sell coffee and beans and USAID and the World Food Programme have been among their clients. Local leaders declare Ms. Aligaesha’s farm exemplary, even though she has had little formal agricultural training. In addition to her farm’s productivity, Ms. Aligaesha has become a kind of researcher and innovator in the village, testing out new agricultural techniques for others to follow. Most importantly to this former teacher, Ms. Aligaesha’s nine children have all been put through college.

I know why I signed up. I’m here at Oxfam to support the people like Emiliana Aligaesha that are making our world safer, more prosperous, and better for us all.

So if asked to impersonate a 72-year-old Senator again at Oxfam, I’ll readily say yes.

Rice distributed and sold in Liberia. Photo: Ruby Wright/Oxfam International

With Farm Bill negotiations simmering on the back burner and an all-consuming Congressional focus on dealing with the fiscal cliff, the Alliance for Global Food Security, a group of Private Voluntary Organizations who have opposed common sense reforms to food aid programs, took the opportunity to launch a new study on the use of food aid monetization—essentially the sale of agricultural commodities in developing countries—to generate revenues for use in development programs. The Value of Food Aid Monetization: benefits, Risks and Best Practices sets out to provide additional information and evidence on one of the thornier issues in food aid programs authorized through the Farm Bill.

The problem: As the report rightly notes, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has, on more than one occasion criticized the practice of monetization as a wasteful and inefficient use of US assistance. In their most recent accounting, the GAO found that over a recent three year period, monetization resulted in a loss of $219 million. The reason? It’s difficult to recoup the full cost of purchase, shipment, and delivery of food aid in competitive transactions in developing countries. Cost recovery for monetization activities for USAID administered programs averaged 76 percent. Activities managed by USDA fared slightly worse.

Then there is the question of market impact. Concerns have long been raised (including in the GAO report) that monetized food aid can compete with locally produced goods (or more relevantly, goods produced by smallholder farmers in the same market/country), disrupting lives and livelihoods.

How the Alliance responds: The study produced by the Alliance admits that on a pure cost recovery basis, monetization programs score poorly. But fixating on how much money is lost in monetization only tells part of the story and ignores all the good that can come from selling food aid. To elaborate this point, the study looks at five monetization activities in Gambia, Guatemala, Uganda, Liberia and Mozambique.

So, what exactly does the report tell us?

• In the cases under review, monetization did not disrupt domestic production or marketing. A positive finding, though I suspect there would have been resistance to publishing cases in which monetization did disrupt markets;

• Even if not explicit, it’s pretty clear that monetization serves as an export promotion program and an export subsidy to US producers. Take this language from the Liberia case study in which rice is the monetized commodity: “The six importers [which dominate rice imports] would not import as much [US] parboiled rice commercially because it would be cost-prohibitive, which is overcome by selling in smaller lots and allowing incremental payments.” Is this why we have food aid programs, to promote US agriculture products abroad?

• Program results achieved from the monetization process (as opposed to the ones achieved with the resulting funds generated through monetization) demonstrate benefits in terms of improving food markets, though not necessarily agriculture markets. For instance, one of the key benefits of wheat sales in Uganda has been the contribution to a stronger milling sector. But no data is presented to demonstrate that the improved capacity of millers has resulted in stronger linkages with farmers, particularly smallholder farmers who are the subject of much focus in Feed the Future and other development programs.

And what does the report not tell us?

West Point Market in Monrovia, Liberia.Photo: Aubrey Wade/Oxfam GB

Whether the positive outcomes associated with the monetization program could be achieved through other means. The crux of the issue is not whether monetization proceeds fund good programs that benefit producers or consumers. It is whether monetization is really the only or the optimal means of achieving positive results. For example, several of the case studies note instances of increased market participation by small vendors because of favorable credit or financing provisions accompanying monetization schemes. But these outcomes could also be achieved through strengthening commercial financial services and other assistance provided directly to traders.

And finally, even if one agrees that this study presents compelling evidence that the practice of monetization should continue to be part of US food aid programs, it does not mean having to accept the status quo. If organizations continue to insist on monetization—and if by law a minimum amount of food aid must continue to be sold on markets—we need smart policies and strong guidance and indicators regarding outcomes and acceptable levels of loss in the program.  Provisions in the Senate-passed Farm Bill take a step in this direction by directing agencies practicing monetization to achieve at least 70 percent cost recovery (though USAID and USDA would have discretion to authorize monetization even in instances where this could not be achieved). Of the cases reviewed in this study, this level is met or exceeded in all but one instance. The Senate provisions would not have precluded any of the positive outcomes these activities appear to have achieved.

From the outside, losing 24 percent of aid resources on average in the process of monetization seems like a terrible waste of scarce resources. But what’s worse is that some aid groups that regularly practice monetization seem to be ok with this cost of doing business and are opposed to the Senate reforms. Shame on them. We should strive to do better.

Fear of heights has consumed Washington; more specifically the fear of the dreaded fiscal cliff. The stakes are big if President Obama and House Speaker Boehner hold hands and drive over the cliff, like the Washington version of the final scene of Thelma and Louise. The defense sector faces more than $50b in cuts and a million jobs lost. Already unemployed people will lose benefits. Employed people will pay higher payroll taxes. Doctors who see elderly patients will get lower payments. The agriculture sector is concerned about how higher estate taxes will hit farm land prices.

Wall Street expresses a lot of concern about the fiscal cliff. But the financial sector doesn’t have a direct stake in the political drama. Financial taxes won’t go up, investors will continue buying and selling, traders will still make money. Even while much of America is still struggling economically, the titans of finance are back in the black with profits, big bonuses, and parties.

Which raises a question: how is the financial sector contributing to digging the country out of the budget hole? The hole created by the economic crisis? The economic crisis that was created by the financial sector’s mismanagement, irresponsible risk-taking, and gross misbehavior?

Really, not much.

I have argued that a Robin Hood tax is justified on that basis—in addition to other reasons. But it was shouting into the wind. President Obama hasn’t supported it and there seemed no chance that Congress would embrace the idea. But maybe a window of opportunity is opening…

Robin Hood activists outside the San Francisco office of Rep. Pelosi. Photo by The Robin Hood Tax.

A likely outcome of the negotiations around the fiscal cliff is a punt. Congress and President Obama can put off the most severe cuts and tax increases in the hope that a broader and more comprehensive deal can be forged later. So, a second act is in discussion that would involve a significant tax reform. Tax reform, as the term is used in Washington, generally means trying to do four interrelated things: simplify the rules, broaden the base, lower the rates, increase (or reduce) revenue. Simplifying the rules is self-explanatory, except that the complexity is usually there for a reason—and behind every tax deduction is a lobbyist (or 10) working hard to keep it. “Broadening the base” means increasing the tax base, or the number of people and activities that are taxed. That will tend to increase tax revenues. Lowering rates is what politicians love to do: give away goodies to voters! Raising or lowering revenue can be done most simply by raising or lowering rates. But there are other strategies, like creating new deductions and exemptions.

A big tax measure comes around every 10 or 15 years. So we’re due.

Big tax bills are monsters: huge, complicated and sometimes politically dangerous. Once they start moving, they become vehicles for all sorts of ideas and initiatives. They are heavily lobbied by every possible special interest and group. So the question is whether a tax reform might offer an opportunity to push a Robin Hood tax, that asks for a bigger contribution from the financial sector and uses the revenues to pay for critical social needs.  That would be broadening the base. And raising revenues.

Something to consider.

With the 2012 election over, the lame-duck Congress is diving back into its unfinished business. First on their to-do list: funding the federal government for next year, including America’s efforts to fight global poverty and save lives. Will Congress protect life-saving aid? Or will Congress duck fiscal reality and common sense as they waddle through the budget gridlock?

Aid to fight poverty and help out in disasters is one of America’s proudest traditions—and smartest investments. For decades, American aid has helped people escape poverty and survive war and hunger.  US aid has helped end polio, fuel the Green Revolution, and rebuild shattered economies. It has also helped build some of America’s strongest allies, like Turkey, South Korea, and Poland. When you look at that record, and then consider the cost—less than one percent of the federal budget—your elected representatives in Washington would have to be quackers to vote to cut aid.

And yet aid, despite this legacy of success, global poverty assistance always seems to end up the ugly duckling of the federal budget. Perhaps it is because aid has a complicated story to tell. Of course aid doesn’t lift people or countries out of poverty—people do that themselves.

People like Cyiza Eliab in Rwanda who started a farm cooperative with his neighbors to grow corn and beans to help feed their families and earn an income. With a little help for USAID’s Feed the Future program, Cyiza‘s cooperative built a storage shed where corn is hung to dry, which reduced rot and increased profits.  With the additional income, Cyiza can educate his children and brighten their futures.

Or Kim Nay Heang, a 57-year-old entrepreneur from Cambodia who got USAID support to transform her household fishpond into a profitable business venture. With this income, Heang helped her family survive a dramatic spike in food prices—and provided an education for her five grandchildren.

Or Jose Ordoñez, a Honduran corn farmer who started to plant more profitable crops, like papaya, and is now able to transport the fruits to a market where they fetch a good price, travelling on rural roads constructed using U.S. assistance. He is now earning enough to secure his family’s future.

Farmers, entrepreneurs, nurses, teachers, watchdogs who call out corruption and abuse—these are America’s partners in the fight against global poverty. For decades, assistance from the US government has been there to help. Sure, we don’t always do it as well as we could. But when it pays off, we get a world that is better, safer, and more prosperous for everyone.

But telling how aid works is hard; holding up the example of money going to shiftless foreigners is easy. No wonder some politicians try to feather their own nests by saying aid is a waste. You can expect a flock of critics to peck holes in the foreign aid budget over the next few weeks. But don’t fall for it. Don’t let them wash poor people—or America’s values and interests—down the drain. Stand up and protect America’s poverty-fighting and life-saving aid.

Tomorrow is the fourth anniversary of TARP.  Probably, there won’t be a lot of parties.  Probably no one will mention it.  Maybe you don’t even remember what TARP is.

TARP was President Bush’s last-ditch effort to save the economy. In the face of a rapidly unraveling financial crisis, as many banks and insurers began revealing that they were on the edge of collapse, President Bush pushed through a program for the federal government to buy assets and ownership from financial institutions to help stabilize them.

A big government intervention in the economy runs against everything that President Bush and conservatives in Congress stood for (or say they did).  But desperate times called for desperate measures, and TARP was born with a whopping $700 billion dollars.

The result—although hotly highly debated—was generally a success.  For the most part, the big financial institutions survived.  There were no runs on the banks. The economy contracted, but hit bottom and has begun slowly moving back up.

To make sure that this kind of near-collapse doesn’t happen again, Congress passed the Dodd-Frank reform legislation. Except a lot of experts don’t think it will actually prevent another crisis.

So the titans of finance face a bit more regulation—although nothing that keeps them from returning to profitability, fat bonus checks, and continued “innovation” in financial chicanery.

And what do everyday taxpayers get for all this.  Nothing, really.  You might think that for all the trouble—the economic crisis, the layoffs, the foreclosures, the human misery—that the financial sector could contribute more to the common good.  How about a windfall tax on profits as the banks come back to profitability while the rest of the economy continues to drag?  Or how about a fee to build up a reserve fund against any future crisis?  If not as penance for past since, then as goodwill against future ones?  Or in gratitude for the assistance all the banks and holding companies and insurance companies received from taxpayers.

No.

Or maybe I should say, not yet.

Comes now, finally, a serious proposal to ask the banks and financial wizards to pay back—and pay into—the common good.  Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN) has introduced “The Inclusive Prosperity Act” which would impose a Robin Hood Tax and raise some real revenue. Unlike other bills, it sets a small, but real tax on financial transactions (0.5% on stocks, 0.1% on bonds, 0.005% on derivatives) that could raise something like $350 billion a year.

This bill would put the US on par with France and Germany and other countries that are moving to institute a Robin Hood Tax.

Robin Hood activists are taking a lot of actions, visiting Congressional offices, and generally making noise today. Maybe you want to join them?

Editors note: Find out more about the Robin Hood Tax here.

In the early morning hours on Saturday, the Senate caved to industry pressure and dealt a blow to the planet. This action comes at a time designed to avoid public attention and as many Senators head out to the campaign trail to save their jobs.

The Senate passed the “Thune Bill” (S.1956) by unanimous consent making it illegal for the US airline industry to comply with EU regulations that cut carbon emissions. See previous posts for more details.

The airline industry has been lobbying hard for Thune to pass the Senate for months after gaining a victory in the House last year and climate advocates have had little resources to compete. The vote represents only the third time in history that the US government has made it illegal under US law to comply with the law of another country—putting the European climate change law on par with South Africa’s racist apartheid laws and the anti-Israel boycott by Arab nations.

All along, governments, industry groups, and climate advocates have agreed on one thing: the optimal solution is a global scheme to be implemented by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO). It’s now in the administration’s hands to proactively seek a global solution in ICAO that generates meaningful emissions reductions with fair provisions for developing countries’ airlines, including finance from the scheme being channeled to developing countries.

Unlike Congress, the administration needs to spend less time stirring up trade wars and kowtowing to industry, and more time leading the way towards an international solution.

Out of the tragedy of the 2010 BP oil disaster, we could soon see hope emerge. New legislation, the RESTORE the Gulf Coast States Act, just passed by Congress, could bring billions of dollars in resources and a range of new opportunities for environmental restoration, fighting poverty, and promoting economic mobility.

According to the Pew Center on the States, Alabama, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas rank among the worst states in the country for economic mobility: whether it’s the ability of a child born into a poor family to climb the economic ladder or the likelihood of a middle class family to fall into poverty.

They are also home to fishing communities like Dulac, LA, Apalachicola, FL, Bayou La Batre, AL, Point au La Hatche, LA and Pascagoula, MS, which face double to triple the national poverty rates. These communities have always been places of limited means, but a healthy Gulf put a roof over the heads and food on the table of families for generations. But now, after Hurricane Katrina and the BP oil spill, small multi-generational family fishing and seafood enterprises are under threat.

"This is the first time in generations we have had our waters taken from us." Byron Enclade, President of the Louisiana Oystermen Association. Photo: Audra Melton/Oxfam.

The full extent of the spill’s ecological damages is unknown, but in many places shrimp, oyster, and crab catches are down. This means underemployed shrimp boat captains, oyster harvesters, and deckhands and layoffs at processing plants. The loss of income has stretched social services as proud, formerly self-reliant people are forced to turn to community nonprofit agencies and food pantries for assistance.

It’s not just the recent disasters that have bruised the Gulf; over many years, the region has lost 50 percent of its inland and coastal wetlands and oyster reefs. Over the next 20 years, the Gulf is vulnerable to an estimated $300 billion in economic damages from hurricanes, coastal erosion, sea level rise, and flooding.

Recognizing this challenge, a coalition of Gulf State legislators led by Senators Mary Landrieu, Bill Nelson and Richard Shelby, along with Reps. Steve Scalise, Palazzo, and Cedric Richmond, together with community, environmental, and business allies navigated historic legislation to direct 80% of as much as $21 billion in 2010 BP oil spill civil fines back to economic and environmental restoration of the Gulf Coast states.

While how these dollars are spent lies in the hands of state and federal decision makers, they provide an opportunity for new resources for oyster reef construction, marsh building, and strengthening living shorelines and barrier islands to help restore damaged ecosystems and reduce vulnerability to hazards. They can also help put people back to work and provide new pathways out of the current struggles along the coast and towards economic mobility.

Every million invested in ecosystem restoration creates between 17-39 jobs according to Oxfam research. Restoring coastal wetlands, barrier islands, and oyster reefs can create good, family supporting wage jobs from welders, to civil engineering technicians, to dredge boat captains, to heavy equipment operators, skills which are already in demand locally, while also restoring our fisheries for future generations.

These jobs can also be a good source of economic opportunity. According to Ancil Taylor, Vice President of C.F. Bean, a Belle Chase, LA-based dredging firm, “If you come in at an entry level, work hard, and stay with it, there really is a chance to move up the ladder. A young man who began working with Bean as a dishwasher “worked his way up within the crew to become a US Coast Guard certified captain piloting one of our vessels.”

The sponsors of this bill deserve enormous kudos, but the job is not done. Now we need to ensure federal government and the state decision makers entrusted with these funds get the right policies and programs in place not only to restore this incredible natural resource, but to ensure we use these funds to create economic opportunity for low income, disadvantaged, and underemployed coastal workers, including fishery workers.

Positive examples exist on the Coast: from training fishermen in the bayou to be certified marine personnel, helping shrimpers in Oceans Springs to learn welding, or training at risk youth in New Orleans to be environmental technicians. The Louisiana First Hiring Act and the Mississippi Jobs First Act have also created new opportunity by placing qualified local workers in restoration and recovery projects.

Now we need to connect the dots and bring industry, community, workforce institutions and government together—to provide new career pathways out of poverty and build more resilient communities.

Livingstone Sewanyana. Source: http://www.fhri.or.ug

My name is Livingstone Sewanyana, and I am a human rights lawyer and Executive Director of the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative (FHRI) in Kampala, Uganda. I have worked in the field of human rights for 25 years at the national and international level. I support USAID’s Implementation and Procurement Reform, and I signed this letter to send a message to the US Congress that if they also want to fight corruption and promote development, they must work more with local people, the principal actors in the development process.

I have seen that development dollars, when directed at both the civil society groups and local governments, add more value and reduce the risk of waste and abuse. More support to local civil society actors means more support for campaigns against corruption. In Uganda, civil society groups like the Coalition Against Corruption and the Uganda Debt Network, among others, have spearheaded campaigns against corruption. Citizens are monitoring electoral votes to protect democracy, and Ugandan civil society has been instrumental in shining a light on development projects where there have been failures or misuse of funds.

In one high profile case, when the Ministry of Health misallocated funds, some of which came from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, citizen groups monitoring health care delivery discovered that funds were being misused. As Ugandan citizens, they were highly motivated, watching their fellow countrymen and women die due to lack of drugs and other related services. It was precisely because of strong civil society groups that the Global Fund was aware of the corruption. It was civil society efforts that led to an audit, which uncovered massive misuse of funds. Even a sophisticated operation like the Global Fund, which has in place safeguards to reduce corruption and increase transparency, needed local partners to hold their government accountable.

But the fight against corruption isn’t just about money—it is also about education, trust building and partnership. Groups like the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative work with both civil society organizations and local governments.

On the government side, we train local leaders, judiciaries, and Members of Parliament and their staff on human rights issues and legal procedures. This is especially important because Uganda adopted a decentralization policy in 1997 with an objective of bringing services closer to the people. While local governments are closer to the people, they do not always have the knowledge, skills and motivation to achieve this objective. So the Foundation for Human Rights Initiative has for several years engaged local government in programs that enhance their human rights knowledge, skills in budgeting and policy formulation and monitoring, and help them set up committees to develop initiatives targeting women, the disabled, and youth.

On the civil society side, we work with citizens to ensure they know their rights and can speak out when they detect problems or rights being violated. In order for these anti-corruption campaigns to be successful, there must be space for people to blow the whistle while knowing that they will be protected. Having the support of strong partners and leaders like the US can go a long way in making it easier.

As a human rights activist, I support initiatives like USAID Forward where the US government works more directly both with my government—even though it is not perfect—and through local civil society groups like mine, because direct support to these groups reaps high rewards in creating a better Uganda.