Underpaid, overworked and disillusioned: doctors and nurses are leaving Africa in droves. But the G8’s response today offers nothing that will prevent further migration of Africa’s healthcare workers.
International NGOs say that despite the announcements of funds for HIV and AIDS and other diseases, the G8 has not got back on track to meet the promises they made in 2005.
Aditi Sharma, head of ActionAid’s HIV and AIDS campaign, says the G8 leaders had recognised the problems but not offered any concrete action. “The shortage of health workers was on the summit agenda, but the G8 hasn’t made any specific commitments: no specific funds, timelines or targets,” she says.
A report by the Ethiopian National HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control Office in 2005 stated that there are just 2,115 doctors for a population of over 77 million people – and newly trained doctors all too often migrate, for better earnings to support their extended families.
And it’s not just a problem in Ethiopia. Collins Magalasi, director of Action Aid in Southern Africa, told me that “over 70 per cent of the doctors and nurses trained in Malawi have emigrated. The G8 countries are utilising them. We can’t stop doctors leaving”.
Malagasi thinks the G8 countries should fund training institutions and provide earnings for healthcare workers that will make it more attractive to stay in Africa. The solution is in the hands of the developed countries.
This isn’t a new story: despite all the talk of funding drugs and clinics for HIV, the fact is that a continued critical shortage of doctors and nurses means people are dying in Ethiopia and elsewhere in Africa.
The G8 has committed to spending $60 billion to fight infectious diseases over the next five years, but civil society groups are worried that not enough funds will be available to retain doctors and nurses in developing countries.
It’s depressing for me to watch what’s happening here at the G8. It looks like I’ll be going home to the same problems as before.
Technorati Tags: africa, brain drain, ethiopia, g8, healthcare
Showing posts with label G8. Show all posts
Showing posts with label G8. Show all posts
Saturday, 9 June 2007
Friday, 8 June 2007
Africa Fails To Meet AIDS Goals
Not a single country in sub-Saharan Africa is on target to meet U.N. goals of cutting extreme poverty by half, ensuring universal primary education, and stemming the AIDS pandemic by 2015, a new U.N. report says.
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon plans to ask leaders of the world's richest countries meeting in Germany this week to step up aid to Africa so the targets can be achieved.
"Despite faster growth and strengthened institutions, the continent remains off track to meeting the world's shared goals for fighting poverty in all its forms," Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro told a news conference launching the report.
While the proportion of people living on $1 a day has declined from 45.9 percent to 41.1 percent since 1999, the report said reaching the target of halving extreme poverty by 2015 requires that the current pace is nearly doubled.
Net aid to sub-Saharan Africa has increased by only 2 percent in real terms since 2005, Migiro said, excluding Nigeria, which received exceptional debt relief this year. The report said donors need to accelerate their plans to scale up assistance to maintain the credibility of their 2005 pledge to double aid to Africa by 2010.
"The upcoming G-8 summit provides an important opportunity for donor countries to lay out concrete timetables for how they will increase development assistance to each African country through to 2010 and 2015," she said.
The U.N. report, released at the midway point between the adoption of the goals by world leaders at a summit in 2000 and the 2015 target date, showed some progress in getting more youngsters to go to school but little progress on goals to reduce child and maternal mortality and halt the AIDS pandemic.
Some sub-Saharan African countries have increased primary school enrollment from 57 percent in 1999 to 70 percent in 2005, even with a rapid population growth. But Migiro said "more investments in the sector are needed to meet the goal of primary education" for all children.
According to the new U.N. statistics, child mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa have fallen only marginally from 185 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 116 per 1,000 live births in 2005.
A woman in Africa has a one in 16 chance of dying in childbirth or from complications in pregnancy, compared to the likelihood of one in 3,800 of dying in developed countries, she said.
The report also said the number of people dying from AIDS continues to mount, reaching 2 million in 2006 in sub-Saharan Africa. New HIV cases are rising faster than the rate at which new treatment is being offered, it said.
Despite the slow pace in meeting the U.N. goals, Migiro said that important lessons can be taken from countries in Africa that are showing progress.
Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have increased primary school enrollment, the report said. It also said that Senegal and Uganda have better access to water and improved sanitation, and agricultural productivity has increased in Malawi.
"If Malawi can do it, so can all of sub-Saharan Africa," said Guido Schmidt-Traub, head of a team at the U.N. Development Program promoting implementation of the goals. "Clearly this isn't happening, and I think finances are a clear constraint at least in those countries that have met their side of the bargain."
Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon plans to ask leaders of the world's richest countries meeting in Germany this week to step up aid to Africa so the targets can be achieved.
"Despite faster growth and strengthened institutions, the continent remains off track to meeting the world's shared goals for fighting poverty in all its forms," Deputy Secretary-General Asha-Rose Migiro told a news conference launching the report.
While the proportion of people living on $1 a day has declined from 45.9 percent to 41.1 percent since 1999, the report said reaching the target of halving extreme poverty by 2015 requires that the current pace is nearly doubled.
Net aid to sub-Saharan Africa has increased by only 2 percent in real terms since 2005, Migiro said, excluding Nigeria, which received exceptional debt relief this year. The report said donors need to accelerate their plans to scale up assistance to maintain the credibility of their 2005 pledge to double aid to Africa by 2010.
"The upcoming G-8 summit provides an important opportunity for donor countries to lay out concrete timetables for how they will increase development assistance to each African country through to 2010 and 2015," she said.
The U.N. report, released at the midway point between the adoption of the goals by world leaders at a summit in 2000 and the 2015 target date, showed some progress in getting more youngsters to go to school but little progress on goals to reduce child and maternal mortality and halt the AIDS pandemic.
Some sub-Saharan African countries have increased primary school enrollment from 57 percent in 1999 to 70 percent in 2005, even with a rapid population growth. But Migiro said "more investments in the sector are needed to meet the goal of primary education" for all children.
According to the new U.N. statistics, child mortality rates in sub-Saharan Africa have fallen only marginally from 185 per 1,000 live births in 1990 to 116 per 1,000 live births in 2005.
A woman in Africa has a one in 16 chance of dying in childbirth or from complications in pregnancy, compared to the likelihood of one in 3,800 of dying in developed countries, she said.
The report also said the number of people dying from AIDS continues to mount, reaching 2 million in 2006 in sub-Saharan Africa. New HIV cases are rising faster than the rate at which new treatment is being offered, it said.
Despite the slow pace in meeting the U.N. goals, Migiro said that important lessons can be taken from countries in Africa that are showing progress.
Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda have increased primary school enrollment, the report said. It also said that Senegal and Uganda have better access to water and improved sanitation, and agricultural productivity has increased in Malawi.
"If Malawi can do it, so can all of sub-Saharan Africa," said Guido Schmidt-Traub, head of a team at the U.N. Development Program promoting implementation of the goals. "Clearly this isn't happening, and I think finances are a clear constraint at least in those countries that have met their side of the bargain."
Wednesday, 6 June 2007
Promises made to world's poor were lies
OXFAM has reported what some people on the Make Poverty History march feared, but hoped not to hear - that the promises made in Scotland to the world's poorest by the leaders of the world's most powerful economies are proving to be a lot of hot air and downright lies.
Two years ago, a quarter of a million people marched through the streets of Edinburgh to demonstrate their support for international aid to Africa being doubled by G8 leaders, and debt repayments being written off for at least the very poorest countries. Anyone who expressed scepticism that the Gleneagles summit would prove different from previous summits that had failed to flash the cash promised at previous summits was ignored.
After all, the argument went, Saint Bob won't let the G8 big-wigs back-slide. This time they'll pay up, rather than be outed by Bob Geldof as sweet talkers who don't walk the walk when the chips are down and children are dying of starvation or from a lack of basic medicines.
"Give them the money," said Bob, who nobody believes to be a phoney, but whose ability to spot one is questioned by many. The former Boomtown Rat met with, and cursed at, the Great 8 in Gleneagles whilst other, equally serious, groups like Oxfam were listened to by lesser members of the circus that descended on Perthshire, and scandalised some whilst making others a bit embarrassed at the cost of a jamboree at which the plight of poor people was talked about.
I wonder if any of those who signed up to double annual aid to the poor of Africa by 2010 blushed with shame when they heard Oxfam's calculations as to how the lot of the poor hasn't been lightened much at all, and that by 2010, the Gleneagles target would be missed by $30 billion?
To be fair to Tony Blair, his blush need not be the deepest shade of red. His Government came closest to keeping its promise of giving $14.9 billion by falling short by a mere $1.6bn, but lets put that figure into context. Last year the rich countries' club of eight spent three times more on bottled water, $58bn, than was spent, in total, on aid to Africa, a continent where children die of dehydration and people have to walk miles to a well.
In the UK, sales of champagne and wine total twice the amount of foreign aid, so maybe it's I who should blush every time I avail myself of special offers on the fizzy stuff.
Then again, if right next to the display for special offer bubbly the supermarket had a collection point for donations to a project to provide adequate water supplies to villages in Malawi, for example, I would contribute.
If a personal connection can be forged between the donor and the recipient, evidence shows this approach will produce a bigger bang for the buck. It also diminishes the chance of good foreign aid money being invested in bad projects or siphoned off by bad political leaders.
It's a safer way of transferring aid money from rich to poor than leaving governments to fix things amongst themselves. That's why the new Scottish Government Minister for Foreign policy, Linda Fabiani, should pick up where Jack McConnell's Malawi policy left off.
To be sure that money and other support and resources donated from Scots is going first to the people who need it most, Jack's lot channelled their aid directly to local projects, not local or national politicians.
Some people were scathing about the relatively small amounts of money donated to groups in Malawi compared to the aid that could be given by the UK Government.
But what would you rather have, big promises or smaller amounts, cash in hand? Ironically, it's often the latter approach that allows people to help themselves, and is therefore preferred by those who international aid is intended to help.
For example, in Zambia, every growing season, elephants ate all the vegetables planted in the Lubinda family's plot. Try as they might, the family couldn't chase away the elephants, and so had no money to pay for schooling for its seven orphan grandchildren.
Enter a small charity, Africa Now, that favours the practical, donor to local project approach of the McConnell aid programme.
Africa Now didn't put the Lubindas in touch with a Zambian Government sponsored programme.
Instead, they donated a handful of chilli pepper seeds for planting round the edge of the vegetable plot. When these grew, the problem was solved. Chilli, whether grown as hedges or processed to produce oil that can be mixed with dung cakes and burnt, makes elephants sneeze hard.
So if you're feeling let-down by the G8 leaders who've broken promises made in your name, urge the Scottish Government to keep up the Malawi aid programme, write to your champagne supplier and suggest how African villages without a water supply might be assisted and remember the true story of the sneezing elephants.
Two years ago, a quarter of a million people marched through the streets of Edinburgh to demonstrate their support for international aid to Africa being doubled by G8 leaders, and debt repayments being written off for at least the very poorest countries. Anyone who expressed scepticism that the Gleneagles summit would prove different from previous summits that had failed to flash the cash promised at previous summits was ignored.
After all, the argument went, Saint Bob won't let the G8 big-wigs back-slide. This time they'll pay up, rather than be outed by Bob Geldof as sweet talkers who don't walk the walk when the chips are down and children are dying of starvation or from a lack of basic medicines.
"Give them the money," said Bob, who nobody believes to be a phoney, but whose ability to spot one is questioned by many. The former Boomtown Rat met with, and cursed at, the Great 8 in Gleneagles whilst other, equally serious, groups like Oxfam were listened to by lesser members of the circus that descended on Perthshire, and scandalised some whilst making others a bit embarrassed at the cost of a jamboree at which the plight of poor people was talked about.
I wonder if any of those who signed up to double annual aid to the poor of Africa by 2010 blushed with shame when they heard Oxfam's calculations as to how the lot of the poor hasn't been lightened much at all, and that by 2010, the Gleneagles target would be missed by $30 billion?
To be fair to Tony Blair, his blush need not be the deepest shade of red. His Government came closest to keeping its promise of giving $14.9 billion by falling short by a mere $1.6bn, but lets put that figure into context. Last year the rich countries' club of eight spent three times more on bottled water, $58bn, than was spent, in total, on aid to Africa, a continent where children die of dehydration and people have to walk miles to a well.
In the UK, sales of champagne and wine total twice the amount of foreign aid, so maybe it's I who should blush every time I avail myself of special offers on the fizzy stuff.
Then again, if right next to the display for special offer bubbly the supermarket had a collection point for donations to a project to provide adequate water supplies to villages in Malawi, for example, I would contribute.
If a personal connection can be forged between the donor and the recipient, evidence shows this approach will produce a bigger bang for the buck. It also diminishes the chance of good foreign aid money being invested in bad projects or siphoned off by bad political leaders.
It's a safer way of transferring aid money from rich to poor than leaving governments to fix things amongst themselves. That's why the new Scottish Government Minister for Foreign policy, Linda Fabiani, should pick up where Jack McConnell's Malawi policy left off.
To be sure that money and other support and resources donated from Scots is going first to the people who need it most, Jack's lot channelled their aid directly to local projects, not local or national politicians.
Some people were scathing about the relatively small amounts of money donated to groups in Malawi compared to the aid that could be given by the UK Government.
But what would you rather have, big promises or smaller amounts, cash in hand? Ironically, it's often the latter approach that allows people to help themselves, and is therefore preferred by those who international aid is intended to help.
For example, in Zambia, every growing season, elephants ate all the vegetables planted in the Lubinda family's plot. Try as they might, the family couldn't chase away the elephants, and so had no money to pay for schooling for its seven orphan grandchildren.
Enter a small charity, Africa Now, that favours the practical, donor to local project approach of the McConnell aid programme.
Africa Now didn't put the Lubindas in touch with a Zambian Government sponsored programme.
Instead, they donated a handful of chilli pepper seeds for planting round the edge of the vegetable plot. When these grew, the problem was solved. Chilli, whether grown as hedges or processed to produce oil that can be mixed with dung cakes and burnt, makes elephants sneeze hard.
So if you're feeling let-down by the G8 leaders who've broken promises made in your name, urge the Scottish Government to keep up the Malawi aid programme, write to your champagne supplier and suggest how African villages without a water supply might be assisted and remember the true story of the sneezing elephants.
Thursday, 31 May 2007
How the rich world can help Africa help itself
When heads of state from the world's richest countries gather in Heiligendamm, Germany, next week for this year's summit of the Group of Eight leading industrialised nations, they would most benefit the poor in Africa by first looking at what Africa is doing for itself. News from Malawi, one of the world's poorest countries, suggests a powerful way forward in the fight against hunger and poverty. If G8 countries scale up their support to these homegrown efforts – as they promised two years ago in Gleneagles – the fight can be won.
In 2005, Malawi's maize harvest was one of the worst ever. A dry spell in February of that year cut yields. National production was just 1.2m tonnes – 29 per cent less than in the previous year and 45 per cent less than the national requirement. The United Nations issued an appeal in August 2005, seeking food aid for the immediate hunger, but also fertilisers and seeds for the coming growing season. Donors responded quickly with food aid, but gave little support for fertilisers or seeds. By November, almost 5m Malawians faced food shortages and hunger, and the prospect of another disastrous growing season in 2006. Hunger and extreme poverty are known to increase the incidence of many killer diseases, unleash gender-based violence and theft, and decrease dramatically the rates of school attendance by children. An apocalyptic conclusion seemed to be all but assured.
Despite the opposition of some of Malawi's donors, President Bingu wa Mutharika and his team introduced a bold farm-input subsidy programme to pre-empt the famine. At a cost of $60m, roughly $5 per Malawian, the government provided seed and fertiliser at reduced cost to more than 1m small-scale maize farmers. This represented a huge financial burden for Malawi's government, but would have been a pittance for the rich world.
In 2005, Malawi's maize harvest was one of the worst ever. A dry spell in February of that year cut yields. National production was just 1.2m tonnes – 29 per cent less than in the previous year and 45 per cent less than the national requirement. The United Nations issued an appeal in August 2005, seeking food aid for the immediate hunger, but also fertilisers and seeds for the coming growing season. Donors responded quickly with food aid, but gave little support for fertilisers or seeds. By November, almost 5m Malawians faced food shortages and hunger, and the prospect of another disastrous growing season in 2006. Hunger and extreme poverty are known to increase the incidence of many killer diseases, unleash gender-based violence and theft, and decrease dramatically the rates of school attendance by children. An apocalyptic conclusion seemed to be all but assured.
Despite the opposition of some of Malawi's donors, President Bingu wa Mutharika and his team introduced a bold farm-input subsidy programme to pre-empt the famine. At a cost of $60m, roughly $5 per Malawian, the government provided seed and fertiliser at reduced cost to more than 1m small-scale maize farmers. This represented a huge financial burden for Malawi's government, but would have been a pittance for the rich world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
