NGO Another Way (Stichting Bakens Verzet), 1018 AM Amsterdam, Netherlands.


Edition 04: 16 April, 2011.

Edition 23 :11 November 2014.


01. E-course : Diploma in Integrated Development (Dip. Int. Dev)


Quarter 1.





Study value : 04 points out of 18.

Indicative study time: 112 hours out of 504.


Study points are awarded only after the consolidated exam for Section A : Development Problems has been passed.



First block : Poverty and quality of life.


Study value : 02 points out of 18. (Indicative study time: 57 hours out of 504. )


Study points are awarded only after the consolidated exam for Section A : Development Problems has been passed.


First block : Poverty and quality of life.


Section 1. Analysis of the causes of poverty. [26.50 hours]

Section 2. Services needed for a good quality of life.

First Block : Exam. [ 4 hours each attempt]


Block 1 of Section 1. Analysis of the causes of poverty. [26.50 hours]


Part 2 : In depth analysis of the causes of poverty. [14.00 hours]


01. In depth : definition of poverty.

02. In depth : some factors linked with poverty.

03. In depth : debts and subsidies.

04. In depth : financial leakages : food and water industries.

05. In depth : financial leakage : energy.

06. In depth : financial leakage : means of communication..

07. In depth : financial leakage : health and education.

08. In depth : financial leakage : theft of resources.

09. In depth : financial leakage : corruption.

10. In depth : the industry of poverty.


Report on Section 1 of Block 1 : [06.00 Hours]


Part 2 : In depth analysis of the causes of poverty. [14.00 hours]


10. In depth : the industry of poverty. (at least one hour)


“Carbonized money  : Heartbeat of the Beast….. the green economy will not flourish until the monetary system itself is transformed.” (Quilligan, J.B. , Interest Rates and Climate change : Realigning our Incentives through the Power of the Commons, Kosmos, Vol. X, Number 1, Fall/winter 2010, p. 29,  Kosmos Associates, Lenox, 2010.)


“The differences between rich and poor nations cannot be resolved on the same terms that gave rise to them.” (Quilligan, J.B. , Interest Rates and Climate change : Realigning our Incentives through the Power of the Commons, Kosmos, Vol. X, Number 1, Fall/winter 2010, p. 31,  Kosmos Associates, Lenox, 2010.)


Look at slide :


10. Financial leakage : development aid.


Read the notes you made on the law of diminishing returns in 07. Financial leakage : health and education.


Read the universal declaration of human rights.


Now read C. Hedges, The hijacking of human rights,  09 April, 2013.


1. Opinion.


Everyone should be able to benefit from the universal rights.......shouldn’t he/she ?

Or perhaps, 60 years after the date of the  Declaration, the real-world situation is quite different from the one described in the Declaration?


Since the world was not created in one day, priorities have to be set when dealing with development problems in poor countries.


2. Opinion.


What are these  priorities ? Who decides them ?


See Vidal J., World Bank spending on forests fails to curb poverty, auditors claim, The Guardian, London, 29 January, 2013 :


“The World Bank funded 345 major forestry projects in 75 countries in the decade to July 2011. The IEG panel, [Independent Evaluation Group, comprising World Bank staff member and outside consultants] which visited many of the projects and interviewed hundreds of people, criticised the bank strongly for:

• Continuing to support industrial logging.

• Not involving communities in decision-making.

• Assuming that benefits would accrue to the poor rather than the rich and powerful.

• Paying little attention to rural poverty.”


A second commentary on the IEG panel report can be found in the article A forest of failures : “Negligible” sustainability in World Bank’s forest work, Bretton Woods Project, article 571990, London, 12 February, 2013. 


"As of 31 March, 2013, “Sixteen months after signing the first contract, the SIKA [Stability in Key Areas in Afghanistan] programs reported that cumulative disbursements [ for US$ 47 million] primarily consisted of operational expenses, such as subcontracts, security, labor, and indirect costs, and resulted in community workshops, meetings, and training sessions….none of the funds had gone to grants that fund community projects, such as those that are “labor-intensive or productive infrastructure projects,” as called for in the SIKA contracts to address sources of instability.” ( Stability in Key Areas (SIKA) Programs: After 16 Months and $47 million spent, USAID Had Not Met Essential Program Objectives, Special Inspector for Afghanistan Reconstructions (SIGAR), Report 13-16,  Arlington, July 2013. )


It may be necessary to make «brutal » choices.


3. Opinion.


Where a person suffering from AIDS needs medicines costing € 1.000 and for  € 1.000  a local production unit for mosquito nets can be set up for the benefit of all of the children in the village and surroundings, which choice, do you think, should be made? What about the situation where € 1.000 is enough to set up a cooperative information system over AIDS and a service for the distribution of condoms ? Which choice should be made in that case ?


Is a human life more valuable than the quality of life of the rest of the inhabitants of the village? Is hygiene education and disease prevention for the benefit of  future generations more valuable than the life of an AIDS patient ?


In poor communities,  the very first investments of a few Euros per person can bring important benefits to the population. For example, the installation of just 5 peak watts per person of photovoltaic energy means a 1000 Wp installation in a community of 200. This is enough to supply energy for a pump for drinking water, a grain mill, lighting for evening study, and for the storage of medicines.


As capital investments increase, their relative benefits tend to diminish, following the law of diminishing returns.


4. Opinion.


Which criteria would you adopt in this regard?


A new, often profit-making, industry.


In the slide 10.Financial : leakage:development aid it is claimed that even money spent on «good» things reduces the amount of funds available for integrated development of the poor.


5. Opinion.


What do you think about that statement?


In 07  Financial leakage : health and  education , an analysis was made of GAVI’s investments and George Bush’s provision for aid for AIDS medicines. The total amount of development aid is about € 100 billion per year. Amounts spent one way for development aid are not available for spending in another way. This means that neither the money spent to make vaccines in industrialised and emerging countries nor the money paid to consultants in industrialised countries to carry out research on vaccines, nor the money needed to pay for the transport of food products (with or without farmers’ subsidies) from rich countries for distribution to the hungry is available for direct investment in poor countries.


6. Opinion.


Who makes these  decisions ? Why are the decisions made ?

What is the  relationship between the decisions made and the priorities established by the local populations in developing countries ?


The G 8 summit in Camp David in May 2012 approved  a G-8 Action on Food Security and Nutrition forming a “New Alliance for Food Security and Nutrition” which de facto gives multinationals, including those involved in the introduction of genetically modified crops (GMOs), leadership in solving the hunger problem in Africa. (Fact Sheet : G8 Action on Food Security and Nutrition, the Press Secretary, The White House Blog, Washington, 18 May, 2012. ).  This was answered by a plea from African peasant former organisations (Cissokho M, Letter from African Civil Society Critical of Foreign Investment in African Agriculture at G8 Summit, Network of Farmers and Agricultural Producers Organizations (ROPPA) and 14 other organisations, published at the website, posted 21 May, 2012.) criticising the G-8 decision :


“Today we are faced with two contrasting aspirations in Sub-Saharan Africa :  the desire to regain control of our development, and, on the other hand, the temptation of an excessive reliance on external resources … [African Governments] should accord the major advantages to the principal investors in agriculture, those who take the risks within the family enterprises, that is, the peasants, and not to urban or foreign sources of capital.”


“The dominance of international NGOs and private contractors in Haiti has created a parallel state more powerful than the government itself. These entities have built an alternative infrastructure for the provision of social services, but do not have much accountability to the Haitian government or people.” (Ramachandran V., Walz, J., Haiti : Where has all the money gone?, Center for Global Development (CGD), Policy Paper 004, Washington D.C., May, 2012.


“Despite extensive efforts, our ability to trace the money is limited by a lack of transparency and accountability—indeed, three years after the quake, much remains unknown.  For instance, who exactly got the $1.3 billion – 36% of the total – that was disbursed as grants to International NGOs and contractors?  As we have blogged previously, we can look at procurement databases to track primary contract recipients, but we cannot go much further. We can see, for instance, that $150 million was disbursed to Chemonics, but we have no idea about how that money was spent.” (Walz, J., Ramachandran, V., Haiti: Three Years After the Quake and Not Much Has Changed, Global Development : Views from the Center (Blog). Center for Global Development, Washington, 11th December, 2012.)


To see how U.S. Aid funds have been used for housing projects in post-earthquake Haiti see the internal Audit of U.S.Aid /Haiti’s New Settlement Construction Activities, Office of Inspector General, San Salvador, Report 1-521-14-007-P. 14 April, 2014.


As the conservative Wall Street Journal puts it : “Foreign aid is notoriously wasteful and often counterproductive. Even when the money is not going directly to Swiss bank accounts it is rarely allocated to its highest use because the process is fundamentally political. Contractors with all the wrong training and incentives but the right connections have the best chance of winning jobs.” ( M.A. Grady, Bill, Hillary and the Haiti Debacle, Wall Street Journal, New York, 18 May 2014.)<


On the use of USAID funds to encourage the production of palm oil as a monoculture in Colombia for bio-diesel for export to the United States see G.Leech, The Oil Palm Industry : A Blight on Afro-Colombia,  Nacla Report on the Americas, Colombia Report, July-August 2009, pp. 30-34. The formal justification (cover-up) for the intervention was the replacement of coca plantations.


“..the Colombian oil palm industry offers an example of the intricate links that exist between North and South under neoliberal globalization, especially in the relationship between five issues: energy, food, poverty, global warming, and human rights………. the human rights abuses, environmental devastation, poverty, and inequality often associated with oil and mining are also being transferred to the agrofuel sector. Furthermore, the shift to growing crops for fuel has led to food shortages and undermined self-sufficiency in many regions of the world..” (p. 34).


Here are some extracts from a report on EU Support for Governance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, European Court of Auditors, Special Report no. 9, September 2013.


"Some € 1.9 billion was spent by the European Union in assistance for (good) governance in D.R. Congo between 2003 and 2011. € 1 billion of it “disappeared” because of  “the absence of political will, the donor-driven dynamics of the programmes, and the lack of absorption capacity.”


At paragraph 35 : “Fewer than half of all the programmes examined have delivered, or are likely to deliver, the planned results.”


At paragraph 65: “In 2011, spending on the Presidency, the Prime Minister, the National Assembly and the Senate accounted for 11% of the total budgetary expenditure and was almost three times the amount spent on health.”


At paragraph 79 : “The programme documents do not mention a number of major risks – notably the lack of political will, fraud, and corruption…”


In your first analysis in 10. Financial leakage : development aid a list of local projects was prepared.


7. Opinion.


During the execution of  the projects on your list, were there any  cases of  friction between what the populations said they wanted and what was supplied to them ?


“I went for a cataract operation. They told me it costs 7,000 Egyptian pounds. All I had was seven so I decided to go blind.” A (Seery E., Arendar, A, Even It Up :  Time to end extreme inequality, Campaign Report, Oxfam International, 29 October 2014, Executive summary p. 18, citing a 60-year-old woman in a remote village in Egypt.)


Resource : Easterly, William, The White Man’s Burden – Why the west’s efforts to aid the rest have done so much ill and so little good , Penguin Press, London, 2006. For a review of the book , read Why doesn’t foreign aid work ? Mercy Corps, Global Envision, April 25, 2006, reproduced by Mercy Corps with the authorisation of CATO Unbound .


«Throughout the history of the aid program, Australia has consistently used the mantle of ODA [Overseas Development Aid] to protect, bolster and line the pockets of domestic corporations and to maintain our country's commercial presence in the region, with the bulk of project tenders going to big businesses that have diversified their operations to accommodate overseas development in order to get in on the lucrative aid deals.” Aid is increasing, but can we spend it well? (Wheen K. and Lusby S., Aid Watch News, 28 February 2008.)


“The continued effect of tied-aid, an over reliance on expensive, Australia-based technical assistance including Australian companies, consultants and contractors, and a common perception that aid can be legitimately deployed to serve Australia’s own strategic and commercial interests are all factors that fundamentally handicap Australia’s $3 billion aid program.” Source : Duxfield F and Wheen K.   Fighting Poverty or Fantasy Figures ? Aid Watch, Erskineville, Australia, May 2007, p.28.


8. Research.


The industry of poverty and  arrange them in an order of priority, beginning with the  projects you  consider the most “pure” and ending with the ones you think are the least “pure”.

Next to each project make a note on the (eventual) corrupting  factors.


9. Opinion.


What are your conclusions?


Experts, expatriates, everywhere.


From the chapter  Does Aid Aid?  by Harker, C., One Thousand Days as an Expert.


“It cost the Canadian government a lot of money to send us to Tanzania. It began with the process of recruitment which led to a two week orientation programme for all “experts” and their spouses selected that year. Our air fare to Tanzania was paid for as was the air freight of “essential items’ which totaled about 200 pounds. We were permitted a sea shipment of over a ton to go there and, because we had Malaika while at our posting, were permitted to ship two tons back to any Canadian destination.


“There was an agreement with the Tanzanian government that enabled us to purchase a vehicle duty free and we were not required to pay for our housing while at Mkwawa. By being accorded resident status, we paid far less in the parks and at hotels than would a tourist.


“My salary was based on what I would have received had I remained in the job from which I was recruited. As CIDA took no deductions for pensions, my salary appeared to be considerably higher. Then, on top of this was something called “overseas allowance” which was based on the cost of living in the country to which we were posted. This was tax free. After a year at our post, we were given two tickets to the “nearest European capital” which happened to be Athens. We turned our holiday there into a visit to Addis Ababa, Cairo, Beirut, Athens, Rome, Geneva and Madrid by paying about $150 extra. After our second year, the cost of a flight back to Canada was covered. Our health costs were paid for while we were under contract and finally, when we returned to Canada, we were obliged to report to the Tropical Diseases Hospital in Toronto for an “all expenses covered” week to be thoroughly “medically debriefed”.”


Clearly, the presence and participation of experts with knowledge which is not available locally is justifiable both in industrialised and in developing countries. For example, for large-scale works such as the construction of dams, motorways, and refineries. This may be one of the reasons why donors traditionally had a tendency to favour large-scale “development” projects.


More recently, projects of more modest dimensions have been preferred. The question is whether this had led to a reduction in the number of expatriates involved in the execution of development projects.


10. Opinion.


Take the list of projects you have made for your project area (eventually for your country).

Why are the participating experts necessary for the success of the projects?

Could they be substituted by local people? Could they be substituted by nationals from other areas?


11. Research.


Make a list of the  activities (see your analysis in  07. Financial leakage : health and education ) which could be executed in your area to reduce the incidence of bacterial, viral, parasitic and other infections.


You might wish to consider the following, amongst others :


Active protection against mosquitoes (nets).

Action against flies (all species).

Elimination of surface waters (drainage).

Control over waste disposal (pest control).

Hand washing.


12. Research.


How many of these activities can be executed at local level?

How many expatriate experts would be necessary?

How much would they cost?

What are your conclusions?


Help! We’re hungry !


“It's important for our nation to build -- to grow foodstuffs, to feed our people.  Can you imagine a country that was unable to grow enough food to feed the people?  It would be a nation that would be subject to international pressure.  It would be a nation at risk. And so when we're talking about American agriculture, we're really talking about a national security issue. ”  (G.W.Bush, President’s Remarks to the Future Farmers of America,  The White House, Washington, July 2001.)


The same principles apply to all nations.


Yet, “like all fans of globalisation they [presidents G.W.Bush and Clinton and leaders of industrialised countries in general] worked for the asymmetrical opening-up of markets and reduction of levels of protection. They worked to reduce duties and tariffs, leading to grave consequences for local rural economies and for farmers incapable of competing with foodstuffs imported at artificially low prices……Development aid from developed countries and financial institutions was often conditional on opening access to natural resources, the privatisation of water, and the promotion of cash crops and exports. Irrigation dams and reservoirs, for example, were needed for the development of plantations, and this infrastructure was privatised or sold. The management of public food stockpiles was handed over to the private sector, and the companies that mediate and manage agricultural supply were either privatised or incapacitated by inadequate government funding. In almost all the countries of the developing world, tariffs and other means of protecting internal markets were reduced or removed, allowing an influx of fertilisers, machinery and food goods. This favoured export-orientated agricultural practices, and a focus on producing only a limited number of commodities essentially destined for industrial processing locally or abroad, at the expense of producing food for local consumption. Imports came from the developed world, where farmers enjoy considerable subsidies – so generous that they overproduce. (Colombo C., Onorati, I., Food. Riots and Rights, pp. 4 and 5, International Institute for Environment and Development (IIED), London, 2013.)  This important document should be carefully read and analysed.


“Food aid is perhaps most infamous for the practice of dumping, or disposing of surplus food commodities in vulnerable national markets. In this case, food aid functions as just another US agricultural subsidy. In 2007, despite growing hunger, food aid fell globally by 15%, the lowest level since 1961. This reflects the tendency of food aid to respond to international grain prices and not to the food needs of the poor. When the price of cereals is low, Northern countries and transnational grain companies sell their commodities through food aid programs. When prices are high, they sell their grains on the global market. So, when people are less able to buy food, less food aid arrives.” (Hicks, B., The US Food Aid Industry : Food for Peace or Food for Profit?, Food First/Institute for Food and Development Policy, Oakland,  26 Mars 2013, citing [1] Holt-Giménez, Eric, and Raj Patel. Food Rebellions: Crisis and the Hunger for Justice. Food First Books, 2012.)


“The monetization process [ practised by USAID and USDA] results in the expenditure of a significant amount of appropriated funds in unrelated areas such as transportation and logistics, rather than development projects. Moreover, the potential for adverse market impacts, such as artificially suppressing the price of a commodity due to excessive monetization, could work against the agricultural development goals for which the funding was originally provided. The inefficiencies of monetization stem directly from the multiple transactions required by the process and, except in rare cases, prevent full cost recovery on monetization transactions. Therefore, as a source of funding for development assistance, monetization cannot be as efficient as a  standard development program which provides cash grants directly to implementing partners.” ( United States Government Accountability Office (GAO), International Food Assistance : Funding Development Projects through the Purchase, Shipment and Sales of U.S. Commodities Is Inefficient and Can Cause Adverse Market Impacts, Report GAO-11-636, United States’ Accountability Office, (GAO), Washington, June 2011.)


Another top example from Afghanistan is the October 2014 report of the (United States’) Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR, ) Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan  : After a Decade of Reconstruction and over $7 billion in Counternarcotics Efforts, Poppy Cultivation Levels are at an All-time High ( SIGAR Special report 15-10-SP, Arlington, 2014) which describes the sharp increase in opium production in Afghanistan in 2012 and 2013 despite the US$ 7.6 billion “spent” there on its eradication.


“[USAID] spent $7.4 billion on food between 2003 and 2012 while shelling out $9 billion on transportation and logistics. Experts said it was the most “inefficient humanitarian aid program in the world.” (K. Caulderwood, USAID Wastes Billions Shipping American Food Abroad : Report, International Business Times, New York, 01 October, 2014.)  The food “takes 147 days to reach its target, more than double the 35 to 41 days it takes to send food purchased locally”. Worse still, it is both subsidised and genetically modified.


Section 05.43 recycling of urines and faeces of the Model for integrated development projects, the file Agriculture and Food Security, the block five file Section 4: Food crisis and the file 09. CDM funding indications for the selected applications and methodologies all provide information on how food security can be reached in project areas.


Read your notes from section 03. Debts and subsidies of this section, on subsidies paid to farmers in industrialised countries.


Read your notes from section 04. Financial leakage : food industries and water  of this section, on food production.


About 11.000 years ago, nomadic groups of a few dozen hunter-gatherers (usually defined as “extended families” or “clans”) began cultivating food and to form village groups  (Diamond J., Guns, germs, and steel, Vintage, London, 1998, part 2 : The Rise and Spread of Food Production). Refer to 01. First level  : hunter-gatherers  of the  anthropological analysis in the third block solutions to the problems of the course.


In the absence of natural disaster, many communities managed to survive at the same site for centuries.


13. Research.


How have some developing countries put themselves into a situation where there is not enough food to feed and maintain their populations, while some industrialised countries have a food surplus?


14. Opinion.


Try to relate your conclusions to financial leakage caused by development aid.


Proceed with the drafting of your Report on Section 1 of Block 1 Analysis of the causes of poverty.