On Friday in Stockholm the IPCC released the first of a series of four reports comprising its Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), documenting the “physical science basis” of climate change.
CGD Policy Blogs
Policy makers on Capitol Hill have some pressing policy issues to tackle in the coming weeks (like reaching an agreement to fund the government and raising the debt ceiling). Fortunately, one bill that landed on their desk last week shouldn’t require much debate: The PEPFAR Stewardship and Oversight Act of 2013.
My recent editorial in the Guardian highlighted the importance of better defining and verifying results as part of the next Global Fund funding cycle. In particular, I’m critical of using indicators like “bed nets distributed” to convey anything about the impact of the program on disease.
Wednesday, for me, was a day of both joy and sadness. That morning, amidst the excitement of UN General Assembly (UNGA) week, we launched our report More Health for the Money on the Global Fund in New York to a happy audience. But that afternoon a somber event was held at Harvard School of Public Health in memory of Elif Yavuz, my friend, classmate, and colleague. Elif and her partner Ross Langdon, both 33, and their unborn baby, were among the many killed at Westgate in Nairobi, Kenya. The lives of so many people in our small global health and development circle – who like Elif had the wish to help others – were cut short in Westgate.
In Norway last year I met with the impressive staff of one of the world’s largest and smartest NGOs. They were unhappy that Norwegian aid money was being used to discourage deforestation in Brazil instead of to immunize children and educate girls in low-income Africa—in other words, to deal with climate change rather than “development.” I countered that minimizing climate change is a crucial piece of development, and urged them to rethink the issue.
In a world of horrible development jargon and TLAs, one of my least favourite is "Policy Coherence for Development (PCD)".
This ugly phrase is meaningless to most people; worse, it is misleading. It suggests that we care more about whether we have joined-up policies than we care about the overall impact of our policies on poor people and poor countries.
The UN’s most important meeting on migration and development in seven years begins on October 3. It’s a perfect time for fresh thinking, particularly about the role of high-skill migration in development.
Next month, Publish What You Fund (PWYF) will release its latest Aid Transparency Index, which assesses how well 67 development organizations open their books to scrutiny from their taxpayers and recipient country governments and citizens. USAID ranked 27th last year, a pretty disappointing result for the lead US development agency.
Will reduced inequality be included in some form in the post-2015 development goals? Should it be? And, if so, what is the appropriate yardstick?