Friday, October 16, 2009

Maternal death rates alarming - a preventable tragedy: CAMBODIA

CAMBODIA: Alarming Maternal Deaths Require a Mix of Solutions
By Robert Carmichael

PHNOM PENH, Oct 12 (IPS) - Early this year, heavily pregnant Vorn Yoeub, 37, arrived at a hospital in the western Cambodian border town of Pailin. The mother of seven other children died later that evening along with her unborn child after suffering complications from bleeding.

For most of this decade Cambodia has been trying to cut the number of deaths of women, who, like Vorn Yoeub, are the human face behind the country's stubbornly high maternal mortality rate. The figure has been running at around 461 per 100,000 live births for 10 years, and is one of nine development objectives the country is trying to improve as part of its Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

MDGs are development goals that the United Nations member states along with other international organisations have agreed to meet by 2015.

Progress on Cambodia's nine goals is mixed: A conference in Phnom Penh late last month indicated that it would likely attain only three of them by 2015. And there are concerns that the global economic crisis could make attaining some of the remaining six MDGs much harder.

Sherif Rushdy, a consultant for the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), told attendees that on the positive front, Cambodia would probably meet its targets in cutting child mortality; combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases; and reducing to zero the number of casualties from landmines (which is specific to Cambodia).

But it will almost certainly miss another three: Reducing maternal mortality to 140 deaths per 100,000 live births; achieving universal nine-year education; and ensuring environmental sustainability.

"[These three goals] are flashing a red light, and the country is unlikely to reach its goals in these areas," he said.

Two other MDGs – eradicating extreme poverty and hunger; and promoting gender equality and empowering women – are also thought unlikely to be met unless Phnom Penh changes its approach.

Rushdy told attendees that progress towards the final goal – developing a global partnership for development – could not be assessed since targets were not set.

Why such mixed results on two of the key healthcare goals: Little or no progress on reducing maternal mortality combined with "spectacular progress" – in the words of Rushdy – in cutting child and infant mortality? After all, they are closely linked.

In an interview with IPS, Dr Lo Veasnakiry, the Ministry of Health's director of planning, said there are solid reasons behind the declines in death rates of infants and young children.

One is the government's commitment to support the health sector financially despite the impact of the global financial crisis ripping through Cambodia's economy. Another is its policy to improve access to child-based services and their availability.

"And thirdly, we have support from the health partners in terms of technical and financial services," he said. One of these is the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF).

Malalay Ahmadzai, UNICEF's mother and child health specialist, added several other factors to the success mix, among them the strategy to improve breastfeeding practices.

But improvements have also come from areas that at first sight appear to have little in common with health – primary education, for example. Mothers with some education have an improved understanding of health matters, she said. The strong economic growth of the past decade has also helped, as have better roads and quality of care in this predominantly rural society.

"Things are very much linked," Ahmadzai said.

This combination of improvements has helped lower the number of infant deaths to 60 per 1,000 live births, well on the way to meet the MDG of 50 per 1,000 live births.

Such factors have also driven down the number of under-fives dying, from 124 per 1,000 live births in 1998 to 83 per 1,000 currently. Rushdy told the conference that Cambodia should meet its goal of 65 per 1,000 live births.

Yet it still leaves the question of the country's extremely high maternal mortality rate. One senior UNDP staff said statistical modelling of the data shows the true figure could be anywhere between 300 and 700 deaths per 100,000 births. But whatever the true figure, there is widespread agreement that the target of 140 will not be achieved.

Dr Lo cited a lack of money and insufficient technical expertise. And, he added, the initial target was set too high. He has proposed that the government revise upwards the target of 140 deaths per 100,000 live births to 250 deaths. He rejects the suggestion that this is simply shifting the goalposts. And, he points out, some progress is better than none.

"We think the [revised goal of] 250 is likely to be achieved," he said, citing gains in a number of the underlying indicators related to maternal or infant health. For example, this time last year, 79 of Cambodia's 967 health centres lacked midwives. "But by the middle of this year all the [remaining] 79 health centres are staffed with midwives."

Another improvement is the government's introduction of an incentive for midwives: Those who work in rural health facilities are paid 15 U.S. dollars for each baby born alive. Those working at hospitals – in larger, urban areas – get 10 U.S. dollars. "This has produced a positive impact on the [successful number of] deliveries," he said.

And while just one-third of births were attended by skilled health workers a decade ago, that number rose to 58 percent last year. The target for 2015 is 80 percent.

Pre-natal visits are also up from around 30 percent in 2000 to 80 percent last year while the number of Caesarean sections for births with complications has also increased – an indication that more women with problem births are getting appropriate medical intervention. All of this gives him cause for optimism. "We can use these proxies to look at the progress for the future," he said.

But if the true maternal mortality numbers remain opaque, the afflictions killing five Cambodian women a day in childbirth are clearer. A 2005 Japanese-funded study found more than half die from bleeding, while eclampsia kills another one in five.

"The complications [with maternal mortality] are unpredictable," said UNICEF's Ahmadzai, "and the onset of complications can be very quick."

She said rapid reaction is vital in addressing what health experts call "the three delays" behind the high death rate among women of reproductive age. The first delay is the decision by the family in this predominantly rural population whether or not to take the woman to the health clinic. The second is access, or simply getting to the clinic, and financial aspects such as affordability. The third is the quality of care women get once they reach the clinic.

"If any of these three delays exists, then the mother [who is bleeding] dies within an hour or two or three," she added.

The solution is a mix of improved resources and trained staff: "more skilled birth attendants, good supplies, quality improvement of services, and then improving access," said Ahmadzai.

Speaking to IPS, the UNDP's Rushdy said the "stubbornly" high maternal mortality rate has other causes too. "This is a gender issue – girls and mothers continue to be neglected," he said. "Girls' nutrition is the first to be cut when there are financial difficulties in households. So one root cause is a general bias against women."

Another is the loss of skills in many areas such as health. Most of Cambodia's educated people either died during the Khmer Rouge regime or fled overseas.

Rushdy believes the MDG to eradicate poverty and hunger — which are inextricably linked to health, women's in particular — will not be met unless Cambodia can shift economic growth away from its narrow urban base of garment manufacturing, tourism and construction. He said the solution is to promote development in rural areas, where the majority of Cambodians live.

"There are ways to mitigate the risks, such as providing free access to health care. Health problems are the ones that drive people into poverty," he said.

(END/2009)


Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48810

Critical issues to be addressed at World Summit on Food Security in Rome 16-18 Nov.

(Excerpts:)

For Stamoulis, in order to produce more food, "we have to make sure that farmers are properly supported in the developed and developing countries, not at the expense of each other." So far we are not doing a good job, he says. "Developed countries support farmers tremendously, while developing countries do not have the means.

"We need to invest massively in a different kind of agriculture, less water- dependant, less destructive, less petroleum-based, less mechanised, a conservation agriculture, a complicated agriculture," he says. "The reason is: if we don't do that, we destroy the planet and everybody starves."

And that is what is at stake here, in Rome.


DEVELOPMENT: Rome, Food Capital of the World - Part 1

By Miren Gutierrez* and Oriana Boselli


ROME, Oct 3 (IPS) - It was once true that all roads led to this ancient capital. Today it is the furrows of maize, wheat and rice fields that take you to Rome, where the biggest global food organisations are headquartered, and the World Summit on Food Security (Nov. 16-18) is being organised.

The situation couldn't be more momentous.

"The global food insecurity situation has worsened and continues to represent a serious threat for humanity," says the summit website. According to the latest U.N. projections, the world population will rise from 6.8 billion to 9.1 billion in 2050 - a third more mouths to feed. Most population growth will occur in developing countries.

High food prices in developing countries, a global economic crisis affecting jobs, deepening poverty, and more hungry people combine to paint a bleak picture.

So, what are the expectations of the food organisations present in Rome?

Kostas Stamoulis, head of the Food and Agriculture Organisation's (FAO) agricultural development economics division, says this summit "is not a fund-raising exercise...the original position is that we eliminate hunger, preferably by 2025, although I am not sure if this will be the summit's objective, because the countries have yet to agree on the targets..."

One of the concrete issues on the table, he says, is "reform of the global governance of food security. It has to be better coordinated, because so far every crisis turns into a big disaster. Also, despite all the wealth in the world, we have seen chronically hungry people increasing since 1996."

A recent paper by FAO says that "producing 70 percent more food for an additional 2.3 billion people by 2050 while at the same time combating poverty and hunger, using scarce natural resources more efficiently, and adapting to climate change are the main challenges world agriculture will face in the coming decades."

For Stamoulis, in order to produce more food, "we have to make sure that farmers are properly supported in the developed and developing countries, not at the expense of each other." So far we are not doing a good job, he says. "Developed countries support farmers tremendously, while developing countries do not have the means.

"Part of the objective too is to make sure that countries realise that a lot more resources have to be devoted to agriculture. Not necessarily during the summit...this is not a pledge summit. That happened in July, when the G8 pledged 20 billion dollars to support agriculture. This is a summit where countries, at the highest level, reconfirm their support."

At the summit of the Group of Eight (G8) most powerful countries, held in July in the Italian city of L'Aquila, they decided to mobilise 20 billion dollars over three years to fight the food crisis, and it was said the money could be used to promote agriculture rather than as aid. But people like Paolo di Croce, secretary-general of Slow Food International, were sceptical. "We have to change the model that caused this situation (of food crisis), not patch up the gaps with some crisis money," he said in an earlier interview with IPS.

For Stamoulis, this is a good point. The money should be invested primarily on small farmers, he says. Investments should be made too in infrastructure - roads, ports, storage facilities. "In terms of technology and access to markets, we have to make sure small holders take a fair share of this allocation, so they increase their productivity."

Considering that 30 countries are currently experiencing food emergencies, "another issue is to have a better early warning system and a better coordinated response," he says.

What is new in comparison with the food crises of the 1970s and the historic World Food Conference of 1974?

"Now we have the Committee on the World Food Security (CFS), which meets all the criteria to become a real world partnership from the bottom up," says Stamoulis. "One of the issues leaders will talk about is precisely the reform of the CFS, of which I have the honour to be the secretary-general."

According to Stamoulis, the CFS is undertaking reforms in order to involve civil society in the decision-making process, so it becomes "a real global forum for coordination of the various national and international initiatives on food security."

In the 70s, the summit took place under the pressure of the food crisis. "But here we are putting something together that will tackle not only the food crisis, but also more structural issues and chronic hunger. And this should be done with a lot of stakeholders' participation, not just a group deciding. That is a big difference. This time we have a better chance to succeed, because we are more inclusive."

The voices of the food organisations interviewed for this report seem to echo the tension between two crucial problems: the need to address urgent food emergencies right now, and the need to invest in longer-term structural solutions.

The host of the summit, the FAO, is one of three U.N. food agencies based in Rome. Each has different goals. FAO acts as a "neutral forum" where all nations meet to negotiate agreements and debate policy. FAO's staff includes agronomists, foresters, fisheries and livestock specialists, nutritionists, social scientists, economists and statisticians, "who collect, analyse and disseminate data that aids development."

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) is another. Unlike FAO, IFAD specialises in financing rural development projects.

Kevin Cleaver, IFAD's assistant president, says IFAD has seen money for agricultural projects increase now to "the largest percentage ever."

"The economic crisis that began 2008 has affected developing countries' food production very negatively," he says. "All statistics point to that effect: in 2008 and 2009, the number of people globally suffering from hunger or malnutrition increased about 100 million.

"Things were getting better in the previous five-year period...but 2008 was a turning point," he says, due to a combination of factors: the financial crisis, fewer remittances, less income coming in, less money to buy food. "Credit dried up in the developed countries, so you can imagine what happened in the high-risk investment countries of Africa or other low income countries of Asia. It just disappeared. And that had a very negative impact on agriculture."

Then, the G8 meeting in L'Aquila happened. "One of the reasons why IFAD was so happy with the results was that the world leaders admitted that the food crisis was creating havoc in the developing countries and generating food insecurity," says Cleaver. "The increase of hungry people was unacceptable, but also a security threat. If hungry people become angry, it is more likely that they take up a gun, emigrate to Europe or the U.S...the G8 was admitting a security problem, and this is the first time we have seen such a thing."

Money was not only pledged, "some of these countries are starting to follow up, to deliver," he adds. "In the past we often had just words. Now we see some action."

IFAD was established as an international financial institution in 1977 in one of the major outcomes of the 1974 World Food Conference. Is the same sort of momentum building up now?

Cleaver says there are some important differences.

"IFAD was part of the response of the international community to a similar crisis," he says. "The prices of the major food staples and livestock products hugely increased in 1974 and 1975. There was a shortage of food; starvation. The international community got together, and created IFAD.

"It did some other things, like putting more money in research. A lot of bilateral aid agencies invested in agriculture. Even in the private sector, one of the things we saw is big investments in agriculture. The effect was that by the end of the 1970s, food prices had gone down dramatically. In the 1980s, there was an abundance of food even in developing countries.

"Real prices of food relative to other commodities continued to fall. The world went into abundance. The function of the World Food Programme (WFP) was to take some of this surpluses in industrial countries and distribute them in places in distress," he says. "There is no longer a global surplus.

"The world cereal stocks are at historic low," says Cleaver. "The real prices of food have increased dramatically. Look at the statistics: the rate of growth of agricultural productivity has declined to about a third of what it was. In other words, science and technology haven't generated growth, haven't kept up with people's growth. Supply is not keeping up with demand."

Why? "Complacency; we were so successful. Donors got out of the agriculture business. We also have seen less investment from the private sector. Institutions like the Inter American Development Bank and USAID, almost all of the bilateral agencies, have withdrawn from agriculture. This has destroyed agricultural capacity."

On top of this, climate change and other "serious slow environmental problems" combined to "crush agriculture". Cleaver mentions areas such as South Asia and China, dependent on natural irrigation, that are in danger now for lack of rain.

"What has happened in these areas is a salinisation," he says. "The extraction of water has been so great that the aquifers have disappeared. So, globally there are huge water shortages in irrigated areas. In Mexico, 50 percent of aquifers are totally exhausted. These areas are producing nothing. Uzbekistan had huge irrigated areas. Now it looks like snow, because the salt is so thick. Nothing can grow in that 'snow', not even weeds.

"We need to invest massively in a different kind of agriculture, less water- dependant, less destructive, less petroleum-based, less mechanised, a conservation agriculture, a complicated agriculture," he says. "The reason is: if we don't do that, we destroy the planet and everybody starves."

And that is what is at stake here, in Rome.

*Miren Gutierrez is IPS Editor-in-Chief. (END/2009)


Source: http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=48712

Thursday, October 8, 2009

Natural resources, lawlessness fuel armed conflicts buffeted by arms trade



Was man created for waging such perpetual "resource wars"?! Who are the consumers, by the way? And what about the arms trade that fuels the slew of armed conflicts going on? Following are two articles on the these themes.

"The evidences of discord...are apparent everywhere, though all were made for harmony and union."

- Baha'i writings http://is.gd/43qV8


(Excerpts:)

In recent decades, many of the bloodiest conflicts in Africa and Asia have been fuelled by profits from the exploitation of natural resources including diamonds, timber and minerals... [T]here are no formal global mechanisms governing trade in other ......conflict resources like timber, minerals and cocoa.

Since most governments agreed in 2006 on the need to regulate the global arms trade, an estimated 2.1 million people had died as a direct or indirect result of armed violence.
That worked out at more than 2,000 per day, or more than one every minute.

Resource wars

Last reviewed: 30-06-2009

TRADE IN NATURAL RESOURCES FUELS WARS


Labourers work at an open-cast diamond mine near Kpetewama, Sierra Leone. <br>REUTERS/Dylan Martinez
Labourers work at an open-cast diamond mine near Kpetewama, Sierra Leone.
REUTERS/Dylan Martinez
In recent decades, many of the bloodiest conflicts in Africa and Asia have been fuelled by profits from the exploitation of natural resources, including diamonds, timber and minerals. Efforts are being stepped up to clamp down on the trade in these conflict resources.
  • Millions have died in resource-fuelled wars since the late 1990s
  • The Kimberley Process has reduced international trade in conflict diamonds
  • Campaigners want legally enforceable rules for oil and mining companies
Trade in "blood diamonds" provided vital funding for warlords and rebels fighting civil wars in Angola, Sierra Leone and Liberia in the late 20th century. After this was exposed, pressure grew for an international mechanism to stop this trade, thereby cutting off cash for arms purchases and helping end conflicts. The Kimberley Process - a scheme to certify the source of diamonds - was launched in 2003, and is credited with reducing the proportion of conflict diamonds in international trade to below 0.5 percent. Most of the worst resource-fuelled wars in recent years have ended. But activists warn that, without greater efforts to make international trade more ethical, history could repeat itself. Besides the Kimberley Process for diamonds, there are no formal global mechanisms governing trade in other conflict resources like timber, minerals and cocoa. Advocacy group Global Witness says a first step would be to reach an internationally agreed definition of what they are. Campaigners also want legally binding rules to govern the conduct of multinational oil and mining companies, which they accuse of indirectly contributing to human rights abuses. Most major corporations have signed up to voluntary schemes, but critics say they lack teeth.

Source: http://www.alertnet.org/db/crisisprofiles/conflictresources.htm




07 Oct 2009 00:01:00 GMT Source: Reuters

* An estimated 2.1 million people killed since 2006

* Groups call for treaty in 2012 regulating arms trade

* U.S. Bush administration opposed past treaty efforts

By Patrick Worsnip

UNITED NATIONS, Oct 6 (Reuters) - More than 2,000 people around the world are dying from armed violence each day, on average, advocacy groups said on Tuesday, urging nations to launch negotiations on a treaty to regulate the arms trade.

A report by the 12 groups was issued as a U.N. General Assembly committee began considering a draft resolution that would set a timetable for negotiations with the aim of concluding a treaty in 2012.

The report, written for the groups by British-based Oxfam, said that since most governments agreed in 2006 on the need to regulate the global arms trade, an estimated 2.1 million people had died as a direct or indirect result of armed violence.

That worked out at more than 2,000 per day, or more than one every minute - most of them civilians.

Of the deaths, more than 700,000 resulted from armed conflicts, including those in Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Sri Lanka and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the report said. The figures also include people killed in non-political violence involving firearms.

Oxfam executive director Jeremy Hobbs said eight out of 10 governments wanted agreement on an arms trade treaty.

"This month we want the majority of enlightened countries at the U.N. to make it happen," Hobbs said in a statement. "An intransigent few cannot be allowed to keep their foot on the brakes forever."

The proposed legally binding treaty would tighten regulation of, and set international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons.

Supporters say it would give worldwide coverage to close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market.

Nations would remain in charge of their arms export control arrangements but would be legally obliged to assess each export against criteria agreed under the treaty. Governments would have to authorize transfers in writing and in advance.

CONCERNS ON EFFECTIVENESS

The main opponent of the treaty in the past was the U.S. Bush administration, which said national controls were better. Last year, the United States accounted for more than two-thirds of some $55.2 billion in global arms transfer deals.

Arms exporters China, Russia and Israel abstained last year in a U.N. vote on the issue.

The proposed treaty is opposed by conservative U.S. think-tanks like the Heritage Foundation, which said last month that it would not restrict the access of "dictators and terrorists" to arms but would be used to reduce the ability of democracies such as Israel to defend their people.

The U.S. lobby group the National Rifle Association has also opposed the treaty.

Diplomats said the Obama administration was more open than its predecessor to a treaty, but still had concerns about its effectiveness and whether it could affect U.S. citizens' rights to bear arms. Treaty supporters say it would not regulate domestic arms sales.

The resolution before the General Assembly is sponsored by seven nations including major arms exporter Britain. It calls for preparatory meetings in 2010 and 2011 for a conference to negotiate a treaty in 2012.

Haggling over the text is due to continue until a vote in the assembly's first committee, which deals with disarmament, in the last week of October. The resolution would then go to the full assembly in December.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

Source: http://alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/12549000465.htm

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Doesn't the world need virtues above all? [INTEGRITY], [JUSTICE], [HONESTY], [COMMITMENT]


Françoise Le Goff: Risking Job by Returning Donor's Money

Thanking donors for a generous response to floods in Namibia

A teaser from an interview with Françoise Le Goff in next week's edition of Inspire magazine.

***

What started off as a volunteer activity with the Red Cross in 1977 in her home town of Brittany, France, ended up as a globe-trotting career. Françoise Le Goff's journey has taken her through Chad, Paris, Geneva, and for the past 10 years, back again to Africa (Kenya, Zimbabwe, South Africa), working in a number of senior roles. In January 2008 Françoise was appointed head of the southern Africa Zone, making her one of the IFRC's (International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies) seven most senior representatives in the world.

Returning donor money:

On one mission, Françoise arrived in a country and walked immediately into a situation rampant with allegations of corruption against the National Red Cross Society leadership. At her first meeting with the National Society's board, she warned in diplomatic terms of the risks that the organization faced if it chose to do nothing about these allegations.

Warning given, and nothing changed. The process repeated itself at another board meeting: warning, platitudes and promises, and then no action. "I have had experiences where by applying my own principles I risked my career or my standing," says Françoise, recalling the episode. "But I believe that part of living and working in line with values, means taking risks."

And so, having realized that nothing would change without action on her part, she took the decision to return a large sum of money (over USD 2 million) to the donor as she no longer felt that she could vouch that it would be spent and used appropriately.

"When you take risks, you create a process that inevitably takes on a life of its own. But if the risk is taken on principle – be it the principles of an organization or a combination of an organization's and you own – then you come from a position of strength. Regardless of the outcome of the process, your position will remain strong."

In this case, the process validated her decision. At the National Society's General Assembly, the President of the National Society was hounded from the floor – and eventually out of office – with angry allegations of corruption and mismanagement. Françoise's action had given momentum to the growing sense of frustration within the organization. The timing was right.

EBBF: What did you think was going to happen when you gave back the money? What was at stake in your mind?

Françoise: I was indeed not sure of what would happen. I was new in the country and I did not know or realize the level of frustration amongst the local Red Cross membership. However, I did know the donor and I understood the reputation risks for the organization, both of which were key elements in the decision.

But the key issue in my mind was the fact that beneficiaries and vulnerable people were being deprived of support. I was also very aware that my own reputation – my own integrity – was possibly at stake. If I didn't denounce what was happening, I saw that some would see that I was endorsing it. This gave me the courage to speak out. And in the end, this action triggered a change process that was very positive, and very, very successful in the long run.

I based my actions on a few principles such as honesty, professional integrity, and justice – to be the voice for the voiceless.


Source: http://ebbf.org/blog/?p=994