On a trip to Ghana, one of Africa's great development success stories, Observer editor John Mulholland speaks to leading economist Jeffrey Sachs and U2's lead singer Bono about the politics and economics of aid.
http://www.guardian.co.uk
 |
| Jeffrey Sachs, and Bono in Tamale, northern Ghana. Photograph: Adrian Steirn |
John Mulholland Bono, compared with 10 years ago, what has changed in Ghana? If you were taking a group of aid sceptics around this country now, what would you point to and say: "That's the benefit of aid"?
Bono The thing that I've always found really difficult to cope with was medical professionals diagnosing a problem and not being able to treat it. We used to see this all across Africa with HIV/Aids. Even after we had anti-retroviral drugs in the west, only a tiny percentage of people in Africa who were sick could get the drugs. And if you didn't get them, you died… So having the drugs now for over 6 million people is a big deal for me. Having malarial drugs is a big deal for me. Visiting the hospital in Accra, which is aided by the Global Fund… the mood in that hospital was one of real optimism.
I'm particularly proud because a third of the Global Fund's resources in Ghana are paid for by RED [founded in 2006 to raise money for the Global Fund by selling branded products via Nike, Apple, Starbucks and others]… and One and other campaign groups helped raise much of the rest from other donors. So I was very overpowered yesterday as I saw the hospital, and I am buoyed by that. And you've near universal education. For instance the Millennium Challenge is building 240 new schools. That's pretty great. The hard data tells us that Ghana's had over 14% growth in the last year. We think that malaria is down by over 50%, maybe over 60%, which is astonishing.
But to answer your question a little more specifically: I am an aid sceptic, OK? I don't know anyone who wishes to see aid as a natural solution to these problems. Aid is what we do in emergency situations to get you through to a place of self-reliance. Ireland needed aid from Europe, Germany needed aid from the United States after the second world war. All of us need aid. It's investment – and if it's investment, what is your return on investment?
In Ghana, it is clear that this country will in five years need a lot less aid than it needs now, and in 10 years may not need aid at all. To answer your question, the reason I'm excited about aid is that it looks like we can see the end of it here. As a result of the smart aid, the aid industry is putting itself out of business here, hopefully in 10 years. One way this transformation can accelerate is if countries like Ghana use their natural resources for their people, and key to that is greater transparency in the extractives sector – something ONE is pushing hard for at the EU level right now. I've personally met with eight G20 leaders and five G20 finance ministers on this issue.
JM Jeff, the climate in which discussions are taking place about aid across the west is difficult, with more and more voices rising in opposition to aid spending. What do you say to them?
Jeffrey Sachs There are good ways to do things and bad ways to do things with aid. Aid works when it's practical, when it's focused, when it's targeted, when it's an investment, when it is part of a strategy; and aid does not work when it's money handed over in an envelope to a friendly ally, especially in a war zone or when it's a payoff for some other diplomatic support. It needs to be seriously managed, professionalised, results-based – and I'm very happy that the Department For International Development (DfID) is really exemplifying that approach right now. What's the bottom line? What are the results? What are we getting out of it? And it's being made into a very practical contract, in essence, between donor and recipient.
This is how it should be done. And when it is done that way, diseases can be brought under control, food productivity can rise, basic infrastructure can be built, kids can be educated, population growth can slow down as girls complete secondary education. Many very important things are necessary to help regions that for reasons of history, geography, geopolitics, bad luck are in a situation where they need a lift to self-sustaining growth.
Bono There's one thing that might help with aid cynics. Because clearly no one likes the culture of dependency. No one's arguing for it. We're arguing to end it. I think there's something a bit funky about aid as it stands right now. The two most important parties involved in the transaction – the taxpayer who's providing the resources and the person who needs those resources to stay alive or keep their family alive – are the two people who know the least about what's going on. So that has to change.
The British people, at a time of real austerity, have decided to stand by their principles and promises to the most vulnerable in far-off places, but they need to know exactly what they are achieving and how much it's costing.
Where there's a clearer communication about this transaction, this contract, I think the fog around aid and development assistance will lift, and people will go: "This is just incredible value for money and what a privilege it is to give less than one percent of the national income to transform lives."
JM Jeff, you are outspoken about results-based aid – but people often take the opportunity to have a pop. Does that ever get to you?
JS I think there are two things that are completely different. One is the words, and there's a lot of words flying around. And then there is the fact of malaria down 40% over a decade. Believe me, the only thing that matters is the second one.
There's a lot of verbiage around this issue – a lot of it by critics who don't seem to ever leave their offices, don't know what's happening in the field, don't really see it.
JM Bono, what will you be saying to world leaders to try to secure the funding commitments they have made to the Global Fund – and which now look under threat?
Bono The obfuscation of the facts that's going on is really a fog to excuse inaction. And we had to put out a fire in the United States that suggested there was massive corruption in Global Fund grants. There wasn't. There are some instances of corruption involved. The Global Fund is audited objectively, audited independently and prints on its own website when things are not what they should be – ie they out themselves.
These are then taken by critics of aid to be a reason to not do it, but it's rather the opposite. Transparency should give us confidence to go ahead. Think about it: there's 3.3 million people on anti-retroviral drugs from the Global Fund. And 1.3 million pregnant women not passing the virus onto their children. You have 5.6 million orphans involved in some sort of care made possible by the Global Fund. And 8.6 million cases of tuberculosis diagnosed and treated. That is just incredible.
Yet we've to go to Congress every year and fight for those budgets. In Germany, we have to fight for the Global Fund. In the UK we're campaigning with partners for a doubling of smart lifesaving aid for the Global Fund.
The reason why David Cameron can be so brave on behalf of the world's poor and commit to UK aid at 0.7% of national income is because he has a mandate. People in the UK give a shit about this stuff and know a lot about it.
It's really not a time to be a rich rock star talking about poor people, I'll tell you that, or a film star, or a first lady or a … – there's just something... it's like "Why don't you just piss off back to your chateau" – and so I'm kind of delighted that people keep doing it. Outside the UK, we won't get much coverage for these issues without famous faces – and without coverage, politicians are less supportive.
No comments:
Post a Comment