Nothing unusual in the title of the seminar that The Hauser Center at Harvard University put together just over a year ago. Everyone from academics to NGOs, government officials and even rock stars seem to have something to say on the topic. The innovation here was the choice of the lead panelist: Ndiogou Fall of Senegal, an authoritative and articulate representative of the burgeoning movement of Africa small producers who, in his words, “are both the prime victims of and the solutions to the problem of hunger”. Listening to the views of the actors most directly concerned by the problem sounds like common sense. But how often have you seen peasant leaders on stage at Harvard when food and development issues are under discussion.

Ending Hunger in Africa panel discussion, November 8. 2010, Harvard Kennedy School

The leap into uncharted dialogic territory paid off. Ndiogou Fall gave us the gift of a lucid, convincing and combative analysis of how African food security has deteriorated over the years and what is required for the continent to feed itself. The policies applied during and following the colonial period, from export-oriented specialization to structural adjustment and liberalization, have drastically dampened food production, barred small producers’ access to their own domestic markets, and reduced them to de-capitalized subsistence farming. The 2007-2008 food crisis and the attendant uprisings have had the salutary effect of dramatically exposing the failure of past approaches. What to put in their place? For Fall the horse to bet on can only be the small-scale family farmers who today provide food, employment and incomes for the majority of Africa’s population despite the neglect from which they have suffered for decades. With supportive policies and programs, and applying environment-friendly agro-ecological methods, it is possible to significantly increase smallholder productivity while helping to cool the planet and defend biodiversity.

But this requires a change of paradigm, Fall explains. African governments have to prioritize local and regional markets over the world market through trade policies that protect local producers, regulate supply, and build intra-regional exchanges. Agricultural policies formulated with the participation of all stakeholders are required. Infrastructure and communications need to be extended in rural areas and the rural economies strengthened by supporting producers to develop value chains that can generate employment and revenues. Small-scale producers need to access credit at reasonable terms – not the 25% interest rates they now have to contend with as compared with 5% in Europe. Land policies have to defend the right of rural people to the territories on which they live and from which they draw their livelihoods, blocking the galloping phenomenon of speculation and land grabs.

Ndiogou Fall passed away, prematurely and deeply mourned, on May 5, 2011. We pay tribute to his memory by making available the video recording of the Hauser Center seminar in which he participated. His message is an important one for Harvardians in a moment in which other voices advocate biotechnology as key to preventing hunger and news reports unveil the possible involvement of the Harvard endowment fund in land grabbing in Africa (The Guardian – June 9, 2011).

Nora McKeon was formerly responsible for civil society relations at the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). She is the author of several publications on small farmers and food policies. Harvard Class of ’62.

The seminar will discuss the context that Heifer International faces in developing countries – especially in rural communities that are dependent on agriculture and livestock – and how that context will increasingly be shaped by the threat of climate change and increasing food insecurity.  How does as an NGO like Heifer deal with these challenges?  How do programs respond to such challenges?  How are the policy and institutional dimensions of these challenges addressed by advocacy efforts?  How are Heifer’s education efforts trying to enhance awareness and mobilize action among the American public?

Jo Luck will frame and lead the seminar. Constance Neely, Vice President for Advocacy at Heifer International, will speak to the policy and advocacy dimensions of the issue. Martha Hirpa, Director of Gender Equity Advocacy, will discuss how gender and social inequities intersect with these issues. Jim Rollings, Senior Director of Heifer Village, will speak to the public education aspect of the topic.

This seminar promises to bring together multiple angles of how a leading international NGO advances its own distinctive approach to poverty, hunger and climate change.  A substantial block of time will be devoted to Q&A and discussion. 

EVENT DETAILS

The seminar will take place 11.30 am – 1.00 pm on Thursday, February 4 at Weil Town Hall (Belfer L1) at the Harvard Kennedy School.  It is open to the public – light refreshments will be available.

MORE ABOUT HEIFER INTERNATIONAL

Heifer International’s mission is to work with communities to end hunger and poverty while caring for the earth.  Its philosophy is that by giving families and communities a hand-up, rather than a hand-out, Heifer empowers its beneficiaries to turn lives of hunger and poverty into self-reliance and hope.  With gifts of livestock and training, Heifer helps families and communities improve their nutrition and generate income in sustainable ways.  Heifer is also unique in its “Passing on the Gift” practice: the animals, referred to as “living loans,” are given to families on the condition that they in turn agree to give one of the animal’s offspring to another family in need.  This practice – the cornerstone of Heifer’s mission – creates an ever-expanding network of hope and peace.

Most Westerners did not know anything about microfinance until Muhammad Yunus, an early initiator in the field, won the Nobel Prize in 2006. However, microfinance has been a tool for poverty alleviation since at least the 1970s, when the Self Employed Women’s Association (SEWA) in India, BRAC in Bangladesh, and ACCION in Latin America became non-profit microfinance institutions (MFIs) lending at low interest rates. 

The time has come to reflect on the successes and failures of microfinance. Has microfinance come of age? Is it the solution people thought it was? What challenges now face the sector? 

One could credibly argue that microfinance has come of age: though it is far from the panacea some may have thought it to be, it does offer equitable lending services to millions of people across the developing world. By 2007, BRAC had reached 7.37 million people with microfinance services in Bangladesh. According to CARE’s 2009 state of the sector report, the number of total borrowers from MFIs in Africa is nearly 6 million while the number of savers is well over 9 million. 

Some MFIs have become so profitable that private banks have bought majority shares in them. For example, Financiera EDYFICAR, an MFI founded by CARE in Peru eleven years ago, was bought in September by Banco Credito del Peru, which is Peru’s largest private bank.  CARE reports that the 200,000 women it has reached in Niger have collectively amassed $14 million ($70 per person) in a country where most people live on less than $2 per day.  BRAC states that its borrowers repay their loans at a rate of 99.5%.  CARE’s state of the sector report also notes overwhelming non-monetary benefits from microfinance to the women who participate.

Yet, despite these gains, why are so many people still eking out an existence at the bottom of the pyramid? Though many may be saved from pure survival living due to microfinance, the upswell of development many hoped for with microfinance has not been fully realized. Much recent discussion has converged around a central problem in development that microfinance is not addressing: the missing middle.

CARE reports that 20 to 30 percent of members in its village savings and loan cooperatives will likely want a greater array of financial services in the future as they grow their businesses.  CARE, like many other MFIs, cannot provide these services. However, neither can private banks. Microfinance is limited in the total value of loans it can give out because of capital constraints and the need to reach the millions of individually poor people in a given region.

The result of these constraints is that microfinance cannot facilitate the creation of small to medium sized enterprises (SMEs). SMEs are the “missing middle”. They are locally run enterprises that hire local people and operate with greater capacity and potential for scale than self-employed enterprises. Running a SME requires different skills than running a self-employed enterprise. Finding MFIs with the capital to make appropriate loans to SMEs, and locals who have the skills to run SMEs, are a rare combination.

Many MFIs and other organizations are now realizing the need to fill this gap. Such MFIs are becoming like micro-venture capitalist firms and offering less total loans than regular MFIs but greater capital in each individual loan. One example of this phenomenon is Root Capital, an MFI founded in 2000 and based in Cambridge, MA, that offers loans to SMEs in Central and Latin America worth an average of $182,000.  Courtney Rountree, a student at the Harvard Kennedy School proposed a similar vision of a social venture capital firm at a recent forum of the Harvard Social Enterprise Collaborative group.

More business training for local entrepreneurs, greater influxes of capital, and more conduits of that capital are just some of the prerequisites for establishing financial products appropriate for the missing middle.  What other factors will influence the future of MFIs? Certainly scalability and enabling micro-entrepreneurs to reach the point of becoming SMEs is important.

Muhammad Yunus’ recent book with Karl Weber addresses the concern that, within the MFI world, the original intention to keep interest rates on loans low to help the poor has deteriorated into cases where MFIs are charging interest rates akin to predatory lenders.  This is alarming in a sector that is largely unregulated (i.e. only 22 African nations have laws governing MFIs).  The buyout of CARE’s MFI start up in Peru is just one example of a private firm seeking profits through an MFI. The stakes are high for all involved in this industry: predatory MFIs could degrade people’s trust in legitimate MFIs, and donors may be more wary of funding MFIs if the sector remains unregulated.

Despite these concerns, microfinance has certainly had net benefits in terms of helping the poor along the path of development. Development is a long and complex process. The playing field is often unregulated and the problems are often difficult to define. Even though microfinance must continue to grow as a sector to meet new challenges, it has proven its worth as an essential part of the overall solutions to poverty.

Brian Williams is a Masters of Public Policy candidate at the Harvard Kennedy School. He formerly worked in development and relief in Morocco. He is now a military officer hoping to inform the military’s reconstruction efforts abroad with a greater understanding of development.

I’ve known since I was 18 that I wanted to be involved in the fight against poverty – not just as a passion but also as a profession.  I’ve been working on development issues (either in my home country of Sri Lanka or from a more global perspective – within a large international NGO and now from a perch in an academic setting) for close to 15 years.  And, although my passion for development and my sense of outrage about the status quo has only grown, I realized last week that that was inadequate.

One of the wonderful things about being based at Harvard is that I get to attend fascinating events and hear inspiring speakers on a regular basis.  Better still, sometimes I get to organize such events.  Even though I was well aware of the ground it was going to cover, the conversation between Peter Singer and Rich Stearns on October 22 (attended by nearly 400 people) moved me. 

Peter Singer and Rich Stearns challenged my head and my heart, and held me up to a much higher moral standard than I set for myself.  I realized that I had grown comfortable in feeling like I was already doing my part by committing myself professionally to global development  (and perhaps even feeling a bit self-satisfied that I do more than most people to fight poverty). 

Peter Singer burst that bubble by arguing for a much higher standard of ethical behavior.  In his view, given that I spend much more of my income than I need to lead a comfortable life, I am not living a truly ethical life.  Rich Stearns, a devout evangelical Christian who is president of World Vision U.S., set a similarly high standard for Christians.  He argued that the gospel calls for compassion for the poor and demands that such compassion be turned into action.  In Rich’s view, one is not a true Christian unless one’s faith is demonstrated by action to improve the situation of the poorest communities in the world. 

In today’s climate, where debates are polarized and disagreements are shrill, it was heartening to see two individuals from such different ideological backgrounds choose to focus on what they had in common – and set aside the ideologies that would divide them.  They engaged each other with civility and respect, pointing frequently to the convergence between their arguments.

Both Peter Singer and Rich Stearns focused a lot on money: they called on people to give much more of their incomes to organizations that work with poor communities in developing countries.  I suspect that message left a strong impression (it certainly has triggered a serious conversation about giving in my household!) but what I felt was the more complete argument came in response to an audience question. 

The causes of poverty are so complex that increased financial investment in development efforts is only part of the solution.  Some of the reasons why poverty is so persistent originate from industrialized countries – from legacies of the colonial past and support for corrupt leaders to unfair agricultural subsidies and ununhibited use of fossil fuels.  Other drivers of persistent poverty come from within developing countries.  Thus, donating substantially to poverty-fighting efforts is a moral obligation, but using one’s voice and vote to press for responsible laws, policies and practice in the west – and more and better developing country ownership – is equally important.  Only charity won’t end poverty.

Peter Singer and Rich Stearns are both compelling speakers and their call to action made people sit up and listen.  You might say I drank the kool aid.  I say it was good for my soul.

Peter Singer, acclaimed bioethics professor, argues in The Life You Can Save that the industrialized world’s response to poverty is ethically indefensible and that living an ethical life must involve giving one’s resources to the cause of fighting poverty.  Richard Stearns, CEO of World Vision U.S., argues in The Hole in Our Gospel that living a Christian life involves living out one’s faith by taking action to care for the poor and fight the systemic causes of poverty. 

Peter Singer is an atheist.  Richard Stearns is a devout Christian.  Yet, from two very different angles, these two individuals issue a powerful call to action, and their books challenge Americans to take a look at the choices they make and reflect on how they can take action on the most urgent issue of our time: global poverty. 

This event will bring Peter Singer and Richard Stearns together for a moderated conversation that will explore their two perspectives, contrast the motives of why various groups of people might take action against poverty, and take questions from the audience to further deepen the exchange.

The event begins at 4.00 pm at First Parish Church Meetinghouse (corner of Mass. Ave and Church Street in Cambridge). No tickets are required.

When Anne Lynam Goddard started as CEO of the Christian Children’s Fund (now called ChildFund International) in January 2007, she was given two charges: to develop a new strategy and to change the organization’s name.  The former is a process familiar to NGOs.  The latter is rare: changes in brands are common, but changing an organization’s name and having to forge a new identity in a crowded NGO landscape is fairly uncharted territory.

On September 25, Anne spoke on the theme New Brand, New Strategy: Forging a New Identity as an NGO in the most recent installment in our NGO Leaders Seminar Series.  The seminar provided insight into the opportunities and dilemmas of a re-branding process, and underscored the complexity of the change management and leadership challenge posed.

The seminar was too rich in detail to provide a summary, so I will just capture the major points covered.

First, Anne emphasized that developing ChildFund International’s new strategy – and building understanding and ownership of that strategy among staff – gave the organization a “north star” to guide its future direction, including its name change.  A distinction was made between the strategy (which provides long-term direction) and the related plan (which covers the 2010-2015 period).  Allowing a clear, compelling strategy to shape the new brand made the re-branding flow more organically and logically.

Second, she discussed the driver of the name change and described the process of surveying donors to ascertain their potential response.  It is a positive sign of the times in the NGO world that priority was given to aligning the organization’s name with that of its international alliance in order to strengthen the alliance, increase its profile and raise additional support for its work.  Anne noted that a third of the organization’s income comes from international sources – and that support continues to grow.  Another factor was the organization’s evolution away from its faith-based origins.  Christian Children’s Fund had ceased religious education in its programs in the 1970s, but its name continued to create confusion about its work, some incorrectly believing the NGO only worked with Christian children.

Third, Anne underscored the importance of managing the many changes – to a new CEO, a new plan, a new name and a new look, among other things – that staff were experiencing.  Involving staff in the development of a new strategy prior to the name change and communicating with staff every step of the way were critical.  The organization also marked a week of “saying goodbye” to the old name and flag.

Fourth, she drew from her tenure at CARE (a largely grant-funded NGO), to draw some contrasts between grant-funded NGOs and NGOs that build their revenue base on child sponsorship models.  She noted that child sponsorship draws long-term flows of unrestricted revenue to the communities in which children are sponsored.  This enables these NGOs to invest in long-term programs that can be transformational in disrupting cycles of intergenerational poverty.  On the flip side, she noted that NGOs that rely mainly on tens of thousands of small donors (the majority of whom only want an annual progress report on their sponsored child) do not face much external pressure to measure their impact at a higher, more transformational level.  These NGOs must create this pressure internally; that is one of Anne’s major priorities.

Finally, Anne described the results of a study that is shaping ChildFund International’s understanding of poverty – through the eyes of children.  She told a story of a boy living in a favella (urban slum) in Brazil and his explanation of what being poor meant.  He saw it as other people perceiving him as a bad person because he lived in a favella.  His vision of overcoming poverty did not entail leaving the favella. Rather, it centered on staying and making it a better, more dignified place for people to live.

I found deep insight and inspiration in this boy’s vision.  “Looking through the eyes of the poor” should be much more than a catch phrase.  More NGOs and donors must incorporate these views not just into their assessments, but also into their program designs, implementation strategies and evaluations.  The ultimate accountability that NGOs, donors and governments have is to the communities and individuals with whom they work.

Toward the end of that rich discussion, a sentence in one comment stopped me in my tracks.  I thought it would be interesting fodder for another exchange of ideas and opinion, if anyone wants to take me up on it.  Here’s the sentence that made me pause and reflect: “poverty, susceptibility to ill health, and lack of education are humankind’s natural state.”

Personally, I believe the opposite to be true: that poverty, ill health, hunger, lack of education, etc. are not a natural state, but rather conditions that are caused by – and persist because of – man-made systems, structures and practices.  I also believe that interventions that don’t help change these underlying structures for the better can alleviate the symptoms of problems, but they won’t fundamentally address the causes.

The problems that NGOs seek to address are enormous and varied.  So there is room for many different approaches.  Although some organizations still view poverty in purely economic terms, most have a broader understanding.  They see poverty as a deprivation of rights, opportunities and control – as being driven by discrimination, corruption and exclusion.  The Human Development Index was launched two decades ago to provide a measure of development that was broader than per capita income.  A decade ago, Amartya Sen’s book Development as Freedom expanded and enriched this concept.

This situates poverty within a very complex web of factors, and often makes our jargon-filled discourse sound like gobbledygook.  Although the international development world might be fragmented into varying business models, programmatic approaches and technical specialties, it is (for the most part) held together by the belief that poverty is not inevitable – and that a world free of poverty is not only possible but also imperative.

In this time of unprecedented economic uncertainty, a reversal of development gains and worsening poverty are distinct possibilities.  As anxiety and attention turn inward, the challenge of overcoming global poverty may seem even more colossal – even impossible.  Haven’t billions of dollars been spent on foreign aid?  What difference has that made?  Has globalization helped or hurt?  Have NGOs played a useful role?  

The questions are important.  The answers are sometimes ambiguous.  Should that put into question our belief that poverty can be ended?   I hope not: there is nothing inevitable about poverty.