May-June 2009
by Staff, Utne Reader
Since the early 1970s, Western leaders have pledged billions in environmental aid to developing countries. Addressing eager reporters and blinking cameras, they have repeatedly affirmed financial support for major water, sanitation, and biodiversity projects. However, a large-scale analysis conducted by Environment (Jan.-Feb. 2009) reveals that “little systematic research exists on whether donors have honored their commitments,” and that there is, in fact, no “generally accepted definition” of what an environmental project even entails.
RELATED CONTENT
When President Bush holds one of his rare press conferences, full of softball questions and non-ans...
Noah Baker Merrill's organization, Direct Aid Iraq, operates on a simple principle: Americans have ...
Sex Aid October 11, 2002 Erica Sagrans Sex Aid More philanthropist than porn-czar, Phi...
History suggests that internal economic policies fight poverty best...
Many international adoption agencies work not to find homes for needy children but to find children...
The magazine reviewed plans and declarations from three decades’ worth of international conferences and summits, all committing and recommitting to environmental protection in the developing world. Researchers found that “green” aid flows mysteriously—why did Turkey receive more than $2 billion between 1995 and 1999?—and ignores some projects altogether. For instance, the vital but unglamorous fight against desertification, despite pledges of $18 billion made at the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, has since been “almost entirely neglected.”