The outlook for our country and the world looks grim. We see the collapse of any attempt at a rules based international order, with powerful countries asserting it is fine to attack countries they do not like, and ones which they do not think are very likely to fight them back (although Putin got a nasty surprise when he attacked Ukraine) The American Secretary for Defence (or War as he likes to style himself) Peter Hegseth, glories in the fact that he has killed many innocent and defenceless people.
In this nasty and unpredictable world countries are all having to spend more on defence. This may mean employment for some people, but it eats up resources which could be spent on more worthwhile things which would benefit humanity. In particular it has taken resources away from overseas development. The government has even been spending money allocated for overseas development aid on housing refugees in this country.
At one time governments were proud of the money they were spending on Overseas Aid. Now they are more concerned about defence. All this has happened with remarkably little political fuss. Anneliese Dodds, who served as Minister for Development, is to be commended for resigning when her budget was cut, but there was remarkably little political noise otherwise.
Does this matter? In a very unequal world helping poorer nations is not simply a moral imperative, but also a way of ensuring a more equal world, and possibly reducing some of the pressures which force people to become refugees and flee to richer countries where they are not always welcomed.
Charities
I have always felt it right to commit giving to what are often called developing countries, ever since I founded an Oxfam group at school many years ago. But I have always been careful what I give money to. There is a difference in my mind between money for immediate relief when there are disasters, and those focusing on longer term development. Charities such as Oxfam, The Red Cross, Save the Children and The Salvation Army are always ready to send in help in emergency situations and these organisations (there are many more, I have named but a few) are to be commended. Then there are smaller groups whose aim is to help people in poorer countries develop themselves.
Large scale development projects such as dams or power stations are not always the right answer. In many cases, such as dams on the Nile they cause ecological damage and displace local inhabitants. They certainly provide business for developers. But such projects also have another effect. They centralise power in the hands of the elites in poor countries. Unfortunately, many governments, in both rich and poor countries are corrupt, and resources intended for development often land in the pockets of the elite or the military, rather than the people they are meant to help.
That is why I have always been attracted to charities that work directly with the population at the grassroots, finding ways to help them lead better and healthier and more fulfilling lives. One such charity is Practical Action.
Practical Action
The charity owes its inspiration to the radical economist Fritz Schumacher. He published a book in 1973 called ‘Small is beautiful’. He advocated small scale sustainable technologies, which provoked much interest at the time, which if you are as old as me was when there was an energy crisis. Remember the “three day week”? Schumacher and his associates set up an advisory centre, known as the Intermediate Technology Development Group (ITDG) which later became known as ‘Practical Action. The plan was to encourage a move away from technical or hardware approach – and towards a development approach instead. This development approach opted to focus on helping communities facing poverty to help themselves, rather than prescribing hardware-based solutions that may not be viable or appropriate. Schumacher urged aid to focus on what he termed intermediate technologies: that being technologies that take the needs and skills of people in developing countries into account. Rather than speaking for communities, Schumacher wanted to work with them to better understand their needs rather than prescribing a “bigger is better” or “one size fits all” approach to international aid, which was revolutionary at the time and guides Practical Action to this day.
Today much development work focuses on small scale sustainable energy schemes for communities rather than the massive schemes of yesteryear which, as I have alluded to earlier give communities control over their own energy. Another focus of recent work is on helping women improve their livelihoods, as they are often given secondary and inferior roles in many countries. Schumacher believed in “production for the masses, not mass production” and also living within the planet’s means. Many projects focus on living sustainably as longer term in communities ‘interests. Even a country traditionally wedded to heavy industry as China is now realising the need for an ecological approach to development.
I hope that despite the threats and dangers of our present world order (or possibly disorder) people will continue to remember the need to help poorer countries, and that charities such as Practical Action will continue to work for solutions that are ecologically sustainable and controlled by people in poorer countries themselves.
