- Southern Africa: Armyworm Infestation - Jan 2017
- Zambia: Cholera Outbreak - Feb 2016
- Southern Africa: Food Insecurity - 2015-2017
- Southern Africa: Floods - Jan 2015
- Zambia: Floods - Jan 2013
- Southern Africa: Floods - Jan 2011
- Southern Africa: Floods - Mar 2010
- Influenza A (H1N1) Pandemic - Apr 2009
- Southern Africa: Floods - Dec 2008
- Southern Africa: Floods - Dec 2007
Most read (last 30 days)
- As 12,000+ Congolese flee to Zambia, aid funds dry to trickle
- Cost-benefit analysis for climate change adaptation in agriculture in Zambia
- Cholera – Zambia: Disease Outbreak News, 11 December 2017
- EIB broadens support for water infrastructure in Zambia
- Government assures the host community that no one will be displaced as Congolese are relocated to the new refugee settlement in Nchelenge
Romilly Greenhill, Annalisa Prizzon and Andrew Rogerson
ODI Working Papers Issue 364
Over the last decade the aid landscape has changed dramatically. In 2000, development assistance was overwhelmingly provided by traditional donors. Today, this is being complemented by the growth of other forms of funding, including from non-DAC donors (such as China and Brazil), climate finance funds, social impact investors, philanthropists and global funds, as well as less concessional flows.
Drawing on the RAPID Outcome Assessment methodology, this report examines the influence of Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP) on policy in southern Africa and shares lessons learned from these experiences.
Authors: Steve Wiggins, Julia Compton and Sharada Keats
The issue of rising food prices came to international attention in early 2008. This document answers the following questions about the crisis and responses to it:
- What has happened to food prices and why?
- Why are food prices important & where can we find them?
- How have countries and the international community responded?
- The future
The ODI Social Protection Programme worked with the Centre for Social Protection (CSP) at the Institute of Development Studies (IDS), the School of International Development at the University of East Anglia (UEA-DEV), and the Southern Africa Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme (RHVP) to produce this shared statement on the future of Social Protection in sub-Saharan Africa, challenging current practices within the research and donor community.
The paper challenges current practices within the research and donor community.
The OECD DAC, in making its Recommendation in 2001 for untying of aid to least developed countries, envisaged a comprehensive evaluation of its implementation and impact by 2009. The Paris Declaration (PD) reaffirmed the Recommendation firstly by stating that untying aid generally increases aid effectiveness by reducing transaction costs for partner countries and improving country ownership and alignment, and consequently by making further steps towards aid untying Indicator 8 of progress towards increasing aid effectiveness.
- Cash transfer programmes in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia reach only 1-4% of the poor
- Targeting is determined largely by donor preferences, and is restrictive, resulting in large exclusion errors
- Given low national funding commitments, existing cash transfer programmes can only be scaled up nationally with donor support equivalent to 1-2% of GDP
Drawing on case studies in Kenya, Malawi and Zambia, this paper explores the affordability and sustainability of providing cash transfers to alleviate poverty.
- Donor enthusiasm, rather than government impetus, drives the growth of cash transfer programming in some countries
- Government concerns about fiscal prudence and the risk of dependency are limiting national demand for cash transfer programmes
- Government commitment to cash transfer programmes may be greater where there is a need for social stabilisation and state legitimisation
The provision of cash transfers to alleviate poverty may not be a policy priority for low-income countries, despite donor enthusiasm to promote such interventions as a cost …
Briefing Paper 51
Evidence from 10 country case studies
- The financial crisis will exacerbate poverty and inequality and undermine progress towards the MDGs - the nature of this impact will vary between and within countries
- Social protection responses to the crisis in developing countries have been marginal in scale
- Developing countries need to address the immediate needs of the poor, as well as investing in growth and stabilisation packages
While the repercussions of the financial crisis on poverty in the developing world are severe and likely to …
ODI Background Note
By Liesbet Steer and Cecilie Wathne
Through the Paris and Accra declarations, over one hundred countries have committed to a new model of partnership, in which donors and partner countries hold one another mutually accountable for development results and aid effectiveness. Mutual accountability (MA) is a practical response to recent experiences in building greater transparency and accountability at country level, and to lessons learned about the role of country ownership in delivering development results.
By Fiona Samuels, Victoria James and Kerry Sylvester
The Australian Partnerships with African Communities (APAC) programme is a five-year cooperation agreement (2004-2009) between the Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID) and Australian NGOs to address emerging development challenges in Southern and Eastern Africa, using community-based approaches. With the end of the five-year agreement in sight, it is time to look at the key lessons, successes and innovations of the programme.
Review of Lessons Learnt on Recent Responses to Chronic and Transitory Hunger and Vulnerability
This study was commissioned and supported by a group of agencies involved in the humanitarian response in southern Africa; OXFAM, WVI, CARE, the Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Programme and OCHA.
Extract from Forum Summary Paper "Achieving food security in Southern Africa: policy issues and options", Draft, September 2003
John Young and Julius Court
Colin Poulton and Andrew Dorward
Centre for Development and Poverty Reduction,
Department of Agricultural Sciences, Imperial College London
Overseas Development Group (ODG)
Kate Bird and David Booth
Poverty and Public Policy Group
Overseas Development Institute
International Development Department