Is UK aid good at lifting people above $1.90 a day?

Evidence by Roman Mazur MBA

Strategic Development Director

POLISH UNIVERSITY ABROAD IN LONDON

Charity Commission: 298510

IN CO-OPERATION WITH:

Teresa Naidoo PhD. - Head of the Africa Studies Unit in London

Hon. Sheka Tarawalie - Head of the Strategic Information Research at WISEAI in London

Prof. Grazyna Czubinska - Head of the Polish Centre for Public Health in London

This evidence has been delivered by Mr. Roman Mazur MBA, who is a professional in social innovations. He’s Strategic Development Director for an old British charity: Polish University Abroad (PUNO), regulated by the Charity Commission - Reg. No. 298510.

The evidence is based on research and field experience relating to the social innovation project: www.Floor4Africa.com (code: CHALLENGE) that is being carried out in Africa by the academic and professional team coming from Africa Studies Unit, World Institute of Safe & Ethical Artificial Intelligence and Polish Centre for Public Health based in London

BACKGROUND

The evidence is focused on strategic management issue relating to limited access to funding supporting non-profit projects, that bring significant change in the quality of local life in emerging and developing countries: “Do more of good with less money…”

The CHALLENGE is a SDG1 project based on SDG3 and SDG8, in fact. It improves public health issues by means of efficient fight against extreme poverty. It provides also basic job places in local construction services and boosts entrepreneurship in rural areas of sub-Saharan Africa. The mission is simple: “Big families living in houses with dirt floor get for free inexpensive but long-lasting concrete floors built thanks to us by local construction professionals with local materials”. This way the cost of a big change in quality of life is ca. £1 per person per year, which implies deliverables: in public health (i.a. lower risk of spreading pandemics), in labour market (i.a. boosting local services market), in migrations (incl. low migration from African villages to urban slums and also to the UK).

1. Recommendations on how FCDO’s strategies, policies and programmes might need to be changed to target extreme poverty.

In our academic and professional opinion, in front of limited access to funds, everything ought to focus on inclusive projects with high efficiency in fight against poverty now. The CHALLENGE project is a good example proving that it is possible to deliver significant change in public health, access to reliable work and real-world fight against poverty even in remote villages in sub-Saharan Africa with a very low budget, in fact.

The latest implementation was delivered in Mabanta village in Bombali District, Northern Province of Sierra Leone. There’s even no general access to power grid. But the concrete floor build - thanks to the CHALLENGE - by local professionals with local materials lets 16 people clean their house in public-health-friendly way, that e.g. cuts the risk of dangerous soil-transmitted NTDs (Neglected Tropical Diseases), mostly among children by over 25%

2. Follow-up on the work previously done by the Committee, and its predecessor in the previous parliamentary session, on the pandemic and its secondary impacts.

In our academic and professional opinion follow-up activities in coping with and also preventing not only COVID-19 pandemic in emerging and developing countries ought to include projects turning scientific research into real-world solutions. We know that the COVID-19 virus is able to last even over two weeks on dust particles over 500 million people experience in Africa. It happens only due to the fact people live in houses with dirt floor. Providing concrete floor like the STAN C16/20, that is provided in the CHALLENGE project, lets even people living with extreme poverty clean their houses in a way reducing the risk of dust transmission up to 99.99% (if cleaned each day even with rain water only). It can relate to other types of pandemics, including Ebola.

When people have dirt floor in the house, they are not able to clean the interior at all. Pouring the water onto dirt floor, to prevent massive dust they usually have at home, creates even better environment for COVID-19 virus and other germs to grow. This public health issue can be easily changed, even with limited access to funds, as we show in the area with a high pandemic risk implied by the extreme poverty.

3. Connecting to the work the Committee is doing to ensure that the UK government’s foreign aid spending is effective and achieves good value for money.

COVID-19 pandemic makes enormous burdens for the British treasury. Nothing strange the foreign aid has to be optimised in value-for-money prism. We understand it’s some transition time. Therefore, we created some kind of flag-ship project focused on delivering real-world solutions in very limited budget circumstances. Our strategic goals meet value-for-money requirements in more than full. As you see below, our spendings are extremely efficient. For £1 per person per year we are fully able to change so much in public health, labour market and we even cope with illegal immigration to the UK. The survey is very optimistic: ca. 40% surveyed people say they see a significant improvement of the quality of life and they have more hopes relating to staying in their village instead of going to already overpopulated urban slums or even further, to the UK (Kenya + Sierra Lone case):

- SDG1 - to improve quality of life of big families living in houses with dirt floor causing everything from asthma to incurable jigger-made infections of limbs,

- SDG3 - to reduce NTDs among children living with poverty in African villages and to improve public health risk rates in scope of all pandemics (from covid to ebola),

- SDG8 - to relieve local labour and trade markets due to the fact we rely only on local construction professionals and local traders providing cement and other ingredients of the concrete floors we build for less than £25/person (with 25 years of durability).

4. How well is UK Official Development Assistance (ODA) targeted towards tackling extreme poverty and how effectively do the FCDO policies and programmes contribute to the achievement of Target 1.1 of SDG 1?

Present ways of fight against SDG1 seem to be hardly efficient. Population in Africa grows over 2% a year. The research we did in labour market shows ca. 15 million missing new work places a year, which means that providing education doesn’t imply instant ability of getting a job. This way, we updated the approach to SDG1. Taking into account all the research we did, the most efficient way of fight against poverty must be based on SDG3 and SDG8 inclusion. The CHALLENGE project shows that simple improving of public health and basic employment in rural areas of Africa imply real-world dealing with SDG1. 100% surveyed people say they feel they start new stage of life and they see a good change around thanks to a simple concrete floor in their house and the fact that the floor was built by local unemployed professionals and with locally sold to us basic materials (cement, sand, stones, water).

5. How might the FCDO’s strategy, policies and programmes need to change as the number of people in extreme poverty grows due to the global pandemic or the effects of climate change?

Over 500 million people live in houses with a dirt floor inside in rural areas of Africa. It is increasing i.a. the risk of easy spreading of all kinds of pandemics, incl. COVID-19. Carrying out projects like CHALLENGE in entire Africa would require ca. £500m only but would cover entire transition period between pandemic and post-pandemic with efficient way of dealing with SDG1. Climate change effects don’t affect the way of fight against poverty we undertook. It means that we deliver very efficient project supporting local communities in facing challenges implied by such a global crisis.

6. How effectively do the FCDO’s strategy, policies and programmes address the needs of women and girls in extreme poverty?

The UN is forcing a need of STEM education for girls in emerging and developing countries. But the shortage of new projects, especially in rural areas of Africa, makes educated girls migrate to urban areas and settle down in slums too. The CHALLENGE project is female-friendly. The pilot we did in Kenya was managed by an educated woman. We tested also participation of female apprentice to encourage her to further learning of construction sciences.

7. What evidence is there to suggest the FCDO is learning and applying lessons from its policies and programmes, so they more effectively tackle extreme poverty and does the FCDO have a good evidence base for what does and does not work?

Cutting funds in pandemic time can suggest that spendings ought to meet value-for-money criteria even more than before.

8. What effect have the cuts in UK ODA had on the FCDO’s ability to address extreme poverty? What evidence is there to suggest poverty was a key consideration in deciding where the cuts should fall?

As said above, fight against extreme poverty can be even more efficient with even lower funding. The point is to understand poverty and to know reality on spot.

9. How the FCDO can play a more effective part in the eradication of poverty as a convener, thought leader and investor.

Focusing on projects delivering true social innovations, with high efficiency and low budget, can imply such an achievement as the leadership in real-world change. The CHALLENGE project has been funded with private donations and is open to public funds due to the fact we are regulated by the Charity Commission and British law.

10. How has the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development affected the UK’s approach to poverty?

The point is to increase the involvement of researchers and professionals carrying out academic research and field work in Africa now. According to one of top-tier consulting companies, it can take even £400k (FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND GBP) investment to create just one new job place in Africa with the UK money. Projects like the CHALLENGE can significantly change the efficiency of British way of dealing with the SDG1 issues now.

SUMMARY

              Taking into account all our professional and academic experiences, we can conclude that UK aid can even be better at lifting the poor above $1.90 a day. We recommend an upgrade relating to the process of engaging professionals and academics in understanding Commonwealth Africa, thanks to the real-world research and projects they do over there. As a practical example, the CHALLENGE has made it very clear that it is possible to deliver new value-for-money social innovations by activating and utilising local resources in galvanising people out of extreme poverty. For more details go to our blog: www.floor4africa.com/blog

London, 31 December 2021

              8 / 8