Last week I heard a very interesting presentation about a pattern that is emerging in Europe around the seizure of generic medicines. According to Percy Makombe from the Economic Justice Network presenting a paper at the Symposium on Health For All in an Interconnected World at York University, its possible to draw parallels between recent drug seizures (17 in Holland in 2008 alone) in Europe and the havoc being wrought by Somali pirates in the Indian Ocean.

Though the generic drug trade is legalized through the agreement on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), there is some confusion about their legal status, says Makombe. There is a perception that generic drugs are pirated or counterfeit, while in actual fact international agreements create certain provisions related generic medicines.

Makombe cites the example of a recent seizure of a shipment of Amoxicillin in Germany because the shipment - destined for the Pacific Island of Vanuatu - was suspected of violating trademarks. It wasn’t until GlaxoSmithKlein, the former patent holder of the drug, verified that there was no conflict that the drugs were released. They had been held for four weeks.

But, as Makombe points out, this is by no means an isolated incident. Ron Labonte from the University of Ottawa goes further to state explicitly that it is “fairly clear that there is a deliberate block against generic medicines by the European Commission.”

Some of the issues:

• Seizures are allowed based on “suspicion” that they could be counterfeit rather than real legal issues.
• Slowing down the transit of essential medicines has real implications for public health in the destination countries.
• Seizures block the legitimate growth of the generic industry.
• The European argument is that they are “saving lives” by verifying that the drugs are not counterfeit or pirated.

For more info:

• European Commission Regulation 1383/2003 (22 July 2003)
• June 2009 TRIPS Council Meeting; more
• Additional media coverage; more

(photo credit: aussiegall)

opama .. and The pyramids and sphinx

Yesterday I went to a Global Health Discussion Forum, a “monthly forum for members of the healthcare and educational communities to learn more about international projects around Toronto.” This particular one highlighted the brand new Textbook on International Health: Global Health in a Dynamic World, written by Anne-Emanuelle Birn (a former professor of mine), Timothy Holtz and Yogan Pillay.

In the discussion, Birn focused on how the textbook is different from those that have come before it, emphasizing that it approaches the subject of international health from a critical political economic perspective.  In other words, the textbook not only provides information, but tries to situate that information in a broad context of global neoliberalism.  Written by a historian, epidemiologist and policy maker who all met at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health as students, it sounds like the book does a good job of looking at the issues from a variety of angles.

The authors divide the book up into three general sections:

Basic Tools (Chapters 1-6)

• including history, actors, the political economy of health and development, data on health, and epidemiological profiles of health and disease

Key Lenses and Priority Areas (Chapters 7-12)

• including social determinants of health, health under crisis, globalization/trade/work/health, health economics, health care systems, and health & environment

Change through Action (Chapter 13-14)

• including a “hopeful realist approach” to where do we go from here, and an appendix of organizations that work on global health issues

Unfortunately, they sold out all their copies of the book before I could get a hold of one, so I’ll have to wait until it arrives from Amazon.

(photo credit: Diego Cupolo)

The Globe and Mail recently ran an article called “Banned Aid” on the new funding approach to international development agencies in Canada. Canada has made recent changes to their funding approach restricting their major funding to 20 key countries essentially abandoning countries like Malawi, Rwanda, Niger among others (they still give some aid but it is a very small percentage of their former funding. When I was in university there was chatter among some of my professors that this was the way the Canadian Government was moving so I can’t say I was surprised. The article is clear in showing how the plan to restrict aid will be detrimental to countries like Malawi who remain poor but have seen some success from the Canadian Foreign Aid. Several reasons are given for the change including our recessed economy, political support and popularity for the “African Cause”.

We’ve often been skeptical of what Celebrity endorsement does to aid in terms of international economic sustainability. Optimistically, I sometimes cheered when I found out that a celebrity was taking the initiative to promote an organization but I also worried about what would happen if they lost interest. There has been a surge in popularity for African Aid in the last 20 years but, what have the actual results been? Not very successful if you look at the figures. We aren’t going to achieve our goals for the Millenium Development Goals. The 2010 deadline for the Group of 8’s promise to double their contribution to aid in Africa is looming and will fall short, having only raised $22 Billion of the $80 Billion dollar promise so far.

If you look only at the figures then the media attention that Africa has received from a host of celebrities and notorious politicos hasn’t really done the continent much good. Recently Ben Affleck and The Rolling Stones have jumped on a new bandwagon with the United Nations Human Rights Commission (UNHCR) to create a short film directed by Affleck to the tune of “Gimme Shelter” by the Rolling Stones. The ad campaign/documentary has been created as a part of the Gimme Shelter campaign hoping to raise funds and awareness help raise funds and awareness about the crisis in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.  Affleck is quoted as saying that “we made this film in order to focus attention on the humanitarian crisis in the DRC at a time when too much of the world is indifferent or looking the other way”. You don’t have to look very hard to find a book, film or documentary that is trying to spread awareness on the humanitarian crisis in any number of African countries. But if I learned anything from Renzo Martens it’s that our awareness of the plight of many impoverished Africans isn’t really helping them anyways.

If you look at how funding is spread across Africa there is disparity between countries. Canada’s explanation for this are key words like “effectiveness” and “established need”. It’s not a strategy that is unique to Canadians, the idea that aid should go to countries only if they are economically and politically stable enough to use the money effectively is a fundamental key to many global financing programmes including the World Bank. There have been good and bad examples of this.

In some countries foreign aid is making a significant improvement to living standards. The United Nations’ Millennium Villages Project is described as approaching development by empowering impoverished villages to transform themselves by investing in infrastructure and the basic needs like food, health, education and access to clean water for community led interventions and has had marked success in Uganda. The flagship project in Uganda was initiated by Jeffrey Sachs who has the idea that the Millenium Development Goals can be achieved on a modest budget, hoping to defy those failed promises from the G-8.

The Globe and Mail Article highlights several critics of International Development Aid who have put out new books recently. So, should we scrap aid programs and find new solutions? Or do we still have a responsibility as rich nations to help bridge the gap. I am still of the mind that we have a responsibility to fund aid programs but there must be a more realistic and effective way. On June 1st The Munk Debate on Foreign Aid focused on whether aid was doing more harm than good. Representing the No side was Stephen Lewis, former United Nations special envoy on HIV/AIDS in Africa, and Paul Collier, director of Oxford University’s Centre for the Study of African Economies. For the Yes was Dambisa Moyo, a young economist who was born and raised in Zambia and Hernando de Soto, a Peruvian economist.

(The debate starts at 44.45)

A conversation has begun and hopefully we can continue to find better solutions to the aid conundrum and I can’t wait to see what Dambisa Moyo and Hernando de Soto had to say while pitted against Stephen Lewis and Paul Collier!

On May 31^st, a team of Toronto’s social media geniuses will be participating in the World Partnership Walk-A Social Movement to raise money for the fight against global poverty.  Check out Ms. RedWire and the Dynamic Duo, Mr. Daily Challenge, Super Blogger, and others.  Or to see who’s winning the race to raise the most, visit the HeroMeter.

 

About the Charity:

My names? There’s no such a thing!

By PHILIP OCHIENG
Posted Friday, May 8 2009 at 17:51

My name includes one word that should be close to my chest. Every Luo individual has such nying juok. In a Nilo-Saharan custom no longer in force, you kept it top secret lest a witch lay hold of and use it to plot your death.

I was called Ochieng because I was born “under the sun”, that is, around noon (from the Luo word chieng, “the sun”). Only at baptism did my mother choose Pilipo for me (“Philip”). She had no idea what it meant.

The important thing was that the British missionaries had ordained that you could not be a Christian unless you carried a Euro-Hebraic name (even if it be Hitler). What if she had known that Pilipo came from the Greek Philihippos and was no more heavenly than a “horse lover”?

If the Luo had had the “family names” institution, I would now be Philip Otani – Otani being my father’s name. Indeed, my people of Rusinga know me as Ochieng Otani or, more correctly, Ochieng k’Otani or Ochieng mak’Otani or Ochieng wuod Otani.

The Luo words “maka” (or mak’ if the next word begins with a vowel), ka (or k’) and wuod mean “of” or “son of”. Some well known examples are Ouma maka Dudi, Ochola mak’Anyengo, Otieno mak’Onyango, Ojwang K’Ombudo and Oludhe Macgoye (the k anglicised in the last one).

Other systems

Equivalents in other systems include Bruce MacKenzie, Marshall McLuhan, Sunniva O’Neill, Ella Fitzgerald, Charles de Gaulle, Vasco da Gama, Ludwig van Beethoven, Otto von Bismarck, David ben Gurion, Osama bin Laden, Ibn Battuta, William ole Ntimama, Daniel arap Moi and Ngugi wa Thiong’o.

Philip Ochieng, then – and the more than 10 endearing terms that you do not know -- is my own name. But note the singular verb “is” in that construction. It means is that, even if I chose to use all those names officially, I would still have only one name.

I reiterate that my name is Philip Ochieng. During the Kriegler inquiry, people constantly introduced themselves something like: “My names are Robert Ali Matatu, Wafula Kimani, Nyamweya arap Fulani.” I continue to hear this nonsense from especially our television screens.

When they borrowed the creator Goddess of the Nilotes – worshipped as far as Mesopotamia, India, Australia, Britain and Mexico – the Hellenes called her Myronymos because she had 10 thousand names. Yet she always insisted that she had only one name.

She would have said: “My name is Achieng Anath Aphrodite Artemis Asenath Aset Asherah Asiis Astarte Astoreth Athena Brigit Cara Chebet Dagda Dana Demeter Diana Enkai Ereshkigal Esther Eve Friya Gaia Hathor Hawwa Hebe Hera Inanna Iao Io Ishtar Isis Khasaya Leviathan Mary Medusa Minerva Mumbi Nyakalaga Neith Nephthys Ninhursag, Ninki Nut Oestre Onyame Pandora Persephone Rahab Semele Sophia Tefnut Tehom Tiamat Usha Venus and so on ad infinitum.”

By this, the divine sovereign Maat reminds you that in her system – which includes English – your name is always singular no matter how many words may compose it.

Before Hot Docs came to an end last week, I was able to squeeze in one final film about global issues.  This one featured a Dutch artist travelling to the Democratic Republic of Congo and trying to convince impoverished people that they should, as the name of the film suggests, Enjoy Poverty.  Martens’ main point is that we are profiting from others’ (in this case, Congolese) poverty and that those in poverty should try to reclaim ownership over it and start to exploit it as a natural resource.

The controversial film has been reviewed all over the internet, but I thought I’d share my thoughts as well.  As you watch this movie, there are moments when you cringe at the upfront and sometimes exploitative way the director, Renzo Martens, interacts with the film’s subjects.  But after watching several films in a row, Marten’s style is also refreshingly different from the other docs dealing with development issues in this year’s festival.

He interacts with each of the subjects as a human first and a victim of structural violence second.  In my last post, I talked about how each of the three films I saw before this one focused on some international hero, rather than a particular cause itself.  In doing so, the people that the heroes were trying to help tended to come across as objects, rather than active subjects in the film’s plot line.   In Enjoy Poverty, Martens films himself in a purposefully narcisitic way, which somehow made his interactions with people less glossy, and certainly less heroic.  In the question and answer period after the show, he explained that he wanted to be in the film himself, as an exploiter, because to try and remain neutral in telling this story is to deny the role of the West in creating poverty.

Obviously, not every person should be as exploitative as Martens, but I think his vision and his voice is VERY important because it challenges the “solution” as well as bringing attention to the problem of extreme poverty.  During the debate after the screening, one development worker piped up, “You’ve done a very good job of highlighting the problems of poverty and the NGOs working in the Congo, but very little to offer constructive solutions.”

Martens didn’t hesitate: “No, I think I was very clear about the solution.  We have to be willing to pay a fair price for what we’re getting from places like the Congo.”  Plain and simple.

If you haven’t already, watch this movie.

Three hot docs so far: Fig Trees, Sergio and Reporter.  All three take on global issues, HIV/AIDS, humanitarianism, and compassion fatigue, respectively.  It turns out that they don’t really focus on these issues, but rather on 4 individuals that are trying to do something about them: two activists, a humanitarian and a New York Times reporter.

The avant garde Fig Trees (it’s all done in opera) tells the stories of AIDS activists Zackie Achmat (South Africa) and Tim McCaskell (Toronto).  Inspired by Samantha Power’s book Chasing The Flame, Sergio weaves the story of UN hot shot Sergio Vieira De Mello leading to his death in Iraq in 2003.  Reporter follows Nick Kristof as he travels to the Congo to find the story that will help us beyond our complacency about the Great Lakes conflict.

This focus on a single actor, or hero, dealing with each of the issues is approached differently in each film.  Fig Trees questions it by positioning the activists as saints. In the question and answer period the director noted explicitly that the change that has happened as a result of AIDS activism is the result of an army of activists rather than individual activist-heroes.  At the start of Reporter, Nick Kristof cites a study that shows that we feel the most compassion for one person, but as the group who we should feel compassion for grows that caring declines even after two people.  In the movie, he finds a woman so sick from starvation and injury that she can’t lift herself who becomes his “story”.  It seems that the directors have used a similar technique to bring attention to each issue addressed in these three films.  Beyond getting our attention, how does this focus on heroes affect how we view global issues in general?

Another interesting parallel in both Sergio and Reporter is the value De Mello and Kristof place on talking to the ‘bad guys’.  After the fall of the Khmer Rouge, De Mello saught out a meeting with the former ministers to arrange safe transit for thousands of refugees.  According to the film, this meeting was one of the first times that Western representatives were in contact with Khmer Rouge leaders.  Reporter ends with the cast sitting down to dinner with General Laurent Nkunda, leader of a rebel faction in Congo’s Kivu province.  They had come for an interview, but couldn’t turn down the hospitality of a warlord when he offered.

Top Hot Docs Picks (so far)

1. Fig Trees
2. Sergio
3. Reporter

Tonight I’m on my way to Enjoy Poverty, and I really don’t know what to expect.  Stay tuned!

These G10 women are smarter than we think

By MUTAHI NGUNYI
Posted Saturday, May 2 2009 at 19:08

Last Sunday, I said a new political order is coming. And that we will recognise it when “stupid” ideas hit our politics. My point was simple: if an idea is not “stupid” it will not fly. If people do not laugh and tease it, it will surely die.

Then the “sex boycott” by G10 hit the market. We have done nothing but laugh at it. In fact, we see it as the only “stupid” idea in town. And because we are blind, we have failed to recognise its power. Now it has become a virus.

Unseen to all, it has entered our system without warning. It is spreading silently, slowly but viciously. Everywhere, people are talking about it. Some are irritated, others fascinated. Bottom line: we have been outwitted. These women are smarter than we think. Consider the reasons with me.

For starters, this boycott is not about biology. To think so is to miss the point. In fact, and to console the men, national “sex activity” went up because of the boycott. And what is more, maybe G10 likes it that way.

If this is true, we must conclude the following; they used reverse psychology on us. But how so? On a normal day, and according to statistics, a man thinks about sex 12 times an hour.

This situation degenerates if he is idle. Then it explodes if he is challenged sexually. The question, therefore, is this: Did G10 capitalise on this weakness?

Did they build their strategy around the possible explosion? Maybe they did. And if so, their intention was to irritate, annoy and frustrate. But as we responded in anger, they collected their desired results.

As we aggressed them, they built a profile. From our mockery, an unknown group gained recognition locally and internationally. My hunch? This is all they wanted.

But I am fascinated by three other “stupid” elements of the G10 strategy. One, these women do not understand politics. In Kenya, tribes do not mix. And to mix them is to be a heretic. G10 has mixed the tribes without “mercy”.

The Kikuyus are kissing the Luos; the Somalis are hugging the Luhyas. This unity of tribes is unacceptable: it does not have the permission of the principals! And if this is our thinking, we are damn lost.

Maybe the unity of our nation will be achieved by our women. I say so because “…people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world are the ones who actually do it”.

These women are crazy to think they will unify us. And maybe they will. As they push their unity agenda, the complaining country should remember this: “…man who says it cannot be done should not interrupt man doing it!” If the G10 women are doing it, the cowardly men should not interrupt. After all, what have they done to save the country?

Two, and from the media reports, G10 is “stupid” because it does not have a leader. It does not have a strong woman like Martha Karua to push its agenda. It is just a coalition of simple mothers and their daughters. And it is this “simpleness” that makes it powerful and revolutionary.

Ms Karua is a lone ranger; a “one-manist”. But as the Luo proverb goes: “…if you want to go fast, go alone; if you want to go far, go with others”. Ms Karua will go fast, but she will not go far.

Formless movement

If maintained, the collective and diverse leadership of this G10 will take them far. Because they have no leader, they are formless. To a rigid mind, a formless movement is “stupid”.

But in realpolitik, it is powerful and scary. In other words, G10 is “guerrilla marketing” its politics. And so long as we cannot understand its formless, leaderless structure, the movement will grow.

Three, their strategy is “stupid” because it is raw and they are weak. I watched one of them break down in tears during a press conference. At first I was scandalised. But the more I thought of it, the more I was persuaded by their raw sincerity and weakness. It reminded me of a book known as Subliminal Seduction.

According to this book, we seduce people with our weakness, never with our strengths. Our weaknesses make others feel superior to us. And once this is achieved, defences are lowered and persuasion begins.

The fact that these G10 women are nondescript, non-threatening and weak is politically “stupid”. But given our conditions, it is seductive and powerful. More so, their use of feminine power!

The question, however, is: will they tire? Will they run the full course? I have no idea. But they have no option. And this is best illustrated by a story from the Holy Bible.

Four lepers were stuck outside the gate of a city called Samaria. They needed food badly. If they went back into the city, they would die. And if they sat at the gate of the city, they would also die. Their only option was to match into the enemy camp in Syria and gamble for food. However, this was also problematic.

If they matched into enemy camp, the Syrians would kill them. Then again, they might spare them. And so they decided to gamble.

As they headed for the camp, their footsteps sounded like a huge force of cavalry. This scared the Syrian king and his troops. He had to take off and abandon camp. When the four lepers reached the edge of the camp, it was empty. Their gamble had paid off!

This is what G10 should do. They can either retreat to the gate of the city and starve to death, or decide to soldier on. And, like the lepers discovered, once they took the first step, God made their footsteps sound like the roar of a huge force.

In sum, the enemy is not always as strong as we think he is. If this is true, the G10 gamble could just pay off. But will they tire and give up? I pray not!

Mr Ngunyi is a political scientist with the Consulting House, a policy and security think-tank for the Great Lakes region and West Africa; mutahi@myself.com

If you’re wondering what to do in Toronto over the next couple of weeks, the answer is watch documentary films.  Opening this week, the annual Hot Docs film festival offers plenty for the development-interested.  Highlights from this year’s lineup include AIDS activism, high profile humanitarians, questions about who owns poverty, migrant journeys, analysis of neoliberalism, overcoming compassion fatigue in Congo, and feisty caregivers in South Africa.

Encirclement-Neoliberalism Ensnares Democracy
Neo-liberalism’s battle cry is famous: deregulate, privatize and let markets rule. Thirteen renowned intellectuals, including Noam Chomsky, rigorously analyze the mechanisms that enforce this ideology and deliver our democracies into the hands of multinational financiers. More>>

Enjoy Poverty
Starting with the compelling thesis that poverty is Africa’s most significant export, artist provocateur Renzo Martens journeys through the Congo, attempting to make its citizens aware of their primary resource. A blunt, biting satire. More>>

Fig Trees
Opera, documentary, and surrealist fantasy converge in this heartrending, joyous, outrageous and outraged tribute to the activist-hero-saints of the HIV/AIDS movement who fought billion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and apathetic governments for access to life-saving drugs. More>>

Reporter
Pulitzer Prize-winning New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof delves into the horrific humanitarian atrocities in the Congo, searching for the story that will galvanize an increasingly jaded and detached Western reader. More>>

Rough Aunties
Fearless and feisty, a resolute group of remarkable women protect and care for abused, neglected and forgotten children in Durban, South Africa, confronting their nation’s social strife while battling their own personal tragedies.  More>>

Sergio
A dashing James Bond figure, Brazilian diplomat Sergio Vieira de Mello was known in the UN as “Mr. Fix It” for his ability to diffuse the most dangerous of crises. A riveting account of his remarkable life and tragic final mission. More>>

Which Way Home
Award-winning filmmaker Rebecca Cammisa wistfully captures the determination, innocence and longing of child migrants travelling alone through Mexico to the United States, where they hope to be reunited with their parents.  More>>

For the dates and times of these films and more events, check out the Unpacking Development Events Calender

Wednesday Night Just Got a Whole Lot Yummier!!

Tomorrow night, Wednesday April 29th, 2009 there are ton of great restaurants across the city participating in A Taste for Life. Proceeds of your dinner will go to Fife House, a great organization delivering services to people who suffer from HIV/AIDS. Their range of services help to ensure the well being and a healthy standard of life to people living with HIV/AIDS in the city of Toronto.

The concept is easy! Call and book a table at any of the participating restaurants, go enjoy a dinner out and 25% of your table’s dinner will go to benefit this worthy cause.

Rick Mercer is supporting it and so should you!

Here is a list of participating restaurants:

7 Numbers, Allen’s Restaurant, Barrio Lounge, Big Momma’s Boy, Boho, Byzantium, Café California Restaurant, Caju Restaurant, Churchmouse & Firkin, Clafouti Patisserie et Café, Crush Wine Bar Restaurant, Dangerous Dan’s Diner, Fire on the East Side, Forte Bistro and Lounge, Fresh on Spadina, Globe Bistro, Il Fornello, Ki Restaurant, Legends Bar and Eatery, Lettieri Espresso + Bar, Lolita’s Lust, Magic Oven (four locations), Mambo Lounge, Mercatto, Milagro Restaurant Y Cantina, Mitzi’s Sister, One Up Restaurant & Lounge, Panorama, Peartree Restaurant, Prerna, Queen Mother Cafe, Sambucas on Church, Sassafraz, Sit in Bangkok, Slack’s Restaurant & Bar, Southern Accent Restaurant, Starfish Oyster Bed & Grill, Tappo Wine Bar & Restaurant, Thai To-Go, The Boiler House, The Indian Hut, The Lakeview, The Red Lion, Toba, Toni Bulloni Tratoria Americana, Vdara, Veda-Healthy Indian Eatery & Takeout, Village Rainbow Restaurant, Woody’s, Zelda’s Restaurant & Bar.

For more information on the restaurants and contact information check out A Taste for Life’s website.

It’s Earth Day today, April 22nd 2009. While the future of the environment is an extremely important and relevant topic today, it isn’t necessarily our area of expertise here at Unpacking Development. There are many great events happening across the city today and this week so please feel free to drop by one of them and show your commitment to a better world for everyone!

I’ll be heading to the Distillery District tonight for the Toronto Alternative Fashion Week. Tonight’s Theme is Planet and it looks at how fashion and arts intersect sustainability and the environment.

On Friday why not check out the Fashion Takes Action launch party at The Burroughes Building, 639 Queen Street West. You can check out Fashion Takes Action’s education and awareness programs and support Earth Day. Fashion Takes Action is an organization working towards using sustainable and eco-friendly fabrics.

Check out Earth Day Canada for more events happening across the GTA today and for the rest of the week! Or if you want to get tips on how to make your everyday life more environmentally friendly check out my new favourite website greenissexy.org.

Okay, so its a big publicity stunt, but this week Hugh Jackman (of Wolverine fame) has pledged to donate $100,000 to charity through twitter.  Whichever 140 character tweet describing a charity is the most convincing wins the donation.  Checking out twitter this morning, I saw more discussion than charity pitches, though there were some for Tasmanian Devils with mouth cancer and inner city schools in Chicago.

Having recently joined twitter, the organization that I support, CAPAIDS, is going to try its had at selling itself in 140 characters or less.  I’m still working on my perfect pitch on their behalf, but I’ve only got until Friday so I better get on it.

Still so excited about how people are using twitter, a site that dedicates itself to a rather self absorbed question, to mobilize people for good.

The other day I had the chance to catch a sneak peak of the upcoming exhibit What Has Architecture Done for You Lately?, curated by my good friend Zahra Ebrahim and archiTEXT.  The exhibit, opening on April 15, is trying to break down the conventional wisdom that architecture is for architects.  Instead, it suggests that in order for architecture to be a vehicle for social and environmental change, everyone must be an active part of design.

It asks “If a 5 year old were to design a refugee camp, what would it look like?”

One of archiTEXT’s most recent projects, the Toronto Idea Exchange, highlights their approach.  More than 100 people, including designers, teenagers, and bureaucrats, got together to generate ideas to tackle poverty in Ontario.  Participants went on to make physical models of what the architecture of equality (as opposed to poverty) might look like.  From there, archiTEXT is helping to write policy for the Ontario Poverty Reduction Strategy, answering questions about how architecture can be used to address poverty issues in Ontario.

In the WHADFYL exhibit, Ebrahim will be asking some similar questions about architecture’s role in global issues like health, economics, and the environment.  Maybe in the future we’ll see archiTEXT in somewhere like Iraq, getting kids, soldiers and government together to lighten the load of rebuilding, and making sure that the people who have a vested interest in architecture (ie: people inhabiting the spaces) are involved.

The exhibit opens tomorrow, April 15 at the Design Exchange and runs until May 31.  Come for opening night, starting at 6pm on April 15.  Wear hot pink.

If you can’t make it, check out the live Twitter feed from the exhibit here.

What if you could give money to an organization and actually choose who received that money. Imagine, an online database of people in need. You could go to a profile, see what their need was and choose them based on your personal preference. Kiva, an online database of entrepreneurs seeking microcredit loans does just that. I came across this unique fundraising tool and its innovative person to person lending program allows people to track the person’s progress online. Through Kiva’s partners the lender can transfer money online that goes directly to an entrepreneur in a developing country. I have been a supporter of microcredit loans for a long time and I found this website to be inspiring. Giving a donor a choice to invest in someone, rather then simply donating money is something that I think will catch on. The website has received a lot of press, garnering accolades as one of the top websites of 2008 by Time and Women’s Health.

On another note, I’ve changed my homepage from the BBC World News Page for OneWorld.net, a website devoted to international issues and has a lot of popping headlines on development, and aims to “provide the news and views of over 1600 organizations that are promoting human rights awareness and fighting poverty worldwide”.