DOCSLIB.ORG

Farm Animal Funders Briefings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

BRIEFING SERIES February, 2019 v1.0 TABLE OF CONTENTS Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals 2 Supporting Alternative Foods To Farmed Animal Products 4 Veg Advocacy 7 Corporate Campaigns For Welfare Reforms 9 Fishes 12 Legal and Legislative Methods 13 A Global Perspective on Farmed Animal Advocacy 15 Shallow Review: Increasing Donations Through Your Donation 19 2 Smart Giving: Some Fundamentals How Much To Give? There are a number of approaches to how much to give, Why Give? including: For the world: There are over 100 hundred billion farmed animals alive at any moment in conditions that Giving what you don’t need cause severe suffering, that number has been increasing over time and is projected to continue to do so. Consuming animal products is associated with many x % Pledging a set percentage negative health outcomes and animal agriculture is a chief cause of environmental degradation—causing approximately 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions. % Giving to reach a personal best For you: Giving activates the brain’s reward centers, Some people give everything above what is necessary to resulting in increased life satisfaction and happiness. satisfy their needs, in part because of evidence that high levels of income have diminishing returns on wellbeing. How Can We Help Identify Cost-effective Funding Thousands of people (including some of the wealthiest) How To Give? Opportunities? publicly pledge some set percentage for giving. Pledging could increase your commitment to giving, further Effective giving is important because top Farmed Animal Funders release briefings and research connect you with a giving community, and inspire others. giving options are plausibly many times more different promising areas. These briefings aim to impactful than the average giving options.1 highlight promising interventions and organizations Giving to reach a personal best involves goal setting, by considering: adequate planning and support networks, as well as being ► The most relevant and up to date information up to date with the charities you support. You might also ► Learning value consider the following when deciding how much to give: How can you be effective? Make good choices about ► Fungibility How rich am I? What are my life aspirations? How much (in descending priority): (1) which cause area, (2) ► Room for more funding do other high net worth’s give?2 intervention, (3) charity, and (4) the specific way of ► Marginal impact 1. For instance, The Open Philanthropy Project has estimated that $1 donated to cage- donating. ► Counterfactuals free reform campaigns spares about 120 hens one year of battery cage confinement. In contrast, Animal Charity Evaluators estimated that $1 donated to leafleting spares roughly one thousandth of a year of farmed animal life. Help us help you. If we can do additional research to 2 Many high net worths leave approximately 90% of wealth to heirs, 0.16% of their wealth support your giving decisions, please let us know. towards animals and, on average, a fraction of that amount goes towards factory farming. 3 Impact Multipliers Make the Most of Your Network Which is best? The nascent literature on charitable paying for the overhead may fix the bias. The evidence You have an incredible opportunity to multiply giving most supports seed donations. A seed donation in favor of covering “overhead” as a donation multiplier your impact through bringing another large “seeds” a significant amount (e.g., 50%) of a charity’s relies primarily on experimental field evidence from donor into the movement. Please share Farmed fundraising goal. The literature suggests that3 seed one study. It is a promising result but it doesn’t provide Animal Funders material (including these briefs) donations typically have a greater donation multiplier sufficient justification for thinking covering overhead with anyone who may be interested. than matches and increasing the seed amount is costs are a better donation multiplier than seeding or associated with a significant increase in donations. matching. A matching campaign uses one’s donations to “match” Tax Efficient Giving Some Specific Promising Ways to Donate to Groups other donations. There are several field studies on Definitely itemize, and consider: donation matching, but unfortunately no peer ► Donating appreciated assets (avoids capital gains but Three basic donation multiplier options are: reviewed meta-analysis of them. A (non-peer still deductable) reviewed) meta-analysis suggests a donation multiplier ► Efficiently maxing annual charitable deductions $1 $1.20 effect of matching campaigns on the order of ~120% ► Using donor advised funds if you’re unsure of where to (with high uncertainty) and another key takeaway: donate. diminishing returns to matching above 1:1. 1. Seed 2. Matching 3. Covering Covering “overhead” costs such that other donors donations campaigns overhead contribute to “programs” rather than “overhead” could be a promising donation multiplier. “Overhead” ratios are a poor, and over-emphasized indicator of effectiveness. Most donors don’t want to pay for 3. Note that while this study suggested a seed donation raised more than a matching overhead costs but this unwillingness is not rational and donation the difference wasn’t statistically significant. CREATING NEW PROTEIN: SUPPORTING FUNDING CONSUMER GOODS NEW PROTEIN NEW PROTEIN CLEAN ANIMAL PROTEIN (Grown from Cellular Agriculture) INGREDIENTS PROCESSING & CULTURING SYSTEMS MULTI-PROTEIN BEEF (PROTEINS, FLAVORS, COLORS, FILLERS, Beef, Pork, Poultry, Beef, Pork, GELLING AGENTS, CASINGS…) Seafood, Eggs Poultry 4 Beef, Pork, Poultry, FM Technologies Seafood CREATING NEW PROTEIN: SUPPORTING FUNDING Nove PORK POULTRY EGGS foods Supporting Alternative Foods to Farmed Animal Products CONSUMER GOODS NEW PROTEIN NEW PROTEIN CLEAN ANIMAL PROTEIN (Grown from Cellular Agriculture) INGREDIENTS PROCESSING & CULTURING SYSTEMS meatless MULTI-PROTEIN BEEF SEAFOOD (PROTEINS, FLAVORS, COLORS,OTHER FILLERS, Beef, Pork, Poultry, Beef, Pork, GELLING AGENTS, CASINGS…) Seafood, Eggs Poultry NON-PROFITS FM Technologies Why Is This Area Promising? Is Impact Investing Impactful?Beef, Pork, Poultry, Is It Making Things NON-ANIMAL PROTEIN Seafood PLANTS FUNGI Competitive alternative foods could massively Better Than They Would Otherwise Be? Nove PORK POULTRY EGGS GOOD foods decrease demand for farmed animal products. CATCH If philanthropy’s goal is to make things better than they Hemp Food THE ABBOT’S Association BUTCHER would otherwise be, theSEAFOOD counterfactual (what would OTHER meatless What’s Some Key Information That You Should Know happen otherwise if not for your donation) is critical. For INCUBATORS & ACCELERATORS NON-PROFITS About Alternatives? impact investing then, it’s worth noting there’s already NON-ANIMAL PROTEIN spero FIELD ROAST Alternatives can be divided into: strong investor interest in alternative companies:PLANTS FUNGI VC FIRMS CORPORATE PARTNERS nova GOOD I. Since ~2013 alternative companies have raised CATCH 1 1) Cell-based products 2) Plant-based products more than $1 billion in funding. RESEARCH & ACADEMIA Hemp Food THE ABBOT’S Association BUTCHER Lup’ II. The ~30 cell-based companies and ~70 plant based companies have received investment from GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Better World.Market Cell-based Plant-based options Evolv INCUBATORS & ACCELERATORS companies report are now (fairly) cost- several large funders, ~60 VC firms, and ~24 large Ventures their products should competitive, (fairly) corporate partners. THE NEW PROTEIN LANDSCAPE | V.2.6 | Learn More at NewMeat.org be price-competitive taste-competitive, spero FIELD ROAST in a decade. Although better environmentally III. There’s significant impact investor interestVC FIRMS in the CORPORATE PARTNERS there are reasons to than animal-based food and agriculture sector: more than nova be skeptical of these foods (but not $10 billion in impact investments have been made. It’s timelines, the rate necessarily cell-based one of the most (if not the most) popular sectors for RESEARCH & ACADEMIA at which production foods), stocked in impact investing with around half of impact investors costs have reportedly large supermarkets, on reporting planning to increase their allocations to food Lup’ been falling means the menu (and even and agriculture. they may not be too selling out) in some GOVERNMENT AGENCIES Better World.Market Evolv unrealistic. large fast-food chains, Ventures and overall are making encouraging market THE NEW PROTEIN LANDSCAPE | V.2.6 | Learn More at NewMeat.org share gains. 1. This is based off an internal back of the envelope estimate, please let us know if you would like the details. The annualized average of the total of the investments in alternative companies in the past 5 years is approximately double the global amount of charitable donations to farmed animal advocacy in 2017. 5 This leads to the following key questions for further consideration: Will your impact investing crowd How would you otherwise use that out investing from others or increase money if you didn’t invest? How would the amount invested by others the (likely) displaced prospective investor impactfully? Does accounting for the otherwise spend theirs? If you would otherwise potential replaceability (if you didn’t invest spend it impactfully elsewhere but they someone else would) mean your impact wouldn’t, does your impact investing cause investing actually adds limited value overall? less impact overall because of your greater opportunity cost? 6 What Are The Funding Options
Recommended publications
  • Oecd High Level Forum on Policy Coherence: Availability of Medicines for Neglected and Emerging Infectious Diseases Issues for D

    Oecd High Level Forum on Policy Coherence: Availability of Medicines for Neglected and Emerging Infectious Diseases Issues for D

    OECD HIGH LEVEL FORUM ON POLICY COHERENCE: AVAILABILITY OF MEDICINES FOR NEGLECTED AND EMERGING INFECTIOUS DISEASES ISSUES FOR DISCUSSION INTRODUCTION This paper provides background information and raises issues for consideration by participants in the OECD High Level Forum (HLF) on Policy Coherence: Availability of Medicines for Neglected and Emerging Infectious Diseases.1 What is the problem? Infectious diseases are one of the primary causes of mortality in the world and in developing countries they are a major barrier to economic development, social progress and human health. An estimated 10.8 million people died from infectious diseases in 2001 and 10.6 million of those occurred in the developing world, while only 1.4 percent (150,000) occurred in high-income countries. The top four killers in Sub-Saharan Africa are infectious diseases, and the fifth is prenatal deaths. Those most vulnerable are children, pregnant women, young mothers and people in what should be their most productive years. However, the health innovation system is failing to deliver new medicines, vaccines and diagnostics for neglected infectious diseases. These diseases include tuberculosis and malaria, but also tropical diseases such as Human African trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis, schistosomiasis, Chagas disease, lymphatic filariasis and onchocerciasis. To date, most medicines used to deal with such diseases in developing countries were first developed for other markets or purposes. Problems arise related to cost, safety, stability, formulation and resistance. Mechanisms for addressing the lack of viable markets, expanding the global capacity for drug discovery, and increasing the productivity of R&D have to be found. What can we do? The Forum will focus on how to create co-operation, collaboration and coherent policies required to improve the incentives and efficiency of the innovation system to scale-up research and discovery.
  • A Case Study of Aid Effectiveness in Kenya Volatility and Fragmentation of Foreign Aid, with a Focus on Health

    A Case Study of Aid Effectiveness in Kenya Volatility and Fragmentation of Foreign Aid, with a Focus on Health

    WOLFENSOHN CENTER FOR DEVELOPMENT WORKING PAPER 8 | JANUARY 2009 A CASE STUDY OF AID EFFECTIVENESS IN KENYA VOLATILITY AND FRAGMENTATION OF FOREIGN AID, WITH A FOCUS ON HEALTH Francis M. Mwega The Brookings Global Economy and Development working paper series also includes the following titles: • Wolfensohn Center for Development Working Papers • Middle East Youth Initiative Working Papers • Global Health Initiative Working Papers Learn more at www.brookings.edu/global Francis M. Mwega is Associate Professor at the School of Economics at the University of Nairobi. Editor’s Note: This paper was commissioned by the Wolfensohn Center for Development at the Brookings Institution. This paper is one in a series of country case studies that examines issues of aid effectiveness and coordination at the country level. It does not necessarily refl ect the offi cial views of the Brookings Institution, its board or the advisory council members. For more information, please contact the Wolfensohn Center at [email protected]. CONTENTS Introduction . .1 Pattern and evolution of foreign aid to Kenya . 4 Total aid and its decompositions . 4 Country Programmable Aid (CPA) . 6 Emerging players in aid . 7 Chinese development assistance to Kenya . 7 Private sector aid . 10 Volatlitiy of Aid . 12 Extent of volatility of total aid and its components in Kenya . 12 The effects of aid cyclicality . 12 Government responses to aid volatility and decline over time . 14 Costs of volatility . .17 Fragmentation of Aid . 20 Aid fragmentation in Kenya . 21 Aid Coordination in Kenya . 24 Foreign Aid to Kenya’s Health Sector . 29 Pattern and evolution of aid to the health sector; its volatility and fragmentation .
  • Revista Española De Nutrición Humana Y Dietética Spanish Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics

    Revista Española De Nutrición Humana Y Dietética Spanish Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics

    Rev Esp Nutr Hum Diet. 2020; 24(1). doi: 10.14306/renhyd.24.1.953 [ahead of print] Freely available online - OPEN ACCESS Revista Española de Nutrición Humana y Dietética Spanish Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics INVESTIGACIÓN versión post-print Esta es la versión aceptada. El artículo puede recibir modificaciones de estilo y de formato. Vegetarian dietary guidelines: a comparative dietetic and communicational analysis of eleven international pictorial representations Guías alimentarias vegetarianas: análisis comparativo dietético y comunicacional de once representaciones gráficas internacionales Chiara Gai Costantinoa*, Luís Fernando Morales Moranteb. a CEU Escuela Internacional de Doctorado, Universitat Abat Oliba CEU. Barcelona, Spain. b Departamento de Publicidad, Relaciones Públicas y Comunicación Audiovisual, Facultad de Ciencias de la Comunicación, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona. Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain. * [email protected] Received: 14/10/2019; Accepted: 08/03/2020; Published: 30/03/2020 CITA: Gai Costantino C, Luís Fernando Morales Morante LF. Vegetarian dietary guidelines: a comparative dietetic and communicational analysis of eleven international pictorial representations. Rev Esp Nutr Hum Diet. 2020; 24(1). doi: 10.14306/renhyd.24.1.953 [ahead of print] La Revista Española de Nutrición Humana y Dietética se esfuerza por mantener a un sistema de publicación continua, de modo que los artículos se publican antes de su formato final (antes de que el número al que pertenecen se haya cerrado y/o publicado). De este modo, intentamos p oner los artículos a disposición de los lectores/usuarios lo antes posible. The Spanish Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics strives to maintain a continuous publication system, so that the articles are published before its final format (before the number to which they belong is closed and/or published).
  • Evidence-Based Policy Cause Area Report

    Evidence-Based Policy Cause Area Report

    Evidence-Based Policy Cause Area Report AUTHOR: 11/18 MARINELLA CAPRIATI, DPHIL 1 — Founders Pledge Animal Welfare Executive Summary By supporting increased use of evidence in the governments of low- and middle-income countries, donors can dramatically increase their impact on the lives of people living in poverty. This report explores how focusing on evidence-based policy provides an opportunity for leverage, and presents the most promising organisation we identified in this area. A high-risk/high-return opportunity for leverage In the 2013 report ‘The State of the Poor’, the World Bank reported that, as of 2010, roughly 83% of people in extreme poverty lived in countries classified as ‘lower-middle income’ or below. By far the most resources spent on tackling poverty come from local governments. American think tank the Brookings Institution found that, in 2011, $2.3 trillion of the $2.8 trillion spent on financing development came from domestic government revenues in the countries affected. There are often large differences in the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of social programs— the amount of good done per dollar spent can vary significantly across programs. Employing evidence allows us to identify the most cost-effective social programs. This is useful information for donors choosing which charity to support, but also for governments choosing which programs to implement, and how. This suggests that employing philanthropic funding to improve the effectiveness of policymaking in low- and middle-income countries is likely to constitute an exceptional opportunity for leverage: by supporting the production and use of evidence in low- and middle-income countries, donors can potentially enable policy makers to implement more effective policies, thereby reaching many more people than direct interventions.
  • Global Animal Partnership Et Al. May 3, 2017 Page 1

    Global Animal Partnership Et Al. May 3, 2017 Page 1

    Internal Revenue Service TE/GE Division Re: Global Animal Partnership et al. May 3, 2017 Page 1 May 3, 2017 Ms. Tamera L. Ripperda Director Exempt Organizations Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20224 Re: Global Animal Partnership EIN: 20-2234609 The Humane Society of the United States EIN: 53-0225390 Dear Ms. Ripperda: I am writing to alert the IRS to apparent use of charitable funds by a private operating foundation for the impermissible private benefit of one of its disqualified persons. Facts—Introduction Global Animal Partnership is a private operating foundation founded by, and with contributions from, Whole Foods Market. Global Animal Partnership’s sole substantial activity appears to be the operation of a program to certify that certain food products sold by Whole Foods Market. In addition, Whole Foods Market may be paying fees to Global Animal Partnership to provide services that benefit Whole Foods Market. Whole Foods Market Corporation (“Whole Foods”) is a Texas-based chain of premium supermarkets that promotes itself as “America’s Healthiest Grocery Store.” Whole Foods provides both traditional groceries and meat and poultry products, as well as prepared foods. In 2005, Whole Foods founded Global Animal Partnership (GAP), a tax-exempt organization whose principal activity is developing and promoting its “5-Step® Animal Welfare Rating Standards.” In turn, the Standards’ principal use appears to be to certify that meat products sold by Whole Foods Market satisfy the Standards. Whole Foods’ founder and long-time CEO, John Mackey, was a board member of GAP until 2014. John Mackey also serves on the board of the Humane Society of the United States, EIN: 53- 0225390, which is exempt from federal income tax under §501(c)(3) The Humane Society of the Internal Revenue Service TE/GE Division Re: Global Animal Partnership et al.
  • 2018 ▶ Do Not Enter Social Security Numbers on This Form As It May Be Made Public

    2018 ▶ Do Not Enter Social Security Numbers on This Form As It May Be Made Public

    OMB No. 1545-0047 Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax Under section 501(c), 527, or 4947(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code (except private foundations) 2018 ▶ Do not enter social security numbers on this form as it may be made public. Department of the Treasury Open to Public Internal Revenue Service ▶ Go to www.irs.gov/Form990 for instructions and the latest information. Inspection A For the 2018 calendar year, or tax year beginning01/01 , 2018, and ending12/31 , 20 18 B Check if applicable: C Name of organization CENTRE FOR EFFECTIVE ALTRUISM USA INC D Employer identification number Address change Doing business as 47-1988398 Name change Number and street (or P.O. box if mail is not delivered to street address) Room/suite E Telephone number Initial return 2054 UNIVERSITY AVE SUITE 300 510-725-1395 Final return/terminated City or town, state or province, country, and ZIP or foreign postal code Amended return BERKELEY, CA, 94704 G Gross receipts $ 10,524,715 Application pending F Name and address of principal officer: Amy Labenz H(a) Is this a group return for subordinates? Yes ✔ No 2054 UNIVERSITY AVE SUITE 300, BERKELEY, CA 94704 H(b) Are all subordinates included? Yes No I Tax-exempt status: ✔ 501(c)(3) 501(c) ( ) ◀ (insert no.) 4947(a)(1) or 527 If “No,” attach a list. (see instructions) J Website: ▶ www.centerforeffectivealtruism.org H(c) Group exemption number ▶ K Form of organization: ✔ Corporation Trust Association Other ▶ L Year of formation: 2013 M State of legal domicile: NJ Part I Summary 1 Briefly describe the organization’s mission or most significant activities: Effective altruism is a growing social movement founded on the desire to make the world as good a place as it can be, the use of evidence and reason to find out how to do so, and the audacity to actually try.
  • The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

    The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

    CHAPTER 17 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness Roberto Bissio* I. Introduction: the Paris which politicians and the press translate to the public Declaration is not a global as “aid”. partnership for development The United Nations Millennium Declaration adopted by Heads of State and Government in 2000 The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness was reaffirmed that “[they are] committed to making the adopted in 2005 and reaffirmed in Accra1 in 2008 right to development a reality for everyone and to at ministerial-level forums convened by the Organi- freeing the entire human race from want”.3 The com- sation for Economic Co-operation and Development mitments made at the Millennium Summit were later (OECD). The principles and indicators included in the summarized in the eight Millennium Development Paris Declaration frame what OECD calls a “land- Goals,4 all of them extracted or literally quoted from mark reform” in development cooperation2 endorsed the Millennium Declaration. Goal 8, Develop a global by leading development practitioners. The Paris Dec- partnership for development, spells out what devel- laration did not emerge from the United Nations or oped countries should do to enable developing coun- any of its bodies, but given the high level of support tries to achieve the other seven in a set of six targets: that the Declaration has received from the major bilat- eral donors and the active engagement of key multilat- • Target 8.A: develop further an open trading eral organizations such as the World Bank and OECD and financial system that is rule based, predict- itself in its implementation, it is important to analyse able and non-discriminatory, and that includes it from the point of view of the right to development.
  • An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion

    An Inquiry Into Animal Rights Vegan Activists' Perception and Practice of Persuasion

    An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion by Angela Gunther B.A., Simon Fraser University, 2006 Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in the School of Communication ! Angela Gunther 2012 SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY Summer 2012 All rights reserved. However, in accordance with the Copyright Act of Canada, this work may be reproduced, without authorization, under the conditions for “Fair Dealing.” Therefore, limited reproduction of this work for the purposes of private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting is likely to be in accordance with the law, particularly if cited appropriately. Approval Name: Angela Gunther Degree: Master of Arts Title of Thesis: An Inquiry into Animal Rights Vegan Activists’ Perception and Practice of Persuasion Examining Committee: Chair: Kathi Cross Gary McCarron Senior Supervisor Associate Professor Robert Anderson Supervisor Professor Michael Kenny External Examiner Professor, Anthropology SFU Date Defended/Approved: June 28, 2012 ii Partial Copyright Licence iii Abstract This thesis interrogates the persuasive practices of Animal Rights Vegan Activists (ARVAs) in order to determine why and how ARVAs fail to convince people to become and stay veg*n, and what they might do to succeed. While ARVAs and ARVAism are the focus of this inquiry, the approaches, concepts and theories used are broadly applicable and therefore this investigation is potentially useful for any activist or group of activists wishing to interrogate and improve their persuasive practices. Keywords: Persuasion; Communication for Social Change; Animal Rights; Veg*nism; Activism iv Table of Contents Approval ............................................................................................................................. ii! Partial Copyright Licence .................................................................................................
  • Dossier : Questions D'éthique Animale

    Dossier : Questions D'éthique Animale

    Ethica Volume 22, No 1 (Printemps 2018) Liminaire Dossier : Questions d’éthique animale Coordonné par François Jaquet et Angela Martin1 La question animale : une perspective pluridisciplinaire Les philosophes se sont toujours intéressés au statut moral des animaux non humains. Dans l’Antiquité déjà, Aristote, les Épicuriens et les Stoïciens soutenaient que les bêtes n’étaient pas concernées par la justice parce que dépourvues de raison, à quoi Porphyre (1979) et Plutarque (2002) rétorquaient que le respect leur était dû en vertu de leur seule sensibilité2. Quelques siècles plus tard, des thèses similaires furent défendues notamment par René Descartes (1973) et Emmanuel Kant (1986, 1997), d’une part, et par Michel de Montaigne (1962), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1973) et Jeremy Bentham (1907), de l’autre. Ce n’est pourtant qu’à la fin du XXe siècle que l’éthique animale s’est constituée comme discipline philosophique à part entière – plus précisément en 1975, année de publication de l’ouvrage fondateur Animal Liberation, du philosophe australien Peter Singer. Dans le chapitre premier de La Libération animale, où il expose la théorie qu’il applique par la suite à des pratiques concrètes, Singer affirme que « tous les animaux sont égaux », une thèse souvent mal comprise. Car l’affirmation égalitariste n’est pas descriptive : il ne s’agit en aucun cas de prétendre que les animaux possèdent les mêmes capacités que leurs cousins humains. Elle est normative : les animaux sont nos égaux en ce sens que nous devons à leurs intérêts la même considération que nous devons aux intérêts similaires de nos congénères. Les animaux – la plupart de ceux que nous exploitons du moins – sont sentients, c’est-à-dire capables de ressentir des choses agréables ou désagréables.
  • Generating Evidence of Aid Effectiveness in Global Health: the Case of the Global Fund

    Generating Evidence of Aid Effectiveness in Global Health: the Case of the Global Fund

    Generating evidence of aid effectiveness in global health: the case of the Global Fund Katharine Heus MSc Global Health and Public Policy Abstract Global health has been identified as a ‘tracer-sector’ for advancement in regards to aid- effectiveness. This paper interrogates how evidence of aid effectiveness has been generated within one of the central, most resource-rich global health actors: The Global Fund to fight Tuberculosis, Aids and Malaria. Key terms are defined, processes for generating evidence of aid-effectiveness within both the public and global health arenas examined, and conclusions around the predominance of vertical interventions in the global health arena proposed. Ultimately, it is argued that the need for strategic and financial legitimacy has driven the Global Fund to generate very specific kinds of evidence of AE and that the Global Fund only generates the kind of evidence it can take. Generating Evidence of Aid Effectiveness in Global Health: The case of the Global Fund Katharine Heus Introduction In his seminal work on aid and development in Lesotho, Ferguson suggested that for the most part, the actors engaged in this highly diversified, multi-billion dollar ‘development’ undertaking “only sought the kind of advice they could take” (1994, p. 284). This comment reveals a quandary at the center of many contemporary debates around aid and development, largely – how can evidence of “aid effectiveness” (hereafter AE) be generated? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to interrogate not only how, but also why and for what purposes evidence is generated. The pivotal word in this phrase is ‘generated,’ for it reveals that evidence is, in and of itself, fundamentally constructed (Mosse, 2004; Justice, 1987).
  • Inside the H$U$ Brain

    Inside the H$U$ Brain

    Insidecover story the HSUS Brain You can avoid becoming a Humane Society of the United States statistic. Here’s what you need to know. By David Martosko, The Center for Consumer Freedom ike many social Full disclosure, it turns out, is movements, the bad for business. world of animal When PETA co-founder Ingrid rights is Newkirk famously said, “A rat is difficult to under- a pig is a dog is a boy,” she wasn’t stand from the out- making chit-chat. She was de- Lside. And like most animal scribing a moral philosophy—she rights groups, the Humane Soci- and millions of people living in ety of the United States (HSUS) America believe a heifer has the would rather you stay in the dark. same moral value as your child. (Continued on page 18) National Meat Association 1 7 The animal rights religion Figure out what animals need, raise money Meet the outsiders “Animal rights” is a belief system with to give it to them, steamroll inconvenient For the first 50 years of its existence, the sacraments and high priests like Newkirk and people who get in the way, and remake the HSUS was a moderate, milquetoast animal HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle, and acolytes in world in Peter Singer’s image. protection group. It was started in 1954 by HSUS up-and-comer Paul Shapiro and Mercy Lather, rinse, repeat. For Animals founder, Nathan Runkle, among The problem is that it’s impossible to ask “Wayne Pacelle, Paul Shapiro, many others. It has its Bible (Animal Libera- heifers what they need.
  • The Green Protein Report

    The Green Protein Report

    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THE GREEN PROTEIN REPORT: MEETING NEW ZEALAND’S CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS BY 2030 THROUGH REDUCED RELIANCE ON ANIMAL AGRICULTURE THE GREEN PROTEIN REPORT 2020 1 THE GREEN PROTEIN REPORT: MEETING NEW ZEALAND’S CLIMATE CHANGE TARGETS BY 2030 THROUGH REDUCED RELIANCE ON ANIMAL AGRICULTURE ISBN: XXXXXX MARCH 2020 Authored by: Jasmijn de Boo, BSc (Hons), MSc, DipEd, MRSB Prof. Andrew Knight, BSc (Vet Biol), BVMS, MANZCVS, DipECAWBM (AWSEL), DipACAW, PhD, FRCVS, SFHEA PO Box 78111, Grey Lynn, Auckland 1245 Contributions from Michal Klar, Nichola Kriek and Jennifer Riley. New Zealand Designed by Chelsa Sinclair Email: [email protected] Photo credit: Farmwatch www.vegansociety.org.nz 2 THE GREEN PROTEIN REPORT 2020 ABOUT THE VEGAN SOCIETY AOTEAROA NEW ZEALAND The Vegan Society of Aotearoa New Zealand supports and helps to facilitate a vegan lifestyle and plant-based eating. We do this by creating a vibrant, visible and influential community, and by providing resources and information. As a national charity we are the voice of veganism in New Zealand, with a strong media and social media presence. Our goal is to grow veganism in New Zealand by making it easy and desirable. We educate Kiwis about veganism and promote vegan education elsewhere. We encourage the availability of vegan options in institutions such as schools, hospitals and other public facilities throughout the country. We are increasing and supporting business activity around veganism with our Business Membership Scheme, the introduction of New Zealand Vegan Certification and through our Vegan Food Awards, which recognise excellence in the vegan food industry. We also provide a nationwide community support network for vegans and those progressing toward veganism.