** This post is from Alertnet, the Thomson Reuters Foundation's global  humanitarian news Web site.**

Earthquakes, floods, the global recession and recurrent famines have been keeping aid professionals across the world as busy as ever. Such crises hit poor countries the hardest, focusing increasing attention on preventing and preparing for disasters rather than dealing with their devastating aftermath.

The European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, is one of the biggest sources of humanitarian and development aid in the world. For emergency response to recent earthquakes in Indonesia, it has provided $4.4 million - more than any other donor so far.

To help the Philippines currently recovering from two typhoons, the European Union and some member-states have contributed a total of $5.6 million - again, more than sent or promised by any other foreign donor.

How to help the developing world, not just when they are disasters, will be at the core of debates among heads of states, top European Union officials, Nobel Prize winners and other experts at an international conference in Stockholm between Oct. 22 and Oct. 24, called European Development Days.

Ahead of the conference, European Union Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid Karel De Gucht will take questions from readers on this year's topics for discussion: the impact of the economic crisis on developing countries, climate change and the link between democracy and development.

You can participate by using the comments section below or by using the #askEUaid tag on Twitter. Please post your questions by Thursday, Oct. 15.

We will get as many of your questions to De Gucht as possible and will publish his replies by the end of the week, so keep checking back!

New to Twitter? If you aren't using Twitter already but want to post a question or see what other people are asking De Gucht through Twitter, just get yourself a Twitter account, search for the #askEUaid tag and view all questions. You can post a 140-character question yourself, making sure you use the #askEUaid tag somewhere in your post so it sits with all the other posts from people across the Twittersphere.

Jonathan Morduch is Professor of Public Policy and Economics at the Wagner School of Public Service of New York University and managing director of the Financial Access Initiative. He is the co-author, with Daryl Collins, Stuart Rutherford and Orlanda Ruthven of Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day (Princeton University Press, 2009).

In New York City, $2 is what you spend for a ticket on the subway or to buy a coffee. But for billions of people around the world, $2 or less is the average amount of money you have to put food on the table every day, pay medical bills, keep children in school, and seize business opportunities. It seems impossible.

Foreign aid experts, policy makers, and even celebrities have a lot to say about the population living on $1 or $2 a day. The group we don’t often hear from is the poor themselves. As a result, most of us have little clue about how the poor manage to live on so little—so we fall back on our guesses and assumptions, and that then informs the way we think about foreign aid.

A few years ago, my colleagues Daryl Collins, Stuart Rutherford and Orlanda Ruthven set out to learn how poor families in Bangladesh, India and South Africa really manage to live on so little. Research teams spent a year getting to know families and recording their challenges, ambitions, strategies, failures, and successes.

Our new book, Portfolios of the Poor: How the World’s Poor Live on $2 a Day, comes to conclusions that turn common assumptions upside down. Far from living hand-to-mouth, all of the families interviewed were borrowing, saving, and leading active financial lives because of their poverty, not in spite of it. One of the central conclusions is that when you live on so little and face a life of uncertainty, thinking about the future is an imperative, not a luxury. You can’t afford not to save.

Some of the families have access to formal bank accounts, but most make due with imperfect financial tools of their own creation that help them deal with irregular, unpredictable incomes. Some of the most interesting strategies involve ways to save. To overcome temptation, the families create tools with built-in self-discipline features, like rule-bound savings clubs involving a few friends that shift money into a “hands-off” account; deposit collectors who come around the village daily to collect a penny or two each day; and friends delegated to be “money guards” who act like beefed-up piggy banks by restricting access to cash.

“Portfolios of the Poor” highlights that the often-hidden challenge of living on $1 or $2 a day is that these figures are just averages—some days the families earned more and some days much less. Coping with the unpredictability of income is a fundamental challenge—and it’s missed in the articulation of the United Nations’ much-discussed “Millennium Development Goals”. A better picture of poverty is captured by what we call the “triple whammy” of poverty: (1) low incomes, (2) irregular and unpredictable incomes, and (3) a lack of financial tools. Better financial tools would allow poor families to squeeze the most out of what they have.

“Portfolios of the Poor” includes concrete ideas for moving forward. Getting there, though, requires us to first step back and listen.

- Jorge Maia is head of Research and Information for Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa, established in 1940 to promote economic growth and industrial development. The opinions expressed are his own -

Serious shockwaves are hitting Africa's shores as the global economic crisis unfolds.

The extent and depth of the damage is extremely difficult to assess or project, but it is clear that the pattern of financial flows associated with investment, lending and trading activity has been dramatically altered, with detrimental economic and social implications for the continent at large. The adverse impact has been gradually spreading from a regional perspective - a serious setback to Africa's recent growth performance, which had averaged 6 percent a year from 2003 to 2008.

The effects will vary widely, depending on each country's integration within the global financial system, its dependency on exports and tourism receipts, official development assistance and remittances from African citizens working overseas, among other factors.

Access to trade credit lines used to finance imports and investments is under threat due to the global credit crunch, while portfolio flows have been reversed and remain weak due to institutional deleveraging, pessimistic investor sentiment or extreme risk aversion.

Foreign direct investment flows are also expected to contract, although the rather long lead-time of typical projects could imply that some of the capital may have already been committed. The African banking sector is feeling the freeze in interbank lending worldwide from a funding standpoint, and may come under substantial pressure through its customer base should the economic slowdown intensify on the home front.

Where capital is still available, its cost is likely to have risen substantially, with implications for the viability of projects and for the debt repayment obligations of African countries. Such adverse trends are not only impacting negatively on capital inflows and national balances of payments, but also are resulting in greater volatility in foreign exchange markets.

The productive sectors of Africa's economies are being progressively affected by a fast deteriorating global environment as demand weakens, unfavourable terms of trade develop, corporate earnings decline, investment activity slows down and jobs are shed. As elsewhere in the globe, this has led to continuous downward revisions in economic growth projections. For instance, the latest IMF forecast of 3.4 percent growth for the African continent in 2009 is now considered optimistic by the IMF's own leadership.

The African economies that will contain the adversity are likely to be those that remain highly vigilant in managing the downside potential, those that are in a position to adopt counter-cyclical measures and that make an effort to seek new opportunities and competitive gains. However, liquidity or fiscal constraints are likely to prevent the majority of African countries from adopting economic stimulus packages. In order to preserve productive capacity, it is absolutely essential that a concerted effort be made to sustain private sector access to credit, including development funding.

Major crises bring to the fore not only comparative weaknesses but also comparative strengths. Thus, economies that manage downturns more successfully are those that exploit their comparative strengths instead of focusing on their weaknesses. The African continent is richly endowed with commodities and other resources, including an enormous, yet largely unexploited agricultural potential. Forecasts for most commodity prices point, at best, towards a very modest recovery in 2009. However, considering the demand and supply forces at play in the medium- to long-term, commodity prices should resume an upward trend. This will be underpinned by the roll-out of massive stimulus packages focusing on infrastructure investment throughout the globe, by the eventual recovery of the world's economies and by the resumption of growth in income levels, particularly in emerging regions. After all, the long-term demand for commodities from the fast-growing and very large emerging economies such as China and India has certainly not evaporated.

As credit starts flowing again through the global financial system, several emerging economies are likely to exhibit signs of recovery first, including China, India and Brazil. This should support a recovery in commodity markets and renewed investor interest in Africa for its resource wealth. The challenge remains for African countries to make the most of a future recovery, tirelessly encouraging the beneficiation of their resources instead of continuing to export value-adding opportunities, missing out on massive export earnings potential.

The impact of ongoing international efforts to thaw global credit markets and stimulate economic activity worldwide will, however, take time to bear results. In the meantime, competitive forces scrambling for a diminished global pie will pose unprecedented threats to African enterprises. Such challenges may include aggressive market penetration efforts and even protectionist measures on the part of foreign businesses and governments. African enterprises will have to adopt tough, well-formulated strategic decisions, as their present strategies may not hold them in good stead under rapidly deteriorating market conditions. They should be seriously vigilant, managing downside potential, adopting counter-cyclical measures, including appropriate cost-cutting measures and efficiency improvements, while constantly seeking opportunities for the development of new/niche markets.

African countries that remain committed to sound economic management will tend to restore investor confidence faster and mitigate the impact of the downturn more successfully. The momentum exhibited in improving the investment environment in numerous African countries must be maintained, so as to grow vibrant and competitive business sectors that will create employment and sustain broad-based economic growth. All feasible forms of support should be provided to the private sector at large, so as to sustain its growth potential and developmental impact. This should include strong and concerted governmental opposition to protectionist tendencies emerging globally, and insistence on greater participation in international governance.

On the business front, African enterprises that remain sharply focused on competitiveness improvements should be relatively successful in domestic and/or global markets, stand a better chance of surviving the crisis and should prosper in the long-run.

Earlier this month, Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo argued that Africa needs Western countries to cut long term aid that has brought dependency, distorted economies and fuelled bureaucracy and corruption. The comments on the blog posting suggested that many readers agreed. In a response, Savio Carvalho, Uganda country director for aid agency Oxfam GB, says that aid can help the continent escape poverty - if done in the right way:

In early January, I travelled to war-ravaged northern Uganda to a dusty village in Pobura and Kal parish in Kitgum District. We were there to see the completion of a 16km dirt road constructed by the community with support from Oxfam under an EU-funded programme.

The road is bringing benefits in the form of access to markets, education and health care. Some parents say their daughters feel safer walking to school on the road instead of through the bushes. Many families have used the wages earned from construction work to pay for school fees and medical treatment. This is the impact of aid.

Having lived and worked in east Africa, I have witnessed the positive effects of aid. But done badly, it can be very limiting and even has the potential to create more harm. To avoid this, it must be provided within an enabling environment in which it is used as a catalyst for change and not as an end in itself. Governments must show leadership through an accountable system.

For individuals, access to resources – including aid - is like an investment. Aid can build up poor people’s assets, support good governance and enhance skills and capacities to bring about transformation. But it can become a bane when it makes communities dependent, lazy and hopeless. Governments, aid agencies and the United Nations need to ensure the delivery of aid is well planned and coordinated, leading to higher self-reliance among poor communities.

Aid is also beneficial when trade is fair. There are several examples in Africa, like the case of coffee farmers in Uganda, where aid has been used effectively to improve the overall quality of the coffee seeds, thereby giving farmers better prices for their produce. When they have access to markets at home and abroad, they generate income which is ploughed back into increased output, better access to health and education, and overall improvement in the quality of their lives. To make this happen, developed countries need to stop procrastinating and put in place fair trade practices.

Aid works well if governments are accountable – in other words, when they are responsible and encourage active citizenship. On this continent, civil society is still weak and needs to be nourished. But stopping aid will not resolve frustrations about poor governance, which is partly a result of weak public scrutiny. Aid should be used to help fight corruption and promote accountability through active input from ordinary people.

As I have argued here, receiving aid is not just an act of charity. It should be understood as the right of poor communities to a life of dignity. As stated in international conventions, people have a right to good health, food, water and education. We all need to ensure the planet’s resources are equitably distributed. As Mahatma Gandhi said, you must be the change you want to see in the world.

So what do you think? Which argument is most convincing?

Far from being all bad news for Africa, the global financial crisis is a chance to break a dependence on development aid that has kept it in poverty, argues Zambian economist Dambisa Moyo, who has just published a new book “Dead Aid”.

Moyo’s book, her first, comes out at a time when Western campaigners, financial institutions and some African governments have been warning of the danger posed to Africa by the crisis and calling for more money from developed countries as a result. The former World Bank and Goldman Sachs economist spoke to Reuters in London.

“I’m not saying its going to be easy, I’m just saying that there is a real opportunity for policymakers to focus on coming up with more innovative ways of financing economic development. In a way the crisis actually provides the African governments with the situation where they cannot rely on aid budgets coming through from the West.”

Moyo believes more than $1 trillion in development aid over the past 50 years has only entrenched Africa’s poverty, distorted economies and fuelled bureaucracy and corruption. She sees alternatives such as encouraging trade - particularly with emerging markets - encouraging foreign direct investment, microfinancing for enterprise and seeking funds from capital markets.

Moyo is not discouraged by the fact that all those options appear more difficult in the current environment.

“It just means the onus is on African governments to come up with a more compelling story as to why African governments are overseeing real asset investment not derivative products we don’t really understand.”

“If you focus on traditional markets like Europe and the United States, you come to the conclusion that markets are really damaged and it’s very hard to raise money in those markets, but if you start to look towards China for example which has $4 trillion of reserves, all of a sudden you could see there might be another opportunity to do a bond issue in the Chinese market for example.”

“The model that’s coming up, that I’m proposing, is essentially one where Africa and Africans become equal partners with the rest of the world, not one where there is kind of a donor and a recipient, where Africans are kind of viewed as secondary citizens,” she said.

“There is no other system, whether a political system or a business system, that has stayed as the status quo for 60 years when we all know it’s not doing what it’s supposed to do, it’s not generating growth and it’s not alleviating poverty.”

Moyo is not worried about the impact of aid being taken away:

“It actually tends to pool at the top so it’s not like the average African is going to suffer. They don’t see the aid anyway. Essentially it‘s going to really affect the bureaucratic processes at the top and would really impact on corruption.”

“You could take me to country X in Africa and say ‘look at this girl here and she’s going to school because of aid’. Yes, that’s true but on a macro aggregate perspective these economies are not growing. They’re not growing fast enough to ensure that when that girl is done with her schooling she can find a job.”

Moyo is unimpressed by Western campaigners such as rock stars Bob Geldof and Bono calling for lots more aid for Africa.

“I fundamentally object to the notion that Africa needs more aid and I do think it’s time to have many more Africans speak out, especially the policymakers, because many of the policymakers actually don’t support aid  and yet they stay in the background and they allow this money to come into the economy.”

“You very rarely see Africans on the global stage saying ‘actually we would like to have much more aid please’.”

“I do think a gap has opened up to allow other people to formulate a view on coming to the global debate and offering opinions as to what they think Africans want. But maybe we should start a website called ‘Ask the African’ because I think you might be quite surprised to find that people say ‘we want jobs’, I wouldn’t mind a flat screen television, I wouldn’t mind having my kids go on holiday sometimes ...’”

Picture: Helen Jones photography

Davos leaders have traditionally looked to the long term and have largely been keen on helping all nations of the world to benefit from economic development. But with politicians and businesses tied up with short term concerns about the economic crisis there's a risk at least that efforts to spread development and to ward against the threat of climate change may go on hold, at least for a time. Reuters News asked delegates at the World Economic Forum's annual meeting to share their thoughts on whether we should be concerned about development and sustainability slipping down the global agenda.

The announcement by a U.S. investor that he has a deal to lease a swathe of South Sudan for farmland has again focused attention on foreigners trying to snap up African agricultural land.

A few months ago, South Korea’s Daweoo Logistics said it had secured rights to plant corn and palm oil in an even bigger patch of Madagascar - although local authorities said the deal was not done yet. Investors from Asia and the Gulf are looking elsewhere in Africa too.

Investor interest in farmland – not only in Africa – grew sharply after food prices shot to record highs last year. Although commodity prices have fallen since, there is still anticipation of long term demand growth once the world emerges from its current economic troubles.

Philippe Heilberg, chairman and CEO of New York-based investment firm Jarch Capital, told Reuters he saw ripe opportunity for decades in south Sudan’s Mayom county. The deal covers land nearly twice the size of the Indian Ocean island of Mauritius.

Land is being leased from General Paulino Matip Nhial, Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) - the armed wing of the ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) in semi-autonomous South Sudan. Jarch Management is also buying an interest in a local company from Matip’s son.

But should Africa be handing out its land to foreign investors and will the local people and countries involved be the ones to benefit?

This commentary in the Financial Times made comparisons with the colonial grab for Africa’s resources and points out the damaging legacy that remains.

“There is a need for investment if the continent’s full agricultural potential is to be achieved. At a time of growing shortages, there is also an obvious need for African governments to prioritise domestic supplies. If the continent is to avoid repeating history, the big deals and speculation should come later,” it said.

Is it wise to discourage such investment, though, if investors are willing to bring big money to put the land to more efficient use than is currently the case? While some areas of Africa are densely populated and every scrap of ground is farmed, other hugely fertile areas are barely used.

Investors argue that they can bring jobs long term and will improve local infrastructure - perhaps more so than if they were taking land for less emotive mining or oil concessions - as well as increasing food supplies and foreign exchange earnings. Elsewhere in the world, mechanised agriculture and bigger farms have led to major productivity increases - although environmentalists argue they can cause damage too. Despite their best efforts, African governments have not always proven themselves the best at managing agricultural resources. Might Africa miss out on development that has helped fuel broader economic growth in countries such as Brazil?

Land ownership could also prove contentious. In the distant past, it was often held by communities as a whole or vested in traditional authorities. State officials now often have the greatest say. That opens the potential for official abuse of yet another valuable resource. Since governments can come and go unpredictably that also means an increase in risk for investors and can only be a further encouragement to cut costs for a quick return.

Heilberg said Jarch felt comfortable investing in Mayom and that the local politicians and population would be accepting of the investment.

"With risk, you have to look at risk and reward together - this is why we pick our areas very carefully," he said.

So is major foreign investment in land a danger to Africa or is it an opportunity that the continent cannot afford to miss? Is there a way of making it work for everyone’s benefit? What do you think?

(Picture 1: A farmer cuts rice plants to sow at a paddy field in Ivory Coast, REUTERS/Luc Gnago)

(Picture 2: Boys carry sacks of weeds through fields of rice in Senegal. REUTERS/Normand Blouin)