Overseas aid is a subject that it very emotive with many people thinking it should be more focussed on dual use equipment and capabilities.
That is a wider discussion and one which I hope to get to as part of the SDSR 2015 activity.
A post on Gizmag about the Lifesaver Jerrycan got me thinking about numbers and effects.
If you remember, I wrote a post on jerrycans a while ago, click here to veiw. They have evolved with modern moulding techniques able to produce durable, lightweight and low cost containers for all manner of fluids.
One of the products I wrote about was a combination of jerrycan and water filter.
The Gizmag post covers this Lifesaver Jerrycan.[browser-shot width=”500″ url=”http://www.gizmag.com/jerrycan-purifies-5-gallons-of-water/26976/”]
All good stuff.
At £170 it is very low cost but imagine the impact of widespread, and I mean widespread, adoption in a developing nation.
The UK and the Department for International Development spends roughly £4 billion on bilateral development aid per year.
Economies of scale might reduce unit cost to £120.
Take 50% of DFiD’s budget and do the maths for how many that would buy.
My question is this, would a broad stroke like this (and one which would support a British company) do more to reduce conflict in a specific area than a myriad of piecemeal projects?