Roundtable says USAID programs need to focus on training (07/28/96)

Roundtable says USAID programs need to focus on training

by Yaro Bihun

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Agency for International Development is conducting many worthwhile assistance programs in the various areas in which Ukraine needs development assistance, but there is a need to focus more on training and transferring knowledge and experience and, in so doing, becoming more effective and saving the U.S. taxpayers' money.

About 100 experts and those interested in the field got this message from the main speakers at a roundtable discussion on U.S. assistance to Ukraine sponsored on June 27 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. The speakers were USAID's Western NIS Director Gregory Huger and Ukrainian Ambassador Yuri Shcherbak, with CSIS Senior Associate Richard Murphy moderating.

The recommendation about saving money, surprisingly enough, came from the Ukrainian ambassador.

"We are concerned that a significant portion of U.S. assistance has been spent, not on trainers, but on consultants and travel expenses," Ambassador Shcherbak said. This results in U.S. companies doing the necessary work without providing training to competent Ukrainian personnel, who, "under U.S. training and supervision, can accomplish the tasks at a fraction of the cost."

"Involving Ukrainians would also increase the cost-effectiveness of U.S. taxpayers' money spent for foreign technical assistance," he said.

Ukraine's ambassador suggested that USAID concentrate more on training "trainers" in the United States, and not - as sometimes happens - "tourists and shoppers." The agency should also set up special training centers in Ukraine's large cities, like Kyiv, Lviv, Kharkiv, Odessa, Dnipropetrovske and Donetske, he added.

Even though it may be one of the best kept secrets in Ukraine and in the United States, Ambassador Shcherbak said American assistance has already helped train thousands of Ukrainian students and professionals. With this, as with other USAID successes, he said, the agency should do more to increase public awareness in both countries.

"The absence of such information has caused misunderstandings and is often used by leftist Communist opposition for distorting the real picture of international support to Ukrainian reforms," he said.

Dr. Shcherbak expressed Ukraine's "deep appreciation" for all that USAID has done thus far and said he was very pleased to see the U.S. Senate (at least in committee) once again allocating $225 million for Ukraine. "This is a remarkable gesture under conditions of over-all cutting of foreign aid," Ambassador Shcherbak underscored.

The ambassador noted that President Leonid Kuchma had outlined three priorities for economic reform in Ukraine - energy sector restructuring and efficiency, agricultural privatization, and small business development - and that Kyiv informed the U.S. government about these priority needs.

Mr. Huger, USAID's Western NIS director, described his agency's priorities in Ukraine, and they coincided with Ukraine's stated needs. In addition, USAID programs also focus on the building of democracy in Ukraine and looking after the social services of those Ukrainians who have not been able to cope during this transitional period.

In the energy sector, Mr. Huger said, the U.S. is helping modernize Ukraine's electrical power system, make its coal mines market-oriented, close Chornobyl, and set up training for energy specialists.

In agriculture, USAID is working to help privatize the land; provide credit to farmers; establish commodity exchanges, processing, distribution and storage systems; and reduce agriculture-caused pollution.

USAID programs also focus on the development of small businesses and on building a good climate for trade and investment.

The $225 million earmarked for Ukraine in the Senate foreign aid budget came under scrutiny as well as a little ridicule during the general roundtable discussion.

Charles Flickner, staff director of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Foreign Operations, which does not earmark like its Senate counterpart does, singled out some of the individually earmarked programs in the Senate bill - like the $20 million for the "purchase, construction, installation and training for full scope and analytical/engineering simulators." When asked if this, and other earmarks, coincided with USAID's program goals or Ukraine's priority needs, Mr. Huger and Ambassador Shcherbak could not reply in the affirmative.

Mr. Flicker hinted that some of these earmarks may have been written in response more to contractors' needs than to USAID or Ukrainian needs and priorities.

In his presentation, Ambassador Shcherbak pointed out that even though cooperation and communication between USAID and relevant Ukrainian agencies have greatly improved, he still gets messages from these agencies that "there is still much to be done to improve mutual understanding between the providers and recipients of this assistance."

He also noted that he finds himself at a loss to explain why Ukraine has received only 60 percent of appropriated Fiscal Year 1996 U.S. assistance funds, compared to more than 70 percent for Russia and over 80 percent for Armenia, Georgia, Belarus and others.

| Home Page |