An NGO suggests printing a zero-rupee note.

[Answering someone's comment somewhere else]

The US does not give more money to other countries than its own.  Historically US foreign aid is the lowest percent of GDP among western countries.

Around $116b was pledged by the USG for Katrina, and around $100m was pledged for Haiti post-earthquake (over a 100-fold difference). I haven't seen an estimate of the economic damage, but we know that loss of life in Haiti is already 20 times that of Katrina, and estimated to be 40 times.

John Maxwell says, "...the essence is captured in the brutal attempt to obliterate the spirit of Haitian community; ... the attacks on education and the obliteration of the community self-help systems which meant that when Hurricane Jeanne and all the other weather systems since have struck Haiti many more have died than in any other country similarly stricken. In an earthquake, totally unpredictable, every bad factor is multiplied" (emphasis mine, read it all, it's worth it - hat tip kouredios ).

Nicolas Kristof points out: 

Haiti ranks 42nd among poor countries in worldwide aid received per person ($103 in 2008, more than one-quarter of which comes from the United States). David Roodman of the Center for Global Development calculates that in 2008, official American aid to Haiti amounted to 92 cents per American.

The United States gives more to Haiti than any other country. But it ranks 11th in per capita giving. Canadians give five times as much per person as we do.

Kristof's numbers come from here.  He is working hard in his column (link above) to point out certain prejudices of people considering whether or not to give aid.  Apparently some people think Haiti is inherently poor and Haitians are inherently low IQ.  Nice review, but the two words he still couldn't get out are color and race.
 

The Democratic Republic of Congo has announced it is sending $2.5m (£1.5m) in emergency aid to Haiti, to help it cope with last week's earthquake.

Some Congolese have criticised the offer. After years of conflict, which is still raging in the east, millions of people live in poverty.

The country depends on foreign aid and civil servants frequently go unpaid.

But Information Minister Lambert Mende told the BBC that DR Congo would contribute within its means.

"Congo isn't bankrupt, our own problems shouldn't prevent us from helping a brother country," he said.

But political scientist Ntanda Nkere from the University of Kinshasa told the BBC:

"It's a contradiction to see a country which is facing serious financial problems giving away $2.5m but at the same time, it's a purely diplomatic reaction, the Congolese government wants to appear like any other government."

On Sunday, Senegal's President Abdoulaye Wade said he was offering free land to any Haitians who wanted to "return" to Africa.

Most of Haiti's population are descended from slaves.

"The president is offering voluntary repatriation to any Haitian that wants to return to their origin," said Mr Wade's spokesman, Mamadou Bemba Ndiaye.

Responding to the Senegalese offer, Mr Mende said the government would certainly not reject any Haitians if they wanted to move to DR Congo.

The earthquake killed tens of thousands in Haiti, with many bodies still stuck in the remains of buildings.

Aid is slowly arriving but aid workers are struggling to distribute it to all those who need it.

But opposition politician Victoire Ingabire, who has returned to Rwanda for the first time since the genocide, says Hutus were also killed by Tutsis.

Genocide survivors group Ibuka says her comments amount to "genocide negation" and she should be prosecuted.

Now 200,000 estimated dead from Haiti earthquake.

If you're in Bunia in prison, or if they let you out of prison and kept all your stuff, but you're in a hotel without any of your stuff, and you call your embassy thousands of miles away, they probably cannot help you directly.

If you drove through Virunga National Park on a motorcycle, where there is now an outbreak of armed conflict, you should probably be happy that the only thing that happened to you was that you got arrested and then put in a hotel that is draining your resources while the authorities sit on your flash disks, cameras, laptops, and bike.

If you have a friend in the UN, and he told you to get a letter of clearance from a ministry, and you did not do that, it's kind of your fault that you got arrested.

If you have been to Bunia before, and you know how sensitive photography is in DR Congo, and you know not to take photos in the market or of uniformed men, and you've been reminded of these points, and you did it anyway, it's kind of your fault that you got arrested.

If you were sent to DR Congo to do a piece on mining, for example, or perhaps something to do with Lake Albert, or maybe both, you shouldn't be surprised if you get arrested.

If you get yourself arrested on a long weekend, it is probably wise to borrow money from your friend, since you can't access Western Union, since the authorities have your passport, and the embassy can't do much except...wire you money.

If you pay your way out for a lesser sum than quoted, and are escorted out of the country with all of your worldly goods minus the photos the authorities deleted, it would probably be reasonable NOT to wire the authorities the rest of the money.

If someone helps you over the phone, and you say, Thank you so much!! - If you ever come through ___ I'll buy you dinner, you shouldn't be surprised if she never shows up.

Researchers have mapped the genes of Artemisia annua to allow selection of high-yield varieties.

The study, published in the journal Science, aims to make growing the plant more profitable for farmers.

BBC News - Gene map of anti-malaria plant could boost supply
 

 Now, development was once the province of humanitarians, charities, and governments looking to gain allies in global struggles. Today it is a strategic, economic, and moral imperative – as central to advancing American interests and solving global problems as diplomacy and defense.

 Because development is indispensible, it does demand a new approach suited for the times in which we find ourselves. For too long, our work has been riven by conflict and controversy. Differences of opinion over where and how to pursue development have hardened into entrenched, almost theological, positions that hold us back. These stand-offs aren’t fair to the experts who put their lives on the line doing this critical work. They aren’t fair to the American taxpayers who, by and large, want to do good in the world, so long as the money is used well.

 So it’s time for a new mindset for a new century. Time to retire old debates and replace dogmatic attitudes with clear reasoning and common sense. And time to elevate development as a central pillar of all that we do in our foreign policy. And it is past time to rebuild USAID into the world’s premier development agency. (Applause.)

 Now, the challenges we face are numerous. So we do have to be selective and strategic about where and how to get involved. But whether it’s to improve long-term security in places torn apart by conflict, like Afghanistan, or to further progress in countries that are on their way to becoming regional anchors of stability, like Tanzania, we pursue development for the same reasons: to improve lives, fight poverty, expand rights and opportunities, strengthen communities, secure democratic institutions and governance; and in doing so, to advance global stability, improve our own security, and project our values and leadership in the world.

 A new mindset means a new commitment to results. Development is a long-term endeavor. Change seldom happens overnight. To keep moving in the right direction, we must evaluate our progress and have the courage to rethink our strategies if we fall short. We must not simply tally the dollars we spend or the number of programs we run, but measure the lasting changes that these dollars and programs help achieve. And we must share the proof of our progress with the public. The elementary school teacher in Detroit trying to send her kids to college or the firefighter in Houston working hard to support his family are funding our work. They deserve to know that when we spend their tax dollars, we are getting results.

 We must also be honest that, in some situations, we will invest in places that are strategically critical but where we are not guaranteed success. In countries that are incubators of extremism, like Yemen, or ravaged by poverty and natural disasters, like Haiti, the odds are long. But the cost of doing nothing is potentially far greater.

 And we must accept that our development model cannot be formulaic – that what works in Pakistan may not work in Peru. So our approach must be case by case, country by country, region by region, and cross countries and regions, to face the transnational threats and problems that we are encountering. We need to analyze needs, assess opportunities, and tailor our investments and our partnerships in ways that maximize the impact of our efforts and resources.