10519

vote!
average rating:
give rating:
Should aid be given to further Australia's national interest?
posted by: Sam, 19 Mar 2011, 14:34 PM
category: 5. Reviews, evaluation & risk
At present, the official objective of Australia’s aid program is to ‘assist developing countries to reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interests. Is this fair? Should our aid money be used to further our strategic commercial and geopolitical goals? Or should it be used purely to alleviate poverty in our neighbouring developing countries? Discuss.
7334

vote!
average rating:
give rating:
About 'Reviews, evaluation & risk'
posted by: ADG, 06 Jan 2011, 15:23 PM
category: 5. Reviews, evaluation & risk
This 5th topic has gained plenty of attention in recent years. The Review Panel will also focus on the review and evaluation of the aid program. Are current arrangements best? What can be done to strengthen the evaluation of the aid program? How can fraud and risk in the aid program be best managed? Big questions... so, any early ideas?
6881

vote!
average rating:
give rating:
How can we strengthen reviews?
posted by: ADG Team, 31 Jan 2011, 11:01 AM
category: 5. Reviews, evaluation & risk
Could the way the aid program is reviewed and evaluated, including the role of the Office of Development Effectiveness (ODE) be strengthened? Is this already underway, noting the recent appointment of an independent chair of AusAID's Audit Committee? (http://bit.ly/eSd5Tn). The UK government has set up an Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) which will report directly to parliament (http://bit.ly/fpdJP7). Matt Morris on http://devpolicy.org also blogs recently about some donors' moves to more independent models of evaluation - in UK, Sweden and World Bank.
What do you think most matters - is at the heart - of a good/the best possible review and evaluation mechanism for the aid program? Or what about at your initiative or project level - what matters most for reviews and evaluation? Please share your thoughts - post an idea or add a comment.
8785

vote!
average rating:
give rating:
idea 27: strengthen evaluations
posted by: ADG, 24 Mar 2011, 16:16 PM
category: 5. Reviews, evaluation & risk
1 person suggested AusAID has a reasonable evaluation policy, but that it lacks sound implementation. In particular, they suggest: more open and formal responses to evaluations; the better use of data (and its analysis); and more follow-up on monitoring and evaluation plans. They also suggest a greater position-accountability in AusAID for monitoring and reporting on programs. 1 person suggests capacity building for ODE so they can measure and evaluate for disability inclusive development...
[refer TOR 5A]
Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.
7635

vote!
average rating:
give rating:
idea 28: for recurrent funding
posted by: ADG, 24 Mar 2011, 16:17 PM
category: 5. Reviews, evaluation & risk
2 people noted a historical taboo against funding ‘recurrent expenditure’ (and a reticence for donors to use partner country systems where they are weak and threaten implementation). They suggest ‘allowing the resources to be allocated to where the bottleneck is,… often in the recurrent budget’. Another person expressed the view that it is very difficult to get recurrent funding in to the national recipient country budget...
[refer TOR 5B]
Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.
7624

vote!
average rating:
give rating:
idea 29: partner procurement
posted by: ADG, 24 Mar 2011, 16:18 PM
category: 5. Reviews, evaluation & risk
1 person noted another donor, ADB’s, focus on strengthening partner country’s procurement capacity in Asia and the Pacific, and suggested this as a focus for AusAID. They suggested public procurement reform as a thematic sector in AusAID rather than under governance or PFM. 1 person suggested funds through local community groups and local NGOs as they viewed them as more ‘efficient and effective in acquitting funds and making a difference [than governments]’...
[refer TOR 5B]
Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.
Hi James, Thanks for your contribution and the link to the interesting article.
Do others agree or disagree with this idea or various ones in this discussion thread, including this excerpt from Gary Lee of Aid/Watch?
We have one more, final day for posts and comments before public voting begins... please add in your ideas here, if you like.
See comments by Gary Lee of Aid/Watch in this Herald article from Saturday: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/does-foreign-aid-do-more-harm-than-good-20110318-1c0a1.html
"Although the last review of Australia's aid program in 1997 called for a shift away from short-term foreign policy and commercial objectives to one focused on poverty reduction, the practice of using the aid program to promote Australia's national interest continues. For example, half of Australian aid to Afghanistan between 2007 and 2009 was channelled through the Australian Defence Force, which is not required to report or evaluate the impact of its aid."
Hi All
If you're keen to read more, feel free to check out whydev's longer discussion piece on this topic here: http://www.whydev.org/open-submission-to-the-ausaid-review/
Thanks
ADG Team
Hi Sam - thank you to your post and others, for your comments here. You raise some interesting points, and new perspectives. Much appreciated.
Here are some key points I saw emerging. What do people think about some of these points? Do you agree or disagree? Maybe you find other points of interest?
1. Objective of Australian aid
2. Responsibility of government
Please feel free to add comments you have in the next few days. Then we'll close posts and comments on aid.collabor8.net, and open public voting…
What do you think about Australian aid?
In terms of the Australian government's responsibility, it is absolutely their role look after regional stability in the Asia Pacific region, and yes, that is what we pay our taxes for. But, coming back to my original point (and the point made by Nishan elsewhere in the comments), is this really the role of foreign aid? Or would it be better allocated to another task performed by DFAT, while we separate AusAid from this department?
Just to throw a grenade in the midst, on the point of responsibility. Is it not our government's responsibility, as a representative of the Australian people, to look after our interests in the Asia Pacific region? To ensure stability, which will secure our own economic and social lives? Aid is the Australian taxpayers money. I am not taking this particular view, just trying to make sense of responsibility. Human rights, and the promotion and securing of, must be the anchor of Australia's aid program. I have no empirical evidence on me, but intuition tells me that the link between a person's human rights (Sen = ability to pursue a life that is meaningful to them) and poverty (as a relative term) is strong.
You have hit the nail on the head Nishan - housing AusAid under DFAT is a massive problem. Just take a look at the negotiations around the new trade agreement for the Pacific (Pacer Plus). This is supposedly a 'development-centered' round of trade talks, however its primary purpose is quite clearly to open up markets for Australian providers, particularly service exporters. Separating AusAid into a seperate department with another Minister would be a great sign of faith to the Australian NGO community and to the countries who are recipients of our aid money.
That is a very instructive way to frame it Nishan and a strong, rational argument for allocating 0.3% of GNI on the grounds of moral responsibility and human rights rather than national interest
I think the use of the term 'national interest' by the Australian government is fairly overtly about 'bringing benefit to Australia' rather than 'aligning to Australian morality' . AusAID is currently under the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), which has the objective of 'Advancing Australia's national interest'. To me this is clearly about Australias benefit and I think its reasonable that DFAT has this objective. However i think we have a moral obligation to spend the .3% of our GNI which is aid money on alleviating poverty, and keep that seperate from the remaining 99.7% which is for Australia's national interest.
"in line with Australia's national interests" - this is where I think things can become ambiguous. Does that mean that we only provide aid if it helps our own country? If so, I think this is fraught with danger because the recipient of aid is often placed secondary to our own needs. The example I am thinking of is that of the US providing condoms for African nations, which ultimately boosts their own manufacturing industry. However, if they were to outsource the production of condoms to African manufacturers, not only would they boost the local industries but they would also be able to produce them at a much lower cost. Therefore, if foreign aid is provided on a purely altruistic level (eg alleviation of poverty), this is clearly not a good use of resources.
"In Australia's national interest" has, in all these comments, been taken to mean to support Australia economic interests. What is the actual meaning of this statement? That aid should pave the way for Rio Tinto to pave over Borneo and Coles to open in Colombo or Suva? Can it also mean that aid should not be given to governments that don't deserve it, i.e. North Korea, Eritrea, and Burma? Even if the citizens of those countries are poor. Can it not mean that aid should be part of a larger discussion about what Australia's national interest is in the world? What Australia means in the world?