Post an IdeaIt only takes a minute Most PopularWhat's Hot Most RecentJust Posted Most CommentedWhat's Creating a Buzz?

Comments & Ideas have closed

Thank you for your Comments & Ideas!

 

  1
3519
Vote!
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.

 
2429
Vote!
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?
 
2493
Vote!
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.

 
3384
Vote!
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.

 
3067
Vote!
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.

 
3041
Vote!
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.

 
  1