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

• "To reduce poverty, achieve sustainable development... [but why also include] 'in line with Australia's national interests[?]'" (Thanks, Sam)
• Is the 'national interest' point "... ambiguous? Does that mean that we only provide aid if it helps our own country?" (Comment by Weh)
• "Can it not mean that aid should be part of... what Australia means in the world? (not only) 'taken to mean to support Australia's economic interests'?" (Thanks, Alex)
• "...we have a moral obligation to spend the 0.3% of our GNI which is aid money on alleviating poverty, and keep that separate from the remaining 99.7% which is for Australia's national interest" (Nishan's comment) 

2. Responsibility of government

• "regional stability in the Asia Pacific region" is important... but "is this really the role of foreign aid"? (Thanks, Weh)
• Perhaps "Human rights, and the promotion and securing of, must be the anchor of Australia's aid program" (Comment by Brendan)

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?

While governments must be encouraged to increase their capacity to include people with disabilities and ensure that they equally benefit from services, until such time as capacity is established, it is necessary to support parallel services so that people with disabilities are not further marginalised.

Thanks, Lucy, for your new insights and contribution.  Here’s a re-phrasing of just 3 suggestions I see here. 

Could evaluation be improved through: 1. more open and formal responses to evaluations; 2. the better use of data (and its analysis); and 3. more follow-up on M&E plans?

What are some of your views…?

AusAID has a reasonable evaluation policy but it is not really implemented. I have, for example, never seen a formal management response to an evaluation - even though they are nominally required. Similarly, the design and resourcing of evaluations are almost always very limited and would not pass for a rigorous evaluation in other circumstances: there is often little formal data collection and less formal data analysis, for example. I would like to see greater accountability in AusAID that enables honest assessments and actual responses to those assessments... it all seems pretty opaque at the moment. 

I also have a real concern about aspects of the increasing internalisation of AusAID implementation - where programs are led by team leaders who are permanent staff on postings, for example. Obviously sometimes this works well, but there is generally much, much less accountability for performance compared to what would exist if someone was on contract for this job. Further, AusAID staff do tend to move on, and their postings are generally not tied to the needs of such a role so the changeovers can happen at very odd and unsuitable times. And overall - where is the accountability to honestly monitor and report? I have seen several cases of 'in house' M&E plans that are never actually implemented, and no-one ever challenges this or follows it up. If a contractor was behaving like this there would be hell to pay! How is this an improvement in implementation? 

Hi Karina, thanks for highlighting some of these ideas. 

What about others working in different sectors or specific countries?

What would your top tips be to AusAID? How would you suggest your area of interest could be better reviewed and evaluated, to good effect? 

In planning and commissioning programs to meet the Millennium Development Goals, unless the issue of disability is specifically included, the Millennium Development Goals cannot be reached. To strengthen effective evaluation of the aid program there must be:

·         Capacity building of the Office of Development Effectiveness to measure and evaluate for disability inclusive development;

·         More substantive reviews should involve stakeholder consultation, including consultation with people with disabilities in partner countries;

·         Lessons learned from mainstreaming gender equity across the Australian aid program should be applied to the mainstreaming of disability, including recommendations identified by the Office of Development Effectiveness.