1 person noted that the DAC peer review report recommended greater Australian aid engagement with Australian NGOs, particularly where opening new programs (e.g. Africa).  Another person noted disparities between high levels of standards that NGOs are held to, and low level of funding received. 1 person suggested that parts of a country, such as north Kenya, rarely receive donor funding and that aid via smaller NGOs (rather than large projects via government) has a greater chance of reaching its target...

[refer TOR 1D]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

1 person noted several findings from DARA's measurement of Australia’s humanitarian aid performance through the Humanitarian Response Index (HRI). This included: a) in 2010, Australia ranked 13th out of 23 OECD/DAC donors for applying Good Humanitarian Donorship principles in support of humanitarian action; b) that Australia should consider increasing the proportion of funding allocated to NGOs, often the first-line providers of aid in case of emergencies; and c) Australia should financially support and participate more actively in humanitarian accountability initiatives... [through] greater follow-up and accountability at the programming level'...

[refer TOR 1D]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

Thank you to everyone for sharing your views and insights on the Australian aid program here on http://aid.collabor8.net. Together, since January 2011, you've contributed to 130+ comments, almost 30 posts, and generated some great, interesting and thought-provoking discussions.

Voting: In March 2011, you voted on your top ideas. That's been 3,300+ votes. Thanks, everyone. Of all your ideas, 1/3 were for your top 5 ideas and 1/2 were for your top 10 ideas.  Here they are:

1. 349 votes - idea 8: disability inclusive
2. 215 votes - idea 24: disability in structure
3. 160 votes - idea 1: give to the poorest
4. 157 votes - idea 6: sectors - basics first
5. 153 votes - idea 9: integrating sectors

For the report on aid.collabor8.net and all your other votes on ideas, please check out the Gateway site: http://www.developmentgateway.com.au

Thanks from the Gateway Team

1 person noted ACFID’s submission to the peer review panel on behalf of Australian NGOs. Referenced NGO work within this submission included: around 60% of overseas humanitarian aid response in major emergencies being delivered through NGOs; and 35% of funds donated by the Australian community to Australian NGOs were directed to programs in Africa, representing over $280 million...

[refer TOR 2]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

1 person noted that more effective aid spending is critical and needs more attention, however ‘adequate, coordinated long term funding’ can mean significant improvements are possible, e.g. gains against malaria in many African countries (ref UNICEF) such as through the Global Fund.  1 person suggested effectiveness as narrowing the gap between our planning and the total context in which a project will unfold and offered ideas like giving a project manager the flexibility of a CEO in a small to medium sized enterprise, studying the uptake of project evaluation report recommendations, and not limiting effective projects to a set ministry/province/country for the 1, 3 or 5 year project...

[refer TOR 3]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

3 people focused on the need to address aid dependency. Of these, 2 people noted the need to review what aid is spent on, the kind of value that can be received, and project sustainability post-funding or country reliance on aid, rather than the amount of aid.  1 person mentioned Vanuatu specifically – noting approx. half of its GDP is via aid, and a range of examples they purport prove aid is ineffective in Vanuatu.

Another person expressed their shared views on corruption and wasted aid funding, including their preference that aid work support bottom up approaches rather than top down approaches, citing Cambodian examples. Another person expressed interest in an aid program that 'sought and developed local agents to effect programs and ensured money from aid goes to (and stays with) communities it is supposed to be aiding'...

[refer TOR 3]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

2 people noted the importance of monitoring for efficiency and effectiveness, the need for a clear baseline, disaggregated data and monitoring parameters (including in proposals), and involving beneficiaries if they have the capability. 2 people noted that community participatory M&E needed a venue where the poor – and people with disabilities - can actively participate.

1 person noted the difficulty for donors (like UN/WTO’s ITC) with no field office who rely on measurement tools, baseline and evaluations by a project coordinator, NGO or beneficiary. 2 people noted the need for either more qualitative assessment of aid projects, or use of a social tool like SROI. 1 person noted ways of getting good M&E info mix text and online reporting, with talking to the people involved...

[refer TOR 3]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

1 person noted the need to focus on the broader context in designing an M&E framework for a project in order to ensure interaction and impact of external factors (and refer to M&E model processes as guidance only). They suggested this helps to overcome false attribution of “success” to the project. Another person captures the context and honour the work being done on programs by finding the ongoing and evolving story. They also noted the need to start with an exit strategy in mind, to identify who will continue the work and manage dependence on repeat funding...

[refer TOR 3]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

1 person suggested practical tools to help show if aid is effective, like SMS-messaging on: reporting crises; if water-points are working; if books are received in schools. Another person asked for practical suggestions for how best to ‘monitor and assess ODA in insecure environments’ like Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan. 2 people noted transparency initiatives such as community-based monitoring of government or aid expenditure. Examples included ‘Publish What You Pay’, and school funding. 1 person suggested a simplified version of NRM's 'Performance Story Report' may work...

[refer TOR 3]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.

1 person suggested AusAID prepare the Australian public for the reality of aid as a ‘high risk venture… that they will lose money and that this is necessary’, and that it is difficult to give aid for preventative reasons. Another suggested finding the ‘hard data (actual numbers) on success is difficult to come by’...

[refer TOR 3]

Do you strongly agree? If so, please vote here.