Thank you, Toby, for your comments here and new perspectives. 

Others - any final ideas or inputs here before posts and comments close up and voting begins?

I would like to see much more innovation in Australian aid, and a flexible, effective and outcomes focussed team that draws on expertise and works with talent across sectors to find solutions. I think there is a great pool of talent attracted to work in aid that should be enabled to innovate and work with local institutions and staff to achieve outcomes in communities.  

 

And can we reduce outsourcing of programs? Outsourcing dilutes accountability and provides no incentive for ongoing improvement, rather encourages the cheapest delivery of minimal outcomes.

 

Please review our youth programs – tokenistic, ineffective projects are offensive and demoralising to the intelligent young Australians involved. We can do better.

 

Great to see a forum, hope more people comment!

Hi John and PNG guy, Thanks for your comments here and interesting viewpoints.

Are there other ideas people would like to share on this? What do you think - could experience be shared more in the public domain?

Please feel free to share your thoughts...

There is something in PNG guy's question, aid practioners gain quite a good, perspective on different countries and cultures, this is not used much by business and others with dealings in the developing world, possibly they think we are too niaive or not commercial? Collaboration between aid and infrastructure projects is one area of colloboration through the major engineering companies who do both types of work, but the experience is not in the public domain as png guy would like.   

I go to PNG and the Pacific on business sometimes. It's often hard to find the information I want. I'm sure I'm not the first to encounter certain challenges of in working in the region.

It would be great to have somewhere to share experiences and swap notes. It would be great to draw on other experiences and reports on line. And while story-telling may be part of the oral tradition in the Pacific, it seems these traditions have yet to find their voice online.

What if we each became more active in pooling our expertise online more (like in blogs, forums, online sites)? Would it really be such a leap? Could this be part of the solution toward delivering successes in the future? We can share lessons learnt in real-time.

gee john, you sound like an agency...... the agency needs to have a sense of what is happening but what change is the agency is planning for......

Hi John, Thanks very much for your considered comments here. 

I found a link to the World Bank publication you mention (http://bit.ly/hNdrl2) - there's a brief summary there in case others are interested.

Your point about mobile phone technology as an enabler may also be interesting to others. In 2010 there were 3.7 billion mobile phone subscriptions in developing countries (http://bit.ly/f9WyFV).

There are a number of subjects in this string that I can comment on from 30 years experience.

IT in development: Mobile phone technology has helped in general communications and in micro credit, it seems to be going to help in insurance, particulaly health and as web browsers become more 'mobile friendly' they will help more in education.

Australia's best contribution: Aid is part of Australia's 'presence' in the world, aid is cheap diplomacy and a somewhat effective means of 'extending' our skills, products etc to others. Our aid program shows we are prepared to contribute (think of the 2004 Tsunami). It follows from this that we should focus where our 'presence' is of most use to us, and where our skills and products can be useful to others. This is mostly our region but diplomatic and trade benefits can accure from effort in other regions. In my experience our education contributions in the widest sense have been the most useful to others, I have often been struck by this when meeting people I knew 20 years ago in senior postions, although our universities seem to be assidously degrading this benefit in the interests of income.

Consultants long and short term: This is not a simple subject, consultants supply the market provided by agencies, who are bureacracies made up of people with a mix of motives, fears and aspirations.  Bureacracies tend to punish failure more than they reward success (at least for the people at the coal face). AusAid's staff have been more successful than most in insulating them selves from the consequences of their actions (and so unfortunately the lessons) and consultants (and committees) are used in this process. The solutions? more indepth reviews and particulatly institutional shakeups. Delegate more to posts, reduce reliance on technical committees, make individual staff more responsible, implement projects with local/Australian joint ventures thus improving the educational effect. Some of this is already happening.

The value developing countries see from Australians: 30 years teaches me that people value our informality, friendliness and often our competence (an important part of the education benefit). Some times our confidence in the rightness of our positions is quite grateting but we are not alone in this regard among donors. Aus Aid seems to have a reputation for being expensive, inflexiable and isolated institutionally.  In spite of its rhetoric it remains a paternalistic institution.   

Do we achieve anything for the recipient partners? Yes, considering the risk, the complexity and resulting cultural misunderstandings this is a very difficult business. A World Bank publications of some time ago, Foreign Aid; What Works, What Doesn't and Why (Dollar and Pritchard) showed that joint private, public acivities between developed countries and developing countries with shared history (usually colonial) produced more ecomonic benefits that others (although our experience in PNG would seem to belie this). This suggests a long term thought through collaboration ith plenty of education in the widest sense will of most mutual benefit to us and our partners.   

Hi Dianne, 'Making a contribution', and Gillian.  An engaging discussion thread here. You’ve each raised some unique points – thanks very much.

How can we best make use of the contribution that advisers, volunteers, Australians and others want to make to and invest in, Australia’s aid program? 

What do people think about more ‘interaction and sharing of information between organisations’?

Please share your ideas with us and others... Keen to know what you think.

As a consultant, I have to agree with 'Making a contribution's' post re: the churning of consultants.

But I would like to add that this is often not the way that consultants want things to be! For example, it is extremely demoralising to be brought in to undertake research that youhave been told will be used to inform program development, only to find out that the program starts even before the research is complete (and that it is, essentially, a 'cut and paste' job with logframe copied from a pre-existing project).

Does anyone else ever feel like we are all just jumping through hoops, doing tasks because the tasks are expected rather than doing tasks because they are thought through, useful, and timely?

I agree with Dianne. Another contributing frustration to the problems of 'people churn' mentioned by Dianne would have to be an over use of consultants by AusAID (as well as many other country's aid programs). I have seen a number of consultants employed by AusAID fly in to the capital of a country for a week. Go around and meet with everyone who may be available on such short notice and then fly home to write a report for AusAID which no one ever sees again and no one knows what impact such reports ever had.

Some sort of internal ‘project office’ within AusAID to undertake the type of work currently been done by external consultants might be a solution to this and be able to provide a bit more accountability in these circumstances.

As a person who has just spent 6 years living and working in Rwanda on health development I think Monkey makes some good points about "the coming and going" of people.  I have been observing this dynamic from my privileged position of long service. Most people (?experts) come and go within a year, often less and rarely more. Sustainability of change and development take time and willingness to "wait", fit in, understand, encourage, teach and teach again, then reiterate. Too many development organisations want the quick fix which looks great on paper for attracting the funds but which is often meaningless and unsustainable on the ground. I have never been to Melanesia but I don't imagine the aid and development approach is too different there from where I am. Clearly I am a proponent of long term commitment.

Also one of the other contributors talks about donors tripping over each other. Aid is a competitive business, which can lead to a great deal of overlap and wastage of funding and resources. I have watched several organisations spending money on the same projects; all ending up producing pretty close to the same thing without any interaction or sharing of information. Whatever programme structure is implemented this needs to be considered.

Thanks, 'Monkey'.

Building on your comment a bit, do others have any further thoughts on the statement: "Melanesian partners value our aid efforts;... but how well do we know each other?"

People need to be able to go where their skill set leads them. the dynamic of people coming and going in the pacific is generally ok but at the moment there are just too many people coming and then going. there needs to be more opportunities and agencies should encourage people to develop pacific regional expertise. At the moment it seems most people do their time in the pacific to move onto africa / asia / emergencies.  

generally speaking melanesian people have a very local point of view and so often do not respond well to a conga line of TAs rotating through the office - especially when there is an imbalance of power in the relationship. It is not the fault of either party but, despite the lip service, it does represent a failure to understand the context and cross cultural issues. And generally understanding of context and cross cultural issues will come through experience. And dont kid yourself, it takes time to build relationships.

I do believe that Melanesian partners value Australia's aid effort. But neither of the partners have built up a list of what they can and cannot tolerate in the relationship so often we are progressing based on we think we both understand, it all gets back to how well we know each other.

Often too it seems difficult for our partners to compromise on issues around culture or belief, especially when there is a relatively local point of view. It is only when there are shared experiences and a bit of mutual learning that we start to see or reveal these things to each other. Then you can start to talk about resilient capacity and sustainability etc etc  

Hi 'Monkey'. Thanks for your comment.  Any other views on these ideas? Should there be more focus on a long-term presence and built relationships in Melanesia? Do we really know what Australia's aid partners value? Please share your thoughts...

I suppose Barry makes some good points but it is good to recall the fact that these are independant states that have been free to make mistakes, and repeat their mistakes, just as the Australian Aid program has.  

The balckbirding reference is a bit superficial though as that story was much more collaborative than most people realise.

One issue to me is the absolute dearth of people with long term experience working in development among those closest of neighbours Barry mentions. We have lots of people with theory and opinions but not many who have kept a long term  prescence and built relationships in, for example, Melanesia. There are cross cultural issues that mean often we dont really know what is happening and the impact we want is not valued by partners  - even in supposed no brainers such as better medical care.

Thanks, Barry for your comment. You've raised some different perspectives - including, of interest, that there are 5 LDCs in the Pacific (bit.ly/dODK02). Did others know that? What do others think - do you agree or disagree that there should be more  attention for aid in the Pacific?

For those interested in this, there's also a new post on 'Where should aid be directed?' that poses some of these questions on aid by country and geography. Feel free to post up a comment or idea where you think is most relevant.

Australia should regard the existence of five Least Developed Countries in the Pacific as an indicator of the long-term systemic failure of its aid program and an indictment of its indifference to our near neighbours' human and economic development, especially considering Australia's long history in the region as a quasi-colonial power, often as a proxy for Great Britain, and, before Federation, as a slave trader feeding Queensland's sugar plantations courtesy of the blackbirders.

Australia also owes the Pacific its undivided attention for its own strategic interests, as increasingly the great powers flex their muscles and throw their dollars, yuan, yen and roubles around the region.

Thanks to 'Just a suggestion' for a thought-provoking idea. The Review will take into account partner country absorptive capacities, so it's opportune to discuss these sorts of questions. On the subject of best geographic focus of Australia's aid program: what do others think? Do people have any specific suggestions on criteria or ways to best allocate and use given aid resources by country/countries? Does anyone have an example to share on this topic?

Would it not make sense for a middle sized country like Australia to withdraw from some of the places where donors and multilaterals are all tripping over each other and spending half their time on "donor coordination" and focus those same resources more intensively on some of the forgotten countries, or possibly the more promising reformers at any given time.

Hi Simple-Truth, This is an interesting topic, thank you for the contribution. What do others think on the topic of IT as a tool for reducing poverty? The recent Matt Morris' post, 'Monitoring aid projects' here discussed IT as a tool for project monitoring by communities, too. Can educating people in use of IT tools be a great-leveller across countries?. What do people think? Can anyone offer specific, practical examples from experience in the field?

Use of ICT for enabling poverty eradication

Information Technology is a tool and an enabler in poverty eradication. At present poor people are not accessing information technology knowledge due to lack of awareness and financial difficulties. If we can do awareness first and how information technology can be used for creating opportunities will be a great enabler in eradicating poverty. Education in information technology has barriers such as financial difficulties, language(i.e. technology is use in English and some other languages) therefore poor people communities may never be able find a path unless we as information technology professionals, language teaching professionals and financiers can get together and make a solution to reach the poor people will help them to be aware with technology, get the education and use this as an income generating source. Example: I am coming from a middle class family. After completion my Advanced Level I did not have much money to learn in the Information Technology. I had to ask help from a closest friends of mine to get financial assitance to learn Information Technology. Same time I was eager to learn the English language because it is the enabler to learn Information Technology. It took me more years than I expected to learn Information Technolgy and language. If I were not get the financial assistance from my friend at that time I never be able to become myself as an Business Process Consultant as I am working today.

Hi 'M&E is cool' - thanks for your contributions here. Some interesting new ideas and perspectives.  

What do others think of these ideas? What about...:

• Could a simplified version of the 'Performance Story Report work? (see http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/books/pubs/performance-story.pdf)
• What about ways of getting good M&E info like mixing text and online reporting, with talking to the people involved?
• How do you capture the context and honour the work being done on your programs? Do you find the ongoing and evolving story helps?
• Do you also start with an exit strategy in mind... to identify who will continue the work and manage dependence on repeat funding?

Please post up any ideas or comments you like in this final day before voting starts...

Also, further to starting with baseline and outcomes in mind, it is so important to also start with an exit strategy from the outset.  To identify who will continue the work into the future (where relevant) and to manage dependence on repeat funding.

While I understand the need for measurement of some key (clear, simple) outputs, in my experience (environment programs – govt and ngo) monitoring and evaluation is required to evaluate what the funding/project has achieved and to learn from the projects experience to improve in the future.  In the programs I have worked on, what I need to see to achieve this is the story, the ongoing and evolving story, that gives context and tells me where we are, what we have achieved and where we need to go next.  To capture the context and honour the work being done. If such an evaluation could be combined with latest advances in effective aid/program delivery to plot the path forward I think it would be ideal.  

 

I think text and online reporting is fantastic (who uses paper, honestly). Another really great way to get good M&E information is to just talk to the people involved, by phone or in person, and find out what’s going on.  I have always found people are incredibly honest, helpful and so happy to hear that someone cares about what they are doing and how it is going.  In my view this is worth every second. I’ve managed projects from a distance and I think it is possible, but this kind of contact definitely helps.

 

I wouldn’t recommend an approach this complex, but you might be interested in this approach to M&E which mixes quantitative and qualitative info: http://www.nrm.gov.au/publications/books/pubs/performance-story.pdf. Maybe a simplified version could be workable?

Thanks, John, for your more recent comments here.  

Would people like to share any further comments on monitoring aid projects?

Please feel free to drop in a line, a referral, a link, a story, or any ideas you might like to share here over the next few days.... We welcome your ideas.

Some interesting discussion here, points of agreement

• Aid is a frustrating, risky and worthwhile activitiy, AusAid should communicate this to the electorate, who are a key ultimate supporter (Diplomats, traders and the military are others)
• M&E is similarly difficult, expensive and often misleading as nobody likes to be put in the position where they may be criticised so good baselines are often not established at the start and the data collection poor, almost nobody gets it right based on 30 years looking at these things in most IFIs Development agencies and many bi lateral agencies 
• Participatory M&E does not work in many cultures, quote from one former command economy  official "the stakeholder is the person who hangs onto the stake while you shoot him"  
• M&E does tend to focus on outputs and process, this is unfortunate but understandable as accountability is fundamental to it continuing
• It should devote much more attention to outcomes and the wider context and this is very difficult , periodic qualitative evaluations by experience people is one solution, there is a GEF system that focusses on reassessing goals, effectiveness effciency and cost effectiveness (the Mid term evaluations system, this can be found on UN web sites, I think this source may be useful, but I have not read this new publication  http://www.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/
• there should also be more emphasis on the use of M&E for adaptive management by participants
• evaluation in areas of poor security is very difficult, needs the most experienced people and more open TOR (something AuAid is not good at!) 

Hi Tony Voutas, Thanks for sharing your insights.  

What do others think about placing M&E in the wider context? Do you agree or disagree this should be part of designing an M&E framework, and also a means to ensure we don't ignore the impact of other factors (that could lead us to falsely attribute "success" to the project)?

Do you have examples of M&E mechanisms where the poor have anonymously and freely expressed their views on sub-projects?

It would be interesting to hear your views.

After years of M&E involvement, my feeling is that we have to relegate standard M&E model processes to guidance only status.  The wider context in which a project is operating should be a major factor in designing an M&E framework for a specific project.

There is a case for placebo areas being included within a project area to more accurately ascertain with and without project  results

While community participatory M&E is laudatory in terms of Western democratic tradition, in certain contexts it may return false information proclaiming successes which have not occurred.  Here is one anedotal example here in China.  It was a project aimed at demonstrating that NGO involvement at village level would have greater poverty reduction impacts than the predominant Government only poverty reduction drive.  Several highly competent NGOs took on different villages.  Most of the NGOs set up community participatory M&E committees ensuring that the poor were proportionately represented or over-represented on these committees.  The attendance of the poor at committee meetings dropped significantly over time. The wealthy and the semi-wealthy were dominated the committees.   They focussed their M&E attention on those sub-projects that benefitted their own interest groups.  When the external M&E team asked some of these committee members why the poor were no longer participating the most common answer was that the poor were not articulate enough, did not understand about the execution of subprojects, had nothing to say, and anyway, we more articulate committee members are able to speak on their behalf. (The NGOs could not regularly attend these meetings and facilitate greater participation by the poor).

The M&E mechanisms in this case needed a venue where the poor could anonymously and freely express their observations of progress on sub-projects and have their  comments on performance deficiencies acted on in a power structure where they were the lowest occupants

Focussing on the broader context is so important, as, in the case of poverty reduction, a range of factors external to the project may also be vectors for poverty reduction (e.g. reduction in agricultural taxes, improved access to markets through a recently completed road project).  Ignoring the interaction and impact of these external factors will most probably result in false attribution of "success" to the project.

Hi Dianne, Donna and Zach.  This is an interesting line of discussion – thanks for raising these ideas, suggestions and questions.

Here’s an extension on a couple of these… what do others think?

1. How can we best mix quantitative and qualitative assessment measures of aid programs? Could less (e.g. fewer participants in training (outputs side)) actually/sometimes mean more (e.g. if better training results (on outcomes side))?
   
2. Zach’s question: Given Australia's commitments there [in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan], does anyone have feelings, suggestions on how best to monitor & assess ODA in insecure environments?

 

Australia plays a significant role in Uruzgan Province, Afghanistan,- estimated 123 million AUD this year to Afghanistan, about 20% of that to Uruzgan. 

Uruzgan is a volatile place where direct monitoring and implementation of projects is quite difficult.  Given Australia's commitments there, does anyone have feelings, suggestions on how best to monitor & assess ODA in insecure environments?

There does need to be more qualitative assessment of aid projects. Quantitative will capture outputs, but not necessarily outcomes and long term effects. For example an education program to improve English through enhanced teaching methods could be measured according to number of teachers trained and number of students receiving improved instruction. Alternatively, qualitative assessment methods applied consistently over several years would measure techer effectiveness (and therefore training effectiveness), methods effectivesness, and actual learning outcomes. This might mean fewer participants because of the intensive nature of the project but it would ultimately be a better investment.  

I don't believe you can effectively manage and monitor development projects from afar nor by using a partner to do the management. It is essential to have someone at the point of delivery. I have seen what can happen too many times to think it can be done any other way.

I also agree with Mr Grumpy! Development is not a science and sometimes hard data (actual numbers) on success is difficult to come by.

Nevertheless all projects should have approaches to monitoring and evaluation with clear baselines included in their proposals

The comments made below made me realize how complex development is, the complexity of which is reinforced if an organisation like our International Trade Centre (UN/WTO) has no field office. You have to rely on the performance of a project coordinator and an Impact Measurement Tool with a baseline and two evaluations conducted half way and towards the end of projects. Now, no doubt that monitoring in between those evaluations is still highly needed to guarantee the best results possible. Electronically I agree is only possible in limited cases, and rarely in LDCs. Unless we partner with an NGO who can follow it up with the beneficiaries or train them properly on how to use the monitoring system and double checks every given period that everything is reported adequately.

Thanks, Mr Grumpy. You have some interesting points here.

What do others think? Do you agree or disagree that we need to accept that there are inherent risks with aid?  How would you approach the proposition that aid can prevent something (negative) from happening?... and what would you say to the Review Panel - how do you think they could craft their views of the aid program's approach to efficiency and effectiveness?

Really, all wonderfully warm and cosy. Success of success. But thin about it! Aid is necessarily difficult, complicated and risky. Whilst feedback loops etc are a good idea, you guys need to prepare the Australian public for the reality of aid. It is a high risk venture. The public need to understand that they will lose money and that this is necessary. Absolutely necessary because of geo-political and economic reasons - but it is NOT A SCIENCE. As Soros recently said - economists suffer from physics envy. If we only give aid to things we can "prove" work we will end up only giving aid in emergency. We wont be able to give aid for preventative reasons - how can you prove you prevented something from happening?

Matt - thanks for your original post, and Ann - for your comment on this discussion thread. These raise a range of interesting points, well worth more debate. The Review team is looking at the best approach to 'efficiency and effectiveness', so let's explore this. What do others think about tools or approaches that could make the aid program most 'effective' (achieving result(s)), and 'efficient' (well organised, without waste)? Matt suggests practical tools can help show if aid is effective, like SMS-messaging on: reporting crises; if water-points are working; if books are received in schools. Ann adds in the need for efficient processes: making sure beneficiaries/communities can measure what is there before and after. What do you think? Do you have some specific ideas or suggestions to offer on these topics?

No argument that monitoring for efficiency and effectiveness is fundamental to understanding what has been achieved, and how to do better. The process itself needs to be lean and efficient. Essential to this is that every project and programme needs to establish a clear baseline and monitoring parameters. Too often evaluation is frustrated by poor data about the status quo antea. Involving beneficiaries is great, so long as they have the capability; it helps them towards awareness of where they came from, and how they themselves have managed to change.

Hi All, Thanks for your contributions here... an interesting conversation about sector-thinking.

What about others' views? What do you think about best sectoral areas of focus for the Australian aid program?

We have a few days for final posts and comments on this site before we open public voting.  Please consider posting up ideas that you have...

Human rights framework: nice words, great idea, potentially meaningless (or extremely difficult) in practice?

I offer a couple of examples. First, it would be interesting to see a human rights framework applied to the issue of sexuality and gender identity, given that many developing countries still have punitive laws in place or, like Uganda, are in fact in the ongoing process of 'legally' threatening the lives of gay people.

Second, in certain countries, it is extremely difficult to even discuss projects that are explicilty linked to human rights.

Third, 'rights-based approach' seems to have suffered the fate of so many other concepts in that it becomes a much-repeated phrase, but with little actual content. (Rhetoric rather than reality.)

This is not to say that I think it is impossible or not worth trying to work from a human rights framework; just being devil's advocate.

Hi Karina and Anne. You make some interesting points, thanks.  It would be good to hear others' views, too. 

What do you think about how to address the needs of the 20% of people with disabilities living in developing countries?

Do you have any experience with the human rights framework and how this can be applied on a sector basis?

Disability inclusive development is a clear area of comparative advantage for the Australian aid program. It is important that we maintain and build on our leadership in disability inclusive development as a means by which Australia can play a particularly unique and specialised role. It is known from experience over several decades globally that addressing disability as a health issue has not achieved substantial changes in the rights of this massive minority group. In order to give greater prominence to this issue both to model good practice and to meet the objectives of Development for All in an effective way, it is essential that disability be addressed across all sectors within AusAID and the broader aid program. People with disabilities make up 20% of those living in developing countries whom programs are meant to target.

I agree completely with Gillian's comment that mainstreaming cross cutting issues has not been particularly effective. For example, in the Solomon Islands, 64% of ever partnered women 15-49 experience some form of violence. 37% of women 15-49 had been sexually abused before the age of 15. Yet the enormous investment in the law and justice sector that has been RAMSI, has not responded to this issue in any meaningful way. It is hard to imagine that a law & justice/peacebuilding initiative of such a scale would ignore any other crime faced by such a large proportion of any given population. Hardly an example of effective mainstreaming.

A human rights framework, as recently advocacy by UN Independent Expert Cephas Lumina (see http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=10720&LangID=E) would facilitate appropriate targeting both sectorally and geographically. It is impossible to imagine that application of such an approach would not result in a massive increase in specific work to promote women's human rights. Certainly PNG, a country with pervasive gender inequality, would see more than 2.4% of $62 million in direct expenditure on gender equality initiatives, as was reported in AusAID's most recent available gender performance report (06-07).

Thank you all for your comments and discussion here.

Here are a few key themes I saw emerge from this exchange. Perhaps others have seen different ideas raised that are of more interest to you?

Please let us know what you think about…:

• ADB’s focus on strengthening partner country’s procurement capacity – is this something you would support in AusAID’s approach, or not? (thanks, E. John Blunt)
• Working across a given sector with a range of different actors i.e. governments, NGOs, private sector, and community groups? (a different viewpoint from ‘Making a contribution’)
• Integrated thinking across sectoral programs, how they interact and what synergies are available (rather than focus on individual sectors)? (new thinking by Joel Negin)
• Thinking laterally about developing new categories, e.g. ‘child development’ encompassing both education and health (yet avoiding sector ‘layers’)? (lateral thinking from Gillian Fletcher)

Joel's point is a good one, I feel, but just to be devil's advocate: so-called 'mainstreaming' of cross-cutting issues such as gender does not seem to have worked too well either. Instead of silos, the risk (and, in my experience, the reality) is that we then have 'layers' that sit on top of each other but do not integrate.

Maybe there is a case to be made for thinking somewhat laterally here and developing new categories, that encompass the overall spirit of what is sought (e.g. 'child development' as a category that would encompass both education and health?). Just a thought.

Perhaps too much of the focus has been on individual sectors and too little focus on how sectors interact and what synergies are available.  Most aid organisations (and ministries and academic faculties) are organised by sector or expertise (health, education, agriculture, engineering/water, government/politics) and walls are built up between those.  Maybe we should argue for more integrated thinking about how various sectoral programs can strengthen communities and build more sustainable development.  I know this goes against how things currently work.  NGOs are particularly well placed to do this.

I also think that the aid program needs to examine more than just the 'sectors' but who within each sector is the aid program working with? There should be a sustainable mix of working with both local governments (at all levels), NGOs, members of the private sector and other community groups.

I have seen in some countries that much of Australia’s aid money is channelled through the local governments, who seem to spend it poorly for various reasons. I do understand that channelling some funds through foreign governments is appropriate to help build their capacity, but there should also be an appropriate level of funding channelled through local community groups and local NGOs who can more efficiently and effectively acquit funds and really make a difference to the communities they serve.

The Asian Development Bank (ADB) has recently reaffirmed that strengthening the procurement capacity of developing countries is a critical part of the work of the ADB on harmonization, alignment, governance, and improving aid effectiveness and that ADB is participating in multilateral efforts to work together with partner governments on strengthening procurement practices and institutions. 

The new ADB assistance will focus on developing collaborative initiatives between developing countries that promote informed policy dialogue and enhanced knowledge and capacity in areas of importance to meaningful procurement reform and implementation. 

 

ADB’s reaffirmation that strengthening the procurement capacity of developing countries is a critical part of its work on harmonization, alignment, governance, and improving aid effectiveness is to be commended. 

 

Should AusAID also make a similar reaffirmation that strengthening the procurement capacity of developing countries is a critical part of its work on harmonization, alignment, governance, and improving aid effectiveness?

 

Noting ADB’s new assistance in strengthening the procurement capacity of developing countries, especially in Asia and the Pacific, what are AusAID's plans to provide similar assistance in this important area? 

 

Given the magnitude and significance of public procurement, should public procurement reform become a thematic sector for AusAID rather than being included in the ‘governance’ sector/’public finance management’ sector?

 

E. John Blunt

 

Mr. Blunt is a Public Sector Management and Procurement Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments.

Hi Kristy, Thanks again for your comments here, and salient points. To extend on your ideas and paraphrase a bit (hopefully in line with your ideas here): 

'Good governance programs need to run concurrently to health and education initiatives.... Aid alone can't lift populations from poverty - other tools, including economic growth and trade are needed.'

Do others agree that aid still needs to support good governance programs? Also, what of the instruments needed to address poverty - do we need to make sure we retain a suite, say including economic growth, trade and...? Any ideas?

It is important that aid to sectors such as health and education are supported with concurrent programs which help develop good governance in developing economies. In order for health and education programs to be effective, government policies and institutions must successfully manage national resources and programs, with accountability.

Programs which facilitate economic growth and trade liberalisation are also a high priority. Sustainable economic growth is the most powerful means to lift populations out of poverty.

Thanks, Gillian and Hamish, for your comments here. Much appreciated.

Do people have some ideas they'd like to share on what 'doubling aid' looks like? Or any different thinking on the aid review?

Please let us know what you think.  We have a few more days for this discussion before we start public voting, so it's a good chance to have your say...

I agree strongly with some of the comments here regarding where the Australian aid dollars end up.  I am also appalled how much so-called aid ends up back in the Australian economy - not only through Australian consultants but also by classifying activities such as supporting international fee-paying students to study in Australia as aid.

I would like to see an aid program that intentionally sought and developed local agents to effect programs and ensured that money from the aid budget goes to (and stays with) communities it is supposed to be aiding.

Hamish (www.globalhealthgateway.org.au)

Anne's comment that she is 'filled with horror' at the prospect of a doubling of aid without reviewing delivery models is, for me,right on the money (no pun intended).

I would add, however, that the existing delivery models keep running as they do because we look in the wrong places when it comes to monitoring and evaluation. Or, in some instance, we carry out M&E but do not bother to actually apply the lessons learned because everyone has moved on to the next project, or the next.

Over the years, I have seen waste upon waste upon waste. To give just a small example, how many t-shirts have been developed, as so-called 'IEC'? How many caps? How many logoed pens?

How many training sessions have been held that resulted in no change whatsoever at a field level, because the training was either not culturally appropriate or not practical or simply not based in real-life experience within the country in which the training was given?

And one last (largely rhetorical) question: how much aid money ends up coming back to Australia anyway?

This is not to say we should all just pack up and go home; the majority of people working in development do, I believe, have altruistic aims, but the machine that is international development has become fixated on burn rates, business-style 'efficiency' talk, and quantitative measures that often miss the point.

OK; that's my rant over!

Thank you, Anne for your comments here. They give a different perspective and constructive examples on this topic.

What do others think about this? Is there a way to better match support for the ‘institution’ with support for the ‘recipient’, so they can hold the institutions to account?

Do people have other examples to share that support or differ to this approach?

As someone who has worked in and around the Pacific and South East Asia for some time, the idea of doubling of aid without a significant shift in delivery models fills me with some horror. While a target of 0.5%GNI is noble, there is already considerable waste within the current aid expenditure. To be useful, any increase in aid should see a greater balance between government directed centralised, or even regionalised 'institutional strengthening' and the more community based and civil society capacity development that will make that institutional development more responsive and more accountable.

Consider - economic stimulation support that aims to increase revenue being complemented by support to transparency initiatives such as 'Publish What you Pay' or community based monitoring of government expenditure; service delivery improvement programs - such as the increased PNG education sector support, being complemented by a long term, properly resourced program to build the capacity of school management, school boards etc, to manage, monitor, and advocate for accountable use of increased funding; and the considerable investment in law and justice sector development in the Asia and Pacific regions being complemented by more than tokenistic support to increase access, particularly women's access to those institutions.

Application of a human rights framework - inclusive of women's human rights would assist the targeting of any increases (or for that matter existing) in aid levels to the places and people that need it most. 

Hi Mr Grumpy. Thanks for sharing your views. Others out there - do you have similar or different perspectives on this? Aid has doubled in the past five years in Australia - and is set to double again by 2015. What have you experienced? What could - or should - aid aim for? Interested to keep hearing from others.

If you want to know what doubling aid looks like - take a look at either Iraq or Afghanistan - or even PNG. Lots of TA, a parrallel civil service of local consultants who manage international projects rather than performing the takss they were trined for, lots of MC's and NGO running around ignoring the Government and general chaos. Can AusAid be different - I hope so.

Shaun, thank you for raising this and re-framing the initial post. That's an interesting change in perspective. The Review TORs state the need to ensure the doubled aid investment is both effective and efficient in fulfilling the aid program's objectives, so it's worthwhile debating these questions. On the topic of value from aid expenditure: What do others think? Any specific ideas on 'How you can create further value through aid, and how this can be measured?' Shaun suggests, 'sustained improvements by an outcome, and/or improved benefits to recipients'. What do you think? Please share your suggestions.

It has often puzzled me that the discussion on Aid spending is so often centred on benchmarks of how much should be spent rather than on what should actually be purchased, what the level of need is and what kind of value can be received for spending. Doubling aid spending is not a success by any measure. Doubling the benefits to recipients or the level of sustainable improvements against some measure of outcomes would be.

Morwenna, you raise some really important points, thank you for sharing these. The Review is drawing on experiences over the past 5 years, so it is good to raise and debate these questions. On the subject of sustainability: What do other people think? Are there any specific suggestions on, "How we can ensure sustainability of a project [or initiative] once funding has ceased?" Does anyone have any examples of cases where sustainability has been achieved? Are there any particular tips for project designers, implementers, and fieldworkers?

I think the idea of giving more aid is great as surely the developing countries need financial assistance to better develop their countries. However, on the other hand is it not increasing the reliance of these countries on aid? When do we sit back and ask ourselves what has our aid assisted in so far and are these countries now financially and capacity wise able to continue without more aid?
Also is the aid money already given being used on projects that are community driven and are fully supported by the nation's people? Without the support and ownership of the people development projects are often set to fail after the project funding has depleted. So a question to ask is how do we ensure the sustainability of a project once funding has ceased and will increasing the amount of aid given actually assist in overcoming this or just add to the money that may be wasted on failed projects?

Hi All.  You've contributed some new ideas about where aid should be directed, much appreciated.  Are others prompted to think about this, too? If so, we'd like to hear from you.

Perhaps of recent interest is the UK DFID direction in aid, announced in March 2011 after two reviews.  For example, they'll now concentrate their resources and impact in 27 countries (http://bit.ly/iexhXK)

Do people have any views on this, any lessons for the aid program, or other ideas on this topic? Please feel free to comment here.

Two-thirds of the global population of persons with disability live in the Asia Pacific region, of which 82% live below the poverty line. Yet apart from Australia, the major bilateral donors active in disability inclusive development in Asia are limited to Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States. In addition, in times of natural disaster, Australia has an important coordination and leadership role to facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities to ensure that delivery of aid is effective.

  

Two-thirds of the global population of persons with disability live in the Asia Pacific region, of which 82% live below the poverty line. Yet apart from Australia, the major bilateral donors active in disability inclusive development in Asia are limited to Japan, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, the European Union and the United States. In addition, in times of natural disaster, Australia has an important coordination and leadership role to facilitate the inclusion of people with disabilities to ensure that delivery of aid is effective.

Thanks, Donna and Garth Luke for your comments and new viewpoints here.

It would be good to hear what others’ perspectives are…

• Should we be thinking differently about channelling aid through networks and interest groups, not geographically bound?
  
• What does effective, large-scale aid look like? And are the recent gains against malaria in many African countries, a good example of what can be
  made possible by coordinated long-term funding?
  
• Do you agree with Garth that we should focus aid first on the provision of essential services (basic health, education, water and sanitation, food security and nutrition)?
  

In response to your question about whether the amount or use of aid is most important:  It is clear that the effectiveness of aid spending is critical and needs much more attention (greater compliance with Paris and Accra principles being a good starting point), however I think that the amount of aid is also important.

As Jeff Sachs has pointed out, a poorly funded  fire brigade with a single garden hose and one officer is likely to be ineffective at putting out house fires.  But this is not evidence that fire brigades are a bad idea.

Most government donors do not like too many obligations around funding - they want to give the money they want to give in ways they determine.  This is not a good basis for effective large scale aid.  We need to ensure that adequate, coordinated long term funding is provided, Where this happens significant improvements are possible - a good example is in the significant recent gains against malaria in many African countries now that better coordinated and more adequate levels of aid are being provided  eg see http://www.unicef.org/health/files/WMD_optimized_reprint.pdf .  The Australian Government and AusAID recently dropped the ball on the Global Fund replenishment - they had the opportunity to provide their fair share of funding (around $500 m over 3 years)  but decided instead to lift funding to just $210 m over 3 years.  This was a missed opportunity to provide a meaningful level of funding to an effective program for a key issue at a time when their probem is how to allocate more money effectively.

 

In response to your question: would you prioritise aid to the poorest of the poor and focus on education, health and livelihoods?  Clearly there will be some political and diplomatic factors that will shape the distribution of aid, however the increase in aid program funding is a clear opportunity which we must seize to focus much more on the countries with the greatest numbers of people in poverty.  We are currenlty providing very high levels of per capita aid to many Pacific countries while providing very low levels to places in SE Asia and elsewhere which have high levels of poverty.  

I believe we should also focus first  on the provision of essential services (basic health, education, water and sanitation, food security and nutrition) in our aid program.  This is because these areas are fundamental to all other human development (and survival of course), we are required to under the MDGs and international human rights agreements and also because aid is proven to be effective in these areas. Once we have guaranteed that these areas are adequately covered then other areas of human development should also be supported.  Supporting livelihoods and economic growth is a much more tricky and less proven area of development and should not be given precedence over essential services.   The cost of providing our fair share of support to essential services would be around 47% of the projected aid up to 2015.

Our own Government ensures that the basics are met first in Australia and so should our aid program.

As it is often difficult to ensure that aid channelled through Governments reaches those in need, it might be timely to think in terms of networks or interest groups that are not geographically bound. There is a risk here of fragmentation and dilution but checks could be put in place to avoid this. This would certainly assist specialist NGOs for example.

Thank you, Nigam Vaid, for sharing your insights and perspectives on Africa, including experience in East Africa. You raise a number of interesting points.

What do others think about this topic? Do you agree it is better to ask not how much aid should be given, but how it is used, by whom and for what purpose? Would you prioritise aid to the poorest of the poor and focus on education, health and livelihoods?

Also - what mix of modalities or channels work best (and for what situation(s))? What about Nigam's example where smaller NGOs work where others (like donors) may not?

Plenty of aspects to think about. Maybe you agree, or perhaps you have different views. Please consider sharing your thoughts with others.

Thanks, Beth Fuller for your comment.

Disability inclusive development is an area well worth discussing for the Aid Review Panel.  It is interesting to know that people living with disabilities in the Asia-Pacific represent, in order of magnitude, some 20 x Australia's population size.

What do others think about Beth's comments including Australia's role in global leadership on this issue? Do you have examples of work you are doing in this area, other resources, information or events that you would like to share?

Aid should be directed to the marginalised groups within  populations where AusAID works, who continue to miss out on the benefits and processes of development. People with disabilities -  approximately 650 million worldwide, 80% of whom are in developing countries, and 400 million of whom live in the Asia and Pacific regions - are an important minority group. Australia has ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and is therefore mandated to ensure its aid programs are inclusive of people with disabilities. Australia is in a good position to continue its global leadership on disability inclusive development, and we have much to offer the world through implementing and researching how disability inclusive development can be done most effectively.

Amber and others Africa is a continent with many countries, political systems, different resources, different past colonial masters, languages etc, so to lump all AID for Africa into a discussion would be incorrect. My experience which has been mainly in East Africa in the field of Agriculture extension and land care gave me some insight into aid and government policies. It is not the amount of aid but how it is used and by whom for what purpose. In my opinion aid channeled via smaller NGO's has a greater chance of reaching its intended target, aid channeled via large prjects through government channels fails in this respect. Most aid has strings atttached and also the stench of corruption, in some countries I knowdonors had to pay very senior officials etc to get approval for donating money to ceratin projects (who says beggars cannot be choosers). In Kenya most proposals for the north are rejected due to poltical considerations, donors raraely pursue avenues to help them, though the smaller NGO's are able to get into the area.

If i had to choose I would give aid to the poorest of the poor of any given country and attack three areas, education, health and livelihood.

Thanks, Amber, for sharing your comment.

What do others think of the expanded engagement in Africa? 

What, also, of the link between further aid to Africa (currently around 5% of Australia's bilateral aid budget (http://bit.ly/fGUXmV)) and a possibly greater trade interest?

I am a little confused by the expanded engagement in Africa. Aid often comes with a political/ trade cost to the recipient country by the donar country and is certainly not purely humanitarian in nature. I assume there is a greater trade interest in Africa now that its political instability has lessened somewhat?

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?

Hi Tony. There are some new perspectives here, thank you.  Here's a few things (para-phrased) that seemed to stand out. What did others think?

'... Effectiveness could be seen as narrowing the gap between our planning and the total context in which a project will unfold.'

'... Ideas: give a project manager the flexibility of a CEO in a small to medium sized enterprise; study the uptake of project evaluation recommendations; don't limit effective projects to a set ministy/province/country for the 1, 3 or 5 year project.'

Did you agree or disagree with some of these ideas on effectiveness?

There are so many ways "aid effectiveness" can be defined and that is clear from comments made already.  I had a wild, cynical thought that it could also be defined as minimizing the "evaporation" (what a nice nuetral word) that often occurs during project implementation.

Logically, from the meaning of "effectiveness", we appear to be talking out outcomes and impacts.  These are posited in project design, and as other commentators have said, outcomes and impacts are often not visible until several years after project completion.  Also, by the time several years have transpired after project completion, the desired outcome may be evident but what caused it?  Your project?  Other external factors? A combination of your project and other factors?  If so. how much causality can you attribute to your project?

In the folowing comments I am somewhat influenced by the work of psychologist Dr Richard E Nisbett in his book "The Geography of Thought.  How Asians and Westerners Think Differently...and Why" Free Press, New York 2004.

One could start with the view that it is quite a gamble to posit what inputs (nature, size and timing) will, when completed (outputs) will produce the presupposed outcomes.

We might be blinded by our Western thought process of focussing on single objects or systems that are themselves interdependent with a wider and very dynamic context.  One could argue that the log frame, risk analysis, stakeholder analysis, participation analysis, etc contributes to this inadequate vision of reality.

Maybe increased effectiveness is about narrowing the gap between our specific guesses (planning) and the total context (relationship analysis) in which the project will unfold.

To start with, why not acknowledge that we are guessing when we predict the future through our modalities of planning and the project implementation discipline that follows.  All of us would have seen project sub-components persisted with even though it becomes obvious they should be dropped.

Of course country strategies can be a guide to donors provided the recipient countries, though both their political and administrative hierarchies have "bought in" to those strategies.

What if the project manager had the same flexibility as a CEO in a small to medium sized enterprise?  This includes constant attention to the external enviroment, seeing opportunities generated by changes in the external environment and responding promptly to them, building up "person based" relationships with the external environment, quickly cancelling activities where little progress is being made, reallocating financial and staff resources promptly, and progressively making the outcomes more specific from their original higher level of generality.  Of course there would need to be regular consultation with an easily accessible corporate board.

Another wild thought on measuring aid effectiveness is to study how many recommendations in project evaluation reports have been noted and then included in future aid projects in that sector in that country.

 

Of course, how effective an aid project is also related to where (institutionally and in terms of "mover and shaker" personnel) it is embedded.  When reviewing overall  aid projects in a recipient country , it is fairly obvious which institutions with their lead and middle level personnel have 100% bought into the projects and have driven them with gusto and little or no evaporation.  When these conducive "hot spots" are found, why need feed success and put more projects in their direction?  Why limit assistance to that ministry or province or county to one three to five year project?

Enough for now!

In order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the aid program in relation to the inclusion of people with disabilities, people with disabilities in partner countries should be actively involved and consulted as far as practicable. Furthermore, disaggregated data should identify if and how people with disabilities are being included in development initiatives.

Hi All, Thanks for your perspectives and contributions here.

What do others think of some of these? What about…:

• The mismatch between the donor’s and recipient’s concept of aid effectiveness? (interesting points from Donna Vaughan)
• Broadening our thinking of effectiveness to include other factors from the recipient perspective, like trade policy and investment? (thanks, Joel Negin)
• The unexpected outcomes that could denote a program’s effectiveness – as assessed by a participant, rather than a project manager or donor’s view? (thx for alternative viewpoint, Gillian Fletcher)

It seems to me that a key question here is: what do we mean by 'effectiveness'? Further, who gets to set the measures of effectiveness, and who gets to assess it? (To put it crudely, assuming we are essentially talking about 'bang for buck', which type of bang, and who gets to say if it was a good one or not?)

The current M&E focus on collation and analysis of quantitative data can produce highly skewed pictures of effectiveness; number of people reached per program, for instance, is often presented as a measure of effectiveness. What about consideration of what was achieved by a program, both in terms of outcomes identified from the start of the program and also in terms of unexpected outcomes? A sex worker's view of the effectiveness of a project in which she is involved is likely to be greatly different to a project manager's view, or a donor's view. In HIV, for instance, a sex worker who has sat through literally hundreds of condom demonstrations is unlikely to consider the demonstration itself effective, but will value the opportunity to chat with friends, take a shower, learn about new brothels from other women... in my experience, little of this appears to be either captured or considered.

Following on from Donna's point below, aid effectiveness is very much a term that emanates from the donor perspective.  Developing country governments are more likely to speak of development effectiveness which broadens the scope to include trade policy, investment, and other areas of engagement beyond aid that contribute to growth and poverty reduction.

The aid review is focused on effectiveness for Australia but we shouldn't be too narrow in our thinking about other factors that impact on developing countries.

It is important to distinguish the donor's concept of aid effectiveness from the recipient's concept. These could be quite distinct. A sole focus on return on investment (economic or social) will tend to limit funding horizons and place unsustainable financial burdens on recipients once initial funding expires. Aid recipients at a grassroots level are often focused on long term benefits, and may have quite different needs or expectations of support from donors. This mismatch results in project failure. The wto must be aligned from the start through a consultative, participatory process.

Hi Susan, Thanks for contributing this link.

What do others think? It would be interesting to hear some views from charities or NGOs on this.

The article seems to point to the use of a tool (called Social Return On Investment (SROI)) that measures charities' impact. SROI attributes a financial value to inputs and outcomes and calculates these as a ratio.  A report by the UK-based Third Sector Research Centre (TSRC) finds some limitations to SROI though - including that it is difficult to use as a comparative tool (between charities).

Or - did you find something quite different on your reading of this article? And, are there other ROI tools used - whether by charities or others involved with delivery of Australian aid? It would be interesting to hear from you.

This article may be of interest http://www.ethicalinvestor.com.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4055&Itemid=402

Thanks, 'Just a suggestion' for this idea here.  What do others think of this proposal and this structure?

Please feel free to share any comments over the final day, pre voting.

Perhaps aid could be best delivered under an independent authority within the Foreign affairs portfolio.  Such an authority could work across portfolio’s to ensure that the best and most relevant sectoral information is incorporated into aid programs.  Perhaps a governing board would have more freedom to focus on effectiveness and the distance from cabinet may provide more flexibility and freedom to innovate with reduced political risk.

Thank you Karina, for your comments here. There are a mix of strategic and more operational suggestions relating to how to best structure AusAID and partner organisations to encourage disability inclusive development.

What about others' views? Would anyone like to share their ideas on how best to structure Australia's organisational structures for aid?

Australia is well positioned regionally to take on a coordination and leadership role in the area of disability inclusive development.

In terms of disability inclusive development, to better coordinate overseas development assistance across the public service:

·         The rollout steps for implementation of AusAID’s strategy, Development for All: Towards a disability-inclusive Australian aid program 2009-2014, must be communicated to the whole of AusAID including regional posts;

·         Partner country programs run by various departments including AusAID and the Department of Defense should be coordinated under the one country strategy; and

·         There should be more transparency in departmental budget allocation for programs involving multiple departments.

Increased resourcing and capacity building for AusAID in disability inclusive development must be prioritised in order to effectively meet AusAID’s overall objectives and the outcomes of Development for All. This can be achieved through. Investment in a specialist team in disability inclusive development within AusAID. Also, an ‘Ambassador for Disability Inclusive Development’ should be created at Deputy-Director General level to promote leadership and accountability for disability inclusive development both within and external to AusAID.

Hi Christine. Thank you for this contribution. It’s useful to have an insight in to the ADDC’s submission to the aid review panel.

What do others think about these 4 recommendations to AusAID? In brief...:

1. an overarching Inclusive Development Policy;
2. an ‘Ambassador for Disability-Inclusive Development’;
3. a separation of Disability and Health;
4. greater investment in cross-cutting thematic areas and a rights-based approach.

Please let us know your views.

ADDC recommends that: • an overarching Inclusive Development Policy be developed under which all social strategies (disability, human rights, gender and child protection etc.) can be clearly defined and integrated into all aid and development programs • an ‘Ambassador for Disability-Inclusive Development’ be created at Deputy-Director General level to promote leadership and accountability for disability-inclusive development both within and external to AusAID • within AusAID, Disability and Health are separate and clearly defined both programmatically and in budget allocation • a greater investment is required in cross cutting thematic areas and a rights-based approach be adopted for the aid program and strongly systemised within all AusAID programs (excerpts from Australian Disability and Development Consortium (ADDC)’s submission to the Aid Review Panel. ADDC is an Australian based, international network with 450+ members working on disability in developing countries).

Dear Anne and Karina.  Thanks very much for these ideas and insights.  What thoughts do people have on, for example, Anne's note...?:

"... the Clinton Foundation has as one of its core principles, 'Partnership and Collaboration', the bringing together of governments, NGOs and businesses to 'harness each sector's unique expertise and resources'. Perhaps the... complementarity of actors, need to be pursued in all program designs, and on an ongoing basis"

Do you agree with this approach? Do you support alternate approaches?

Effective development practice should be inclusive of people with disabilities whether funding is channelled through non-government organisations, multilateral or bilateral programs. Under Article 32 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, international cooperation in support of national efforts towards disability inclusive development should occur not just between States, but also in partnership with international and regional organisations as well as non-government organisations and disabled people’s organisations in partner countries.

It is interesting that the Clinton Foundation has as one of its core principles 'Partnership and Collaboration', the bringing together of governments, NGOs and businesses to 'harness each sector’s unique expertise and resources'. Perhaps the question of this topic, and the Clinton Foundation's attention to complementarity of actors, need to be pursued in all program designs, and on an ongoing basis. 

Just 1.66% of Australia's 09/10 ODA went to NGOs and although performance targets (according to AusAID's own rating system) were surpassed, their role is tiny, peripheral, and sometimes seen as just a bit too messy.

My experience is that NGOs are held to significantly higher standards of accountability than bilateral programs, even more so multi lateral agencies, thus creating a climate in which there is great reluctance to scale up - but scaling up might actually help build absorptive capacity. Funding to NGOs continues to be based on an antiquated view of cardigan wearing do-gooders with voluntary zeal - In my six years managing an NGO program, our average annual funding grant to partner NGOs was probably about half - or less,  of the annual average on-costs of an expatriate adviser. 

Certainly NGO performance also needs to improve; the sector is slowly professionalising, but it is time to move on from they smell of an oily rag approach to NGO funding, and the  'add on extras' approach to design. Invest a little, give it time, pick an issue, get some good minds in the room, do some experimenting - and fund it properly. 

Hi Megan. Thank you for the extra insights on this OECD DAC peer review report.

What do others think about these ideas? Do you support greater engagement with Australian NGOs in the aid program, in particular where the Australian Government is opening new programs?

What would you recommend to the review panel as the best mix of forms of aid?

The DAC peer review report cited above (http://bit.ly/ib1Z1X)  also notes that the level of aid channeled through Australian NGOs and other civil society partner organisations has remained low for many years. The review advocates for greater engagement with Australian NGOs, recognising their high credibility with the public and their capacity on the ground particularly in countries where the Australian Government is opening new programs (eg Africa). The peer review goes on to advocate that the Australian aid program should establish a new framework to engage in a more collaborative way with Australian NGOs. These recommendations should most certainly be addressed by the Australian Government's aid review when looking at the best mix of forms of aid.  

Thanks, John for your extra comments and insights here.

What do people think? Do you agree or disagree with this post topic i.e. the need to "invest directly in partner government capacity?" 

Maybe you have some brief examples or links you could share with us to support your thinking...? Interested to hear from you.

Here is another aspect to partner participation that may help aid agency staff see how difficult it is to acheive good partner relations.

The paris declaration says hopefully that donors will collaborate with each other in signatory countries

Don't hold your breath! my experience says they will hardly ever really collaborate with each other, they are huge unwieldy administrative instraments that compete visciously and thoughtlessly at the institutional level.

The whole is unfortunately much less than the sum of the usually quite capable staff! 

When dealing with (an unequal) recipient, the agencies they say they 'devise and assist', they actually 'devise and insist'  

It takes extraordinary far sightedness and political will at a high level in both donor and recipient countries for the partnership to be otherwise and I use extra ordinary in it original sense. 

First to comment on the recurrent expenditure item

• the only solution is to put the time into getting it into the national recipient country budget, very hard, it takes years and it is necessary to demonstrate worth, this is unlikely in the short term aid budget cycle, needs to be in loan or grant conditionality that this be reviewed after the post project evaluation - and before consideration of new projects, also hard, IFI's don't like things to stand in the way of a 'full program pipe line'
• There can be reasons to fund recurrant expenditure for some planned learning experience to have time to mature and so prove its worth to the recipient Government, donors do not like this, part of the short term focus of most programs (even though most programs saynthey have a long term focus in practical terms they do not, even though long term evaluation by the WB shows that projects with pillots and successeeding phases are much more successful than short term ones that tend to repeat lessons (Einstien is reported to have said that insanity is doing the same thing time and time again and expecting a different outcome) 

Secondly, the question of partner government participation.

• there is no alternative to building partner capacity, most effectively by making them take responsibility (except in emergencies and projects that are risky because they are technically demanding such as bridges and large infrastructure where lives are at stake)
• In my experience the instinct of beauracrats to protect them selves means the donors wont let go because of the risk something will go wrong and while the recipients will say they want them to let go they often don't want them to for the same reason (unless it makes it easier to skim money off) It takes a very determined effort and acceptance of risk on the part of the donor for this to occur. This too needs to be explained to the public. This is not easy to solev as Australia has hound out in PNG   

Thanks, David for the post - and Peter for the comment and different viewpoints here.

There are a variety of views on capacity development efforts with partner governments. What are some of people's own experiences?

Do you agree or disagree that funding recurrent expenditure could assist to address bottlenecks in a country’s recurrent (maintenance) budget?

David

Agree. The ADB and World Bank tended to bypass recurrent expenditure in the belief that the partner govt would have the incentive to look after it themselves. End result was replacement became the means to maintain. I remember a pumping installation which had 1 duty and 5 standbys. As each pump broke, another standby would be used.