Comments

Nice piece Joel. South Sudan, although not "lapped by the warm waters of the Indian Ocean", is one African country with which our aid program really needs to continue to be engaged. The fact that there are 30,000 South Sudanese Australians, by far the largest group of black Africans in the country, is a compelling reason for us to be involved there. It's the only country in Africa that I have been to where people know anything at all about Australia!

Patrick -- In short, microfinance is included in the more inclusive measure we used, as support for 'Informal/semi-formal financial intermediaries' falls under 'economic infrastructure and services' in DAC statistics. It is not included in the narrower measure. I don't know how reliable the reporting is on this type of aid (some of it, for example, might end up under a rural development or cottage industries heading) but Australia was among the top few donors in 2012 in terms of the share of its aid allocated to microfinance. The absolute amount was not huge at $US45 million, but was well up on previous years. Paul -- Yes, it's true that Australia still has a stake in the AECF, though I don't know how fresh our most recent contribution is. It's easy to say that such multi-donor initiatives are still current even if the bills have long been paid, but that's not an important point. More important is the fact that Australia was not active in the design process for the AECF and does not appear to be very actively engaged in the oversight or evaluation of it. In fact, I am not sure what evaluations of it there might have been. Despite DFID's reputation for transparency, it is devilishly hard to find out anything about the details and impacts of AECF-funded investments. Australia's ECF was quite the model of transparency, making all sorts of information about its progress and impacts available, warts and all.

I won’t attempt a review, but will make a few points about the evaluation. I thought it was a clear, thorough and balanced piece which, as you imply above, was either not supplied with punch lines or had them confiscated downstream. I was struck by a few things. First, the evaluation picked up on something that had bothered me last year, which I raised in <a href="http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/committees/commjnt/369601b0-9b29-484e-8b48-157e4605a18a/toc_pdf/Parliamentary%20Joint%20Committee%20on%20Foreign%20Affairs,%20Defence%20and%20Trade_2013_05_22_1957_Official.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf#search=%22committees/commjnt/369601b0-9b29-484e-8b48-157e4605a18a/0000%22" rel="nofollow">testimony</a> (pdf) to the 2013 parliamentary inquiry into Australia’s relations with Timor-Leste. Australia finally got an aid strategy in place in 2009 but then before two years had passed entered into a separate ‘planning agreement’ with the government of Timor-Leste. In theory the strategic framework for Australia’s aid was, from that point forward, provided by both of these things. In practice, as the evaluation notes, the planning agreement superseded the strategy. This was unfortunate both because the planning agreement was even flimsier than the strategy but also, and more importantly, because it discarded references to some not unimportant things like gender equality, support for civil society and (not mentioned as a gap by the evaluation) anti-corruption and integrity. The result of a worthy determination to accord fully with the stated priorities of the government of Timor-Leste’s national development plan, the adoption of the planning agreement tended to discredit the prior strategy development process, including the notion that it reflected an intersection of the two government’s priorities. The evaluation, however, has nothing to say about this in its recommendations. Second, the evaluation is damning about or, more exactly, reflects others’ damning assessments of, the performance of multilateral organisations as delivery agents for programs financed or co-financed by Australia (‘mixed but generally poor results’). The conclusion drawn from this is effectively that Australia should use such channels less. But Australia has a stake in the performance of these organisations regardless of whether it is channelling country program funds to them. Australia is involved in their governance and will also have to deal with them as increasingly important co-donors, now that Timor-Leste has now commenced borrowing on concessional terms from the multilateral development banks. One might have hoped for a recommendation that DFAT should play an active and ongoing role in monitoring and seeking to influence the performance of these organisations in this and other fragile states in our region. And third, the evaluation gives less attention that it could have to the things that matter—it is lacking in proportionality. The Timor-Leste Police Development Program implemented by the Australian Federal Police is flagged as the single largest bilateral aid activity over the life of the program ($110 million over eight years), yet the impact assessment provided is that ‘there is some evidence that TLPDP is making a difference to technical policing skills, management and administrative competence’ (DFAT’s response?—‘Australian Government agencies are independently accountable for management of their own appropriations’). The police development program is treated in no more depth than much smaller activities. In addition, the failure of Australia’s aid program to allocate adequate resources to private sector development which, among other things, might have limited the impact of the much-lauded Seeds of Life program, is noted but neither explored nor adequately reflected in the evaluation’s recommendations, which focus only on the problem of unemployment.

Nice to see the issues clearly defined in this post. On a small point, while the Enterprise Challenge Fund for Asia and the Pacific has indeed closed, Australia has also invested (to an even larger extent) in the multi-donor funded Africa Enterprise Challenge Fund - which is still very much alive and kicking. Indeed, the AECF is arguably Australian aid's largest private sector support program at the moment.

Really uncontrolled waste disposal is becoming a norm in everywhere and Port Moresby is already being affected by this. Plastics and other wastes are dump everywhere without properly disposed off in the designated location. Hope something has to be done to educate our city residents to properly managed unnecessary dumping of was

It is RIGHT that the Australian Government cut its aid to GPE. It should FREEZE its aid. No criticism of Julia Gillard, who is new to GPE and just doesn't yet understand what a Potemkin Village the organization is. But she needs to get up to speed - fast, or her reputation will be damaged. GPE is NOT focused on RESULTS and peer-reviewed evaluation and monitoring which would reveal how little children are learning as the result of the hundreds of millions of dollars spent, now totally in billions! It is a disgrace. The original idea was for a small secretariat for GPE of say 10, max. TODAY it has 70 (!) staff, who even at this high number, do NOT have expertise at assessing learning! Plus dozens of consultants for p.r. and communication, etc. The CEO earns $400,000 plus, and it's top managers $250K-300K gross. It's reducing poverty, all right...... one World Bank salary at a time. And where are the WB "supervisors" who are responsible for this trust fund? Specifically the Director of Education of the World Bank?? What are they DOING about this. They are complicit in this mess. They are absent without leave and afraid to criticise. It is heartbreaking to think of how much money could help young kids to learn, especially girls, and which goes down the drain into first-world salaries worthy of banking executives. Again, read this detailed critique of GPE by the respected www.100r.org, published just this week and the truly pathetic responses of Australian major figure at GPE Charles Tapp. disgrace. Click on <a href="http://100r.org/2014/06/left-back-results-lacking-as-global-partnership-seeks-support-for-education/" rel="nofollow">this link</a>. And look at The Washington Post <a href="http://100r.org/2013/11/former-usaid-official-accused-of-contract-rigging-now-coo-at-world-bank-trust-fund-on-education/" rel="nofollow">reports </a>on the COO who Alice Albright appointed last summer!

Foreign aid is very important for the economy, we gain strategic partners and our <a href="http://borgenproject.org/foreign-aid/" rel="nofollow">economy</a> is also benefiting in a long run.

Mr. Duncan, it would appear, has been misled by someone with regards to the purpose of the Alternative Indicators of Well-being for Melanesia project. The project proposes a set of indicators to supplement existing progressive measures accepted internationally by governments and aid agencies like those found in the Human Development Index that Mr. Duncan likes so much. The supplementary and, yes, alternative indicators do not replace current measures of development and well-being. They provide, rather, a regional cultural context to an otherwise Western value-based set of indicators devoid of comparative significance with the rest of the world. The most important, and perhaps most threatening, aspect of this project to define, collect and apply indicators of well-being that reflect Melanesian values is that they are the only indicators developed by the people these governments aim to serve.

And meanwhile at the National Court, there have been some very hasty new appointments to the judiciary...

Thanks Tess. I do agree that political compromise will be domestic. Political compromise will be both about sorting out rifts within the State institutions - legal, police etc as well as balancing the various ethnic and provincial affiliations/interests in PNG. And to highlight this, <a href="http://dev.postcourier.com.pg/Stories/chimbu-protestors-give-pm-ultimatum/#.U6tqMrF-_IU" rel="nofollow">today’s PNG Post courier</a> has the following story on response from Chimbu province where a number of the prominent players in the PNG “Game of Thrones” hail from. This group is based in Kundiawa the provincial centre of Chimbu province and the key political leverage here is the threat to close down the Highlands Highway. The article reads: "...The people of Chimbu have given an ultimatum of 48 hours to Peter O’Neill to resign as Prime Minister. In a protest rally in Kundiawa yesterday they threatened to block the Highlands Highway as of tomorrow afternoon if Mr O’Neill failed to resign or step aside to allow police to interview him on the K71.8 million Paul Paraka payout. The people, led by pressure group Voice Of Chimbu, also called on the Prime Minister to consider reinstating Sir Tom Kulunga, Simon Kauba, Kerenga Kua, Thomas Eluh and Sam Koim, and the Task Force Sweep..." And in the meantime police appear to be struggling to contain momentum for public protest but we wait and see how the day unfolds.

This is a very insightful item Luke and whilst it is largely addressed to NZ as a donor to Vanuatu (and other RSE participating Pacific island countries) there are important messages for others. To the Vanuatu government and others involved in the current round of development planning, which 'must be homegrown' - how can the 'poverty of opportunity' you have identified be categorised, quantified and addressed with currently available resources, including human capital. And to other donors, notably Australia - here is a great opportunity to put coordination into practice. While you are working out how to make your labour mobility scheme work properly, here are some opportunities to assist communities in maximising the benefits of what is already in place.

I enjoyed reading your article and think you raise some good points and deliver them in interesting/engaging ways... The section where a call is made for 'change [to] be based on evidence, and significantly more resources be devoted to evaluation], than now also caused me to reflect a bit... Perhaps it is a truism to say that aid agencies can never be separated from the political context in which they're embedded - and that politicians of a day generally have markedly different agendas than aid agencies. Those that don't are few in number and seemingly (sadly), constrained by this alongside systems functioning as they do... In this context I think more evaluation might only further stultify things happening in the field. Too often already it seems that evaluation are done only to later gather dust, particularly as presiding politicians/the political context change/s... And that money is often wasted with the trash at the end of a budget cycle to get rid of it... (Plus the intra-agency largesse that this can create...). How does this change...?/How do people exert agency to make change, be change...? These are 'BIG' questions indeed as you say in my opinion, and similar to so many others that are important and have been important... I think we can agree that more scrutiny of 'evidence' is needed - or rather that scrutiny needs to lead, perhaps, to particular radical outcomes being pursued or achieved... Questions question though right... That's philosophy... There is a balance between conceptualizing and taking action...