Comments

If we need another reason not to transition to in kind aid, below is CGD's summary of a <a href="http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nq3/NANCYS_Yale_Website/resources/papers/FAidConf_20130806_FINAL.pdf" rel="nofollow">paper </a> [pdf] concluding good aid makes conflict worse. "Nathan Nunn and Nancy Qian, in their paper US Food Aid and Civil Conflict, exploit a powerful determinant of food aid that has nothing to do with the place getting the aid. It turns out that an excellent predictor of how much food aid the US sends is how big the wheat surplus is in the US. The paper shows that when there's more rain in the US, there's more wheat production, and the US sends more food aid abroad. So the authors compare places that happened to have a famine during a year of good rains in the US (therefore, more likely to get food aid) with places that happened to have a famine during a year of bad rains in the US (less likely to get food aid). They find that this aid increases both the likelihood and the duration of civil conflict."

Thanks for the post Robin. A backflip indeed, but at least one in the 'right' direction. It's a shame, on some levels, that it had to be the GEF, which, as you rightly point out, is widely perceived as less than effective, particularly by institutions in the global south. I agree with Jonathan that the green fund (assuming it ever manages to get its structures sorted out to ensure the majority of financing gets to the places it is most needed) would be a better investment and I hope this GEF allocation is the start of a climb back towards climate finance rather than a one off. It's interesting to note that adaptation doesn't seem to be as out of favour under the current government's approach to aid as mitigation (though I guess we will know more when the aid framework sees the light of day). Given this, I wonder if we may see a tied contribution to the GFC for a climate resilience window. That would be more inline with the government's rhetoric and would still be a useful contribution to the global effort. Under the previous government, Australia was a (if not 'the') leader on finance for adaptation. Given the current emissions trajectory and low chance of a global climate agreement making a significant dent in a timely fashion, adaptation finance flows will need to substantially scale up and a significant Australian contribution to this effort might offset international disquiet around the absence if mitigation funding (and effective domestic climate policies).

Thanks for the comment. Actually we have the impression that the report we mention at the end is still a glint in ICAI's eye and is not the report about which you blogged last year. That was a fairly limited piece about DfID's use of private contractors, and was published a good year ago. The recent report on private sector development says, on page 1, 'This is the first of two reports on PSD. ... In the second report, we will focus on how DFID works with the private sector'. And, on the following page, 'A further ICAI review of DFID’s PSD work will examine in more detail DFID’s work directly with the private sector'. A footnote implies this will look at partnerships of the kind previously examined in a single-country ICAI evaluation of <a href="http://icai.independent.gov.uk/reports/icai-report-department-international-developments-bilateral-aid-pakistan/" rel="nofollow">DfID's work in Pakistan</a>. Among other things, that evaluation examined and welcomed 'experiments in working with the low-cost private sector as a potentially cost-effective way of reaching out-of-school children' and recommended that 'DfID should increase its support for promoting affordable and equitable private sector delivery of health and education services to poor communities'. So it appears ICAI will be looking at PPPs for international development writ large, not merely those that take the form of commercial contracting relationships. No <a href="http://icai.independent.gov.uk/reports/terms-reference-forthcoming-reports/" rel="nofollow">draft ToRs</a> have yet been made available for comment.

An interesting blog, and thanks for the citation! We actually <a href="http://aidleap.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/new-report-aims-to-scrutinise-spending-on-contractors-and-fails-miserably/" rel="nofollow">also blogged</a> about the ICAI report on public-private partnerships for development, that you mention at the end. We took quite a different line on it - the title of the blog was 'New report aims to scrutinise spending on contractors – and fails miserably'.

Thanks for your post Robin - the announcement is a welcome affirmation that Australia remains willing to fund at least some global priorities for environmental protection. Still, any funding that would go specifically towards climate change via the GEF pledge would go only a very modest way towards restoring Australia's previous levels of climate change financing. Even if a third of the GEF pledge (say around $31m over four years, or around $8 million a year) supported climate change, this would be far less than Australia's climate change financing of around $200 million a year under the previous government. Now that the UN Green Climate Fund is newly '<a href="http://theenergycollective.com/jakeschmidt/387311/new-global-fund-help-combat-climate-change-open-business" rel="nofollow">open for business</a>', other countries will be looking to Australia to make a substantially larger pledge. Perhaps Australia is keeping its powder dry for a Green Climate Fund pledge (let's hope so, at least), but supporting a fund specifically dedicated to climate could require a rather more elaborate backflip.

The real juice. The critical question. Well said Robert Cannon. We all need to ponder the question “On what matters should we remain detached?” Readers might like to look at David Rieff’s review of William Easterly’s book "The Tyranny of Experts: Economists, Dictators, and the Forgotten Rights of the Poor" in the latest New York Review of Books. The message is clear. Agencies of change like the World Bank and Asian Development Bank that offer uncritical support for corrupt and autocratic regimes such as those running Cambodia, Ethiopia and Uganda and continue to ignore sustainable development by implementing and strengthening representational governance must take the larger part of the responsibility for the failure of aid. They and other big donors, working to some fantasy that development is solely a technical issue endemically fail to take into account the sociological, ethical and political realities on the ground. Where is the concern for the structural issues of democratic representation and individual rights? On the matter of their pragmatic stupidity we cannot remain either detached or silent.

How wonderful to read such a frank account of what actually happens in development work. A far cry from the sterile and sanitised accounts found in formal project reports and evaluations. It illustrates how far the linear, 'logical' approach to development, set out in program plans and frameworks, is from the complex reality of the lives of the people we work with. I am sure most of us reading this excellent post will have experienced pangs of conscience when we read the words: "Farmers (may we also say health workers, teachers, and others?) often complained, however, that they saw too many agents from projects who said they were visiting to learn from the people and then neither listened nor waited long enough to learn anything. Too many untrained, uninvited, visiting oxen trampled on their hope that privileged strangers cared enough to help." And, as John concludes: "So much to learn and so many to be taught. In this quest, detachment is a sensible strategy." But I wonder if such detachment is ever possible, or even desirable.

This is a great comment, thanks for contributing. You've laid out some really sound ideas that I agree with. But I think it would be really difficult for most volunteers to meet a KPI that was related to this lofty idea that a volunteer is supposed to build the long-term ability of an organisation to manage its own affairs, for example (depending on the role). You'd be setting a lot of people up to fail. And this is the trouble--you have to get the expectations of the program right and clear before you can start setting any sort of performance measures on volunteers. The program is still confused, still aiming for the stars instead of some level of practicality, and the evaluation seemed to recommend even more whimsy on the type of capacity building that it should be aiming for. So when I mentioned a stripping back of formal expectation in the program, I was meaning at this higher level. Isn't it enough that the volunteer program makes a very positive contribution to development? Why should we expect more and more from it? This seems to be what drives unrealistic assignment descriptions that are littered with aid-world jargon rather than practicality and reality, for example. The evaluation also didn't say much on what the partners paid to deliver the program should be doing. A lot more on what volunteers should be doing, but not on the structural issues in the program that make the 'job' of the volunteer more challenging. So basically, in my view there needs to be a clearing up of the expectations all around. Until these are cleared up, I would be surprised if we saw any progress on the areas you have mentioned in your very thoughtful comment. The ODE evaluation (which is what I was writing in response to) didn't put forward strong ideas on how to fix these problems.

Thank you Ashlee for your article, i m in Siem Reap right now and was planning to visit the Tonle Sap with my family tomorrow. I was doing my research and thanks to you i know what i have to do and what i have to avoid. Kindly, Philippe

Narratives to bring back the human voice in particular. SenseMaker is one approach that places people's experiences at the centre. We've worked with thousands of girls stories, <a href="http://www.girleffect.org/news/2013/10/sensemaker-insights-girls-in-ethiopia/" rel="nofollow">for example</a>, in Rwanda and Ethiopia, to bring what I call 'voices in the room' so those with the power to decide can no longer ignore girls' lives. Other resources are available <a href="http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/amplifying_local_voices1" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="http://www.ipdet.org/files/2012%20Guest%20Lectures/Guijt_Guest_Lecture.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a>. But like any approach, it is easy to say 'let's collect narratives' and <a href="http://www.waterservicesthatlast.org/media/publications/sensemaker_r_experience_a_method_tested_and_rejected" rel="nofollow">rather more difficult</a> to embed this systematically in organisations. The Most Significant Change method has also gained much popularity in development circles to avoid the dehumanising of results and reports. And there are many others

Thank you for the points that were raised on your discussion paper on the above topic. I was one of the first graduates of APTC in Port Vila, Vanuatu when the college was first opened, in Cert IV, Training and Assessment (TAA). I could not agree more as for many graduates, there remained lack of opportunities to move ahead. What they got was a Certificate that said that it fitted the Australian Qualification Training Framework and is recognized here in Australia but opportunities to come here are non existent. Having said that, there is also the other side of the argument that not all graduates had the desire to move either regionally and or overseas and I think that was mentioned in your paper. One of the aims of APTC was for labor mobility but the other which should also have equal emphasis is the up-skilling. After graduation, I was the President of the Alumni association for APTC graduates from Vanuatu and there was a sense that we were fortunate to get the training but wanted to promote this to other communities, towns and villages to ensure others also benefited. And we set about this by beginning to plan for programs that enabled us to use the skills that we had learned and give back to the community. The Carpentry graduates volunteered to make bookshelves for the local library and built seats and tables in the public parks and kids playground and so forth. What we lacked was the funding to support us in this initiative even though several requests had been made to APTC headquarters. The other aspect that is worth mentioning is the request for these graduates to go on a sort of "apprentice program" for short periods. This would enable them to practice the skills they had achieved and at the same time prepare them for the testing requirements that are necessary for obtaining the appropriate visa's to migrate overseas. And more importantly for countries in the Pacific, is the experience and skills they can pass on others. Perhaps this opportunity maybe realized for the Hospitality graduates in the Seasonal Workers Program (SWP), should Australia decide to open up its tourism sector under this scheme in the future but for other graduates in Automotive, TAA and Carpentry, that possibility remains bleak.

Interesting to read this and the associated comments by the World Bank about its own publications not being read. Can I suggest that it is an issue that is current across academia, about research impact ? It's otherwise called knowledge translation and Professor John Lavis at Canada's McMaster University has developed many useful methods of proceeding from knowledge translation to knowledge broking. The Chief Scientist of New Zealand (Professor Sir Peter Gluckman) has also been active on this theme of science into policy. There always seems a great deal of tension between a professionally-written document that advances the writer's academic career and the ultimate impact on the intended readership, much less the demonstrable uptake in the associated policy.