Comments

This article provides an insightful overview of the trends in donations to Australian development NGOs, highlighting both the decline in recent years and signs of recovery. Sustained public engagement and policy advocacy play an important role in supporting long-term development outcomes. Organisations such as The Borgen Project focus on raising awareness around global poverty and the importance of effective development funding, which connects closely with the issues discussed in this article.

This article provides a clear and thoughtful overview of the 2025 DAC peer review of Australia’s aid program, including its challenges and areas where progress has been limited. I found the discussion on Australia’s low ODA/GNI ratio and the broader global context for aid funding particularly informative, as it highlights the need for stronger commitment and strategic policy responses to improve aid effectiveness.

Sheldon see my book History of ACFID fig 1, p.3. This takes the numbers back 50 years. I hope you’re not suggesting ACFID Annual Reports are ‘patchy’. A few retired staff may disagree.

I’m a glass half full type of person: the 50 year figures show remarkable stability in terms of adjusted dollar value, but there have been fairly regular fluctuations due to economic circumstances such as recessions etc (the period you refer to has mostly been in a per capita recession, not helped by COVID uncertainty). I remember around 15 years ago an INGO I know had to cut 25% of staff. That’s the sort of thing that management is virtually always facing. Tsunami windfalls can’t be banked by definition, but lead to increased staffing which ultimately have to be let go. That is a sort of NGO paradox.

This was a very insightful article on the challenges and progress surrounding the goal of ending extreme poverty by 2030. I found the discussion around policy commitments and global cooperation particularly interesting, as it highlights how long-term solutions require sustained advocacy and political will.

Baseless. Not a valid conclusion and titles. No proper sampling

Well done, Dr Sivendra and congratulations on your appointment to the Distinguished Visiting Fellows Programme at Perry World House, University of Pennsylvania.

You don't seem to have the remotest knowledge of the legal and political basis behind Bougainville’s Independence process. 1. Have you even read the Bougainville Peace Agreement (BPA)? 2. Do you even know the the 3 greatest pillars of the BPA are Weapons Disposal, Autonomy and a Referendum on Independence? 3. Do have the faintest idea at all that when the BPA was being negotiated, it was agreed by both the GoPNG and the ABG that there could be any number of agreed options on the Referendum ballot paper but only one at to be compulsory.......INDEPENDENCE? 4. Do you know that the definition of Independence that 97.7% of Bougainvilleans voted for was defined and provided by the PNG government, not the ABG? The definition in essence, was for Bougainville to be a separate Independent sovereign State Independent from PNG and with full legal and international personality. You don't seem to have knowledge of this. 5. Do you know that Part XIV of the PNG Constitution was inserted in 2002 by the PNG parliament by way of a constitutional amendment to cater for Bougainville only, no other province? The Bougainville Independence process is based on Part XIV of the PNG Constitution and is a legal process so the Referendum being a constitutionally-guaranteed vote. Your obvious ignorance of the whole Bougainville issue, legally, politically and historically, is delinquent at the very least and dangerous at best because it would appear you're developing a narrative that makes Bougainville out to be rogue province running a secessionist movement that has no legal basis. Before running such mischievous scholarly and academic surveys, it would be advisable that you provide as much context and perspective on the issue at hand to your subjects. It is just not good enough putting up such polls for ignorant or unknowledgable people to pass views on and in the process coming up with an outcome that seriously lacks cognitive and intuitive understanding of the bottom-line. Your survey result though is inconsequential to the 97.7% vote by Bougainvilleans for Independence so it's of no concern at all. What's of concern though is your obvious spin on the issue without giving your subjects the benefit of context and perspective. These are so-called university students you surveyed and their apparent and obvious lack of appreciation and understanding of the Bougainville issue is a clear indictment on the people who mentor them. Being an ANU/DFAT sponsored survey, there are no surprises with the outcome. Either way, it does not affect Bougainville's core Agenda

Good point, Patrick. The question is what makes for a good choice of base year? As Terence points out, early data is patchy.

In the survey, what were the reasons given for the different responses to Bouganville aspiration for Independence? I can not find that in your research report.

Not that important. The same is also true if you choose 2001 as your base year as per the chart in this post. However, the base year is important if you're the CEO, or an employee, of an NGO who's revenue has been falling steadily since 2016. That means job losses and project cuts. Not much consolation under those circumstances to know that things are better now than they were 50, or 25, years ago.

I calculated this according to constant dollars and %GDP over 50 years (see Kilby 2015 History of ACFID ANU Press p. 3 open access) and as a % of GDP has fallen since the 1970s but in constant dollars has tended to rise even accounting for the tsunami blip. As with all things the base year is important.