Comments

Thank you Huiyuan. An interesting read. As and when the information about sub-contracting becomes available, it will be great to know about the level of involvement of local (Pacific Island countries) companies.

I see. Thanks Ashlee for the clarification.

Thank you Rod. That's helpful to know. The top contractor list back then is quite different from our list in 2011-12, so the aid contracting market then was a lot more liquid than it is now.

Thanks Huiyuan Liu. There is a lot of interest in your article. And, for a little nostalgia, the following data is from a 2005 AidWatch Report, called 'The Boomerang Effect': https://aidwatch.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/2005-CoA.pdf The top 10 contractors by $s in 2003/04 (in order) were reported as: ACIL ($313M), SAGRIC, Hassall, GRM, IDP, Melbourne Uni, IDSS, URS, GHD ($64M). 'All other contractors' managed 49% of the money and 86% of the # of contracts that year.

Ms ‘Ofakilevaku (‘Ofa) Guttenbeil-Likiliki highlights a serious issue. Her experience of the high handed, attitudes of those who believe they know better than the people with lived experience, is sadly common. I can attest that her description of how she and her colleagues were treated, marginalised and made to feel worthless is replicated elsewhere by “we are here to help you” specialists with tunnel vision who are also deaf to local nuance and desires. So called experts with no local lived experience, who do not speak local language(s), whose world views do not accord with local realities, who are oblivious to the nuances around social interaction and who arrive with preordained solutions that ignore local knowledge. An earlier blog posted by Ms Huiyuan (Sharon) Liu, “An overview of Australia’s aid program procurement,” appears to highlight systemic issues. Her analysis reveals that delivering Australian Aid has become a mega business dominated by a few players where the percentage of funds allocated directly to local partners has averaged 1.2 percent of annual contract value over the past decade. If correct this surely has become a recipe for what Canberra desires rather than the recipient. Where is the balance, partnership, collaboration and support for local empowerment in that relationship? It is understood that DFAT requires transparent accounting of funds. However, what should be an administrative requirement appears to have morphed into an attitude of we know what’s best for you and we have a mandate to deliver it – like it or not. That is a recipe for harm. I agree with ‘Ofa’s assertion that it is past time to recognise that where life is defined by the community space, supporting local leadership to address issues in accordance with their world view, not the donors, often produces the best results. Further to her quotation of a Hawaiian proverb I am reminded of words of wisdom offered to me when seeking advice about a failing international program. “There are lots of trees in the forest – some big trees and many smaller ones. You have only spoken to the big trees. You need to speak to all of them.”

Thank you 'Ofa. I see neo-colonial and patronising attitudes and behaviours continue around us, and it is well past time for us on the donor side of things to wake up to the damage we all do. We shouldn't need to keep being told this, but we do. I hope that by now you have received some sincere apologies from Australian colleagues - for the fact that we keep making these mistakes, and that we will not or cannot listen, and that so many in our so-called humanitarian and development community still do not get it. If any readers of this blog are tempted to question or label 'Ofa's gift to us, then think, and please think again. She is gifting us a heartfelt truth. I feel so angry and sad that you went through all this, and I hope that your messages were well received at the recent AAC conference.

Thanks Sharon. Yes I can only imagine the amount of manual work it took to pull out this data! It would be good if this information was more transparently and accessibly shared. Some of the requirements around national interest etc feel like they are drawn from the broader APS requirements on procurement, rather than specifically for DFAT, so I'm not sure how much weight they have. Others would probably know more than me. But it would be harder to make the argument of national interest without any Australian 'base', for example. And in my own comment, just clarifying I meant large aid management companies/'Global North' companies based outside Australia in my remark on Pacific expertise, of course there are many highly experienced Pacific-based companies of various sizes.

Thank you 'Ofa. A wake up call.

Margaret Mead an American anthropologist once said “arm chair theorists are dangerous”. They don’t listen to the national inhabitants and have no idea how to deliver information at the grassroots level. They lack the skills and ability to deliver and disburse information that is culturally appropriate. They have the finances and resources to provide assistance and aid but they are only guests to your islands, and all too often you have to clean up the mess guests leave behind. Where international intervention in the Pacific has succeeded, it has been to the detriment of many island countries and people who are slowly loosing their cultural identities and cultural values. Your people know how much you’ve achieved. Don’t let Tonga be coerced into giving into the multinationals.

Hopefully your voice will be heard in many places around the world. Truth is the path - speaking up is crucial. Wish you all the best. Greetings from Switzerland coming from Central America. I am so glad you shared your experience.

Hello Jane. Thank you for the explanations. I agree that the entire contract value does not just go to the pocket of one contractor, but the value would to some extent reflect a major contractor's strong negotiation power and significance in the aid program. I understand your concerns and I tried to make it clear in notes and text when I wrote the blog. Unfortunately, only total contract values are available for analysis, and I have to stay with that. I do hope DFAT will publish subcontracting data. That would definitely help the analysis to tell a more comprehensive story. Also it is good to know that DFAT has put in those monitoring procedures. It would be very helpful if the documents are public and processable.

Hello Huiyuan, thank you for posting your interesting analysis. As CEO of the International Development Contractors' Community (IDCC), I'll make a couple of observations. 1. DFAT’s use of managing contractors enables the aid program to deliver resources through a broad range of implementing partners, including local experts and companies, local and international NGOs, and other companies and individual consultants. As noted in the article, DFAT took deliberate steps several years ago to reduce the transaction costs associated with directly contracting a multitude of smaller projects, and instead opted for larger programs (and so-called facilities) contracted to companies who would manage a range of smaller activities within larger programs. 2. The contract values can be misleading, as these amounts represent the entire value of the program (or facility), and include large amounts of funds that are “passed through” to subcontractors, either as grants or sub-contractor payments. 3. The “pass-through” of funds to grant recipients and sub-contractors is managed by the managing contractors in a way that ensures DFAT’s compliance, risk and safeguard measures and accountability requirements are met. This is critical in protecting the integrity of the aid program. The contractors are subject to a rolling program of audits and due-diligence compliance checks by DFAT to ensure these integrity measures are upheld all the way down the supply chain. The IDCC represents small, medium and large organisations with an interest in the Australian aid program, as well as individual consultants/sole traders.