Comments

Thanks for your comment, Michael - I quite agree! The composition of the Security Council, for example, is positively archaic. And of course legitimacy is a problem for a number of global governance institutions, not only in the UN but also the World Bank, IMF, etc.

Thanks for the post. Of course the UN is limited in what it can do, but what you've highlighted is something more - a lack of integrity. In my view, the UN faces deeper problems than bureaucracy and HR policies. It is fundamentally undemocratic at the highest level. This lack of accountability leads to the kinds of failings you identify, but more importantly it also means that the UN lacks legitimacy, reflecting the 1945 world power balance rather than the values of the global population. I hope it can be reformed, or replaced with something better, in time to provide the quality of global governance that humanity sorely needs.

Self serving bureaucracy is right. It's a common joke in the development world that the UN pays bloated salaries with absolutely ZERO accountability. That is IF you are well connected enough to get one of the plumb jobs.

Terence just on the numbers the accreditation criteria is quite strict as government grants depend on it, so it is harder to 'cook the books' on the level of expenditure on these activities. There are 2m Australian supporting NGOs most of which have internal campaigns on social justice and aid issues, so while a collective campaign would be good whether it would add a lot may be moot.

the UN has evolved into a <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2794991" rel="nofollow">self-serving bureaucracy</a> It needs to be fixed

Great blog - I have had female friends and associates who have been particularly screwed around by the UN human resources policies. Many of them are not in line with the values embodied by SDG5. From what I've seen from their experiences, the rules seem to be - don't get pregnant at a non-family duty station. Don't get pregnant if you are a locally-engaged staff member on 1-year contracts, even if you've been in your job long-term. Don't get pregnant while doing a UN Volunteer assignment that has been extended multiple times. And don't expect the UN to be flexible with the start date of a new job because you have just given birth.

Hi Patrick, That's a useful, thought-provoking comment. It is interesting to hear of historical precedents. This discussion is now also proving very useful for me in clarifying my own thinking. Thanks Here's why I think a collective NGO campaign is important (worth at least 0.7% of NGOs' private donation sourced revenue). As I've worked on the domestic drivers of aid policy, one point that has come up a lot (including from politicians) is that Australia has, since the waning of Make Poverty History, until very recently, been under-powered in two areas that are politically important for good aid: (1) something that is visible, and looks and feels like a large pro-aid public movement; (2) lots of direct lobbying of politicians. Both approaches are needed. And, given the good work now being done with much less, I think both would receive a very helpful shot in the arm with 7 million dollars. I also think aid advocacy is at its most effective when it is collective - from a sector, rather than individual NGOs. I think you're right that development education and NGOs' own individual lobbying are also very useful. But I don't think think they're a substitute for a vibrant campaign from the sector. Then, briefly, on the numbers: 1. As I understand it (I'm open to correction) the reporting of advocacy spending isn't covered by the ACFID Code of Conduct. So we don't know what NGOs mean when they declare spending in this area. In Oxfam's case, I'm sure it will be excellent work. But that's because they're an advocacy-oriented NGO. This means they're an outlier in this area. I suspect most other NGOs devote a lot less to their own advocacy work. 2. You are right though that the reporting of community education is covered by the Code of Conduct and that this constrains member NGOs from claiming anything too outrageous. However, my sense is that quite a lot of what is reported on still isn't the sort of sustained development education work that both you and I would like to see. I'm open to correction on this though, so if you have some good examples, please do let me know. Also, I think I'm right in providing the median for all NGOs for whom data exists as a measure of sector effort in this area. However, I think you're right in saying if we're just interested in how much money is going into community education we should look at the big NGOs (where the bulk of the cash is). The median for the top 20 (community education spend/total international revenue in 2014) was 2.08%. I'd be happy to join you in a campaign to see this increased. For now though I think the most urgent need is for a concerted campaigning effort. I think you're right that the collective action involved would be hard. This is why I've proposed a very modest target: 0.7%.

Sorry I did not wish to misrepresent your argument so apologies, but the question is whether collective campaigns the way to go and the extent of buy in. The short answer is yes up to a point. Now Action fo World Development of the early 1970s was funded to the tune of $20m in today's dollars but then there was less individual agency work and it was global education rather than campaigns. I do think it is better to aggregate the individual efforts in this type of discussion. The median across 140 agencies does not tell us much but an aggregate of the top ten or 20 will tell us something useful. The accounting rules and the ACFID code and accreditation criteria and processes make it harder for agencies to cook the books. These figures are checked and there are consequences for fiddling the figures.

Patrick, You wrote: "Terence you seem to be implying that the Campaign for Australian aid is the only game in town (or that it shoulde be the biggest game in town)." Can I point you to the passage in my blog post when I wrote: "In advocating for my point seven target I am not suggesting NGOs are currently doing nothing. NGO funding for the Campaign for Australian Aid is about $150,000 annually and some NGOs provide other funding for campaigns. Also, in 2015 ACFID member NGOs contributed $1.4 million to the running of ACFID (ACFID is not a campaigning group, but as a peak body it provides valuable public goods to the Australian NGO community.) <strong>And some NGOs employ their own advocacy staff.</strong> What I’m suggesting would be on top of these contributions." So no, I am obviously not suggesting the Campaign for Australian aid is (or ought to be) the only game in town, or that NGOs do not contribute in other ways. Please don't misrepresent my argument. What I am suggesting is that, given the good work that the Campaign currently does with its much smaller budget, through >$7M extra devoted to a collective campaigning effect (which needn't be the Campaign although I can't see why it shouldn't be) NGOs would provide themselves with a loud collective campaigning voice, in addition to the other stuff they do. You wrote: "I would think across the NGO sector it would be close to $50m going to advocacy/education type activities, so not peanuts and certainly more than the 0.7% you suggest." As I presume you know, for most NGOs it is very hard to disentangle the types of spending that they report under 'community education & advocacy'. Some such spending fits genuinely into these categories but other spending is much closer to advertising. While other spending is government relations work and lobbying on their own behalf. All of this is fine with me. But it should not be confused with collective campaigning about aid. Moreover, as best I can tell from a quick look at ACFID members survey data, the median Australian aid NGO devotes 0.00% of its revenue to community education work. Some spend a lot more, so the mean is higher. But the typical NGO does not. Advocacy spend, which isn't counted, would add to this figure. Nevertheless a median of 0 suggests to me there's scope to do a lot more with a little more. Have a great weekend.

Terence you seem to be implying that the Campaign for Australian aid is the only game in town (or that it shoulde be the biggest game in town). A quick glance at Oxfam latest annual report has around $4m going to public policy and outreach and global education both essentially campaigning/awareness type activities using different methods (and we could debate the efficacy of each: I tend to favour global education). I would think across the NGO sector it would be close to $50m going to advocacy/education type activities, so not peanuts and certainly more than the 0.7% you suggest. It is probably close to 5% of total expenditure which I think should be closer to 10%. Maybe you meant 7%.

Thanks to Bob and Robin, for this important outline of the on-going deadly effects of landmines. My associated - but coincidental - letter (following) in the Australian Financial Review of 22 August has not drawn any responses: "Thanks for the reminder of the generation of Afghans “Leaving Afghanistan” (Review, p8, AFR 19 August). Despite Afghanistan’s unpromising future, Australia’s help for its civilians was reduced by 40% in 2015-16: from $131 million in 2014-15 to $78 million. A good purpose of Australia's overseas assistance is clearing landmines, especially in Afghanistan. Landmines and other explosives kill and injure civilians long after conflict ends. Their presences reduce the economic potential of affected areas as land and resources remain unusable for growing food or generating income, and restricting access to market routes and infrastructure. In 2012–13, Australia’s contribution resulted in 4.14 square kilometres of contaminated land being cleared, directly benefiting 102,465 people. New mines are constantly added as territorial control shifts between Afghan government forces and militia groups, and there are more than 4,300 minefields remaining. With our help, the Afghan people can walk their land in safety. It’s not mission accomplished - more please."

Yes the SME Policy has to be protectionist toward small businesses. Only a real small business owner operating in PNG will know the struggle of being overlooked and denied opportunities in favour of foreign owned small businesses. I have worked with them for over a decade and I understand this better than anyone. We must create a safe space for them to start up, grow and flourish in. Other nations with economies more advanced than PNG recognize the importance of this and practice it to some extent, yet everyone sees fit to criticize PNG when it decides to take the same bold moves to protect it’s people. If any one has read the proposed Reserved Activity Listing, they will find that there are exceptions to the rule where foreign small to medium businesses CAN operate in PNG, but only if they meet the exceptions. Otherwise, we welcome large foreign investors who will operate businesses that will make an initial investment of more than K10 million ($3.8m AUD), or who currently have a turnover of that amount or more. Otherwise, leave the small businesses to our people. They need it more.