Comments

Thanks Robin. Great to get a discussion going on this. Thanks for the greater analysis of the Pergau Dam case. It is an exemplar case of legislation's use and so necessary to include in any discussion of ODA legislation. You've obviously got better information sources than me on that one. However, on the overall point re: purpose, the people I spoke with for the minor piece of research I did cited the existence of legislation for purpose as useful in their work defending ODA for poverty reduction (as well as the scandal). So I think there is more to the story, particularly how rules shape people's perceptions (regardless of whether those perceptions are accurate) and therefore their actions. A correction in interpretation: I don't think legislating for purpose is the 'main' use of aid legislation. If I implied that, I didn't mean to. But I do think it should not be brushed off as not useful in legislation, particularly without any substantiation or empirical research on legislation's real-world impact (opposed to content analysis). Your analysis here on the Pergau Dam case contributes further. Overall, when it comes to ODA, governments are not accountable to voters: voters do not benefit from ODA, they find it hard to get good information about ODA's impact, and while they care about how it is spent, they do not really pay much attention to it. Scandals are rare and too few to ensure consistent and effective accountability. Hence the need for other mechanisms, and legislation is a useful one. I think this has been a really interesting discussion and I have much more to respond. But I'll leave it there. It is a great topic to learn more about. Perhaps a place for some solid case studies, using robust research design, examining the empirical impact of legislation? I think there are laws in place that have not had any real-world impact when it was anticipated they would, and it is important to include analysis of those in any research - hence the importance of good case selection. It would also be great to engage lawyers and also examine the massive literature on institutions to see what insights they can add. Something to add to the 'to-do' list?

I suspect everybody who has worked in a donor agency, myself included, has at some time made the same wish, while cursing the waste of aid involved in chopping and changing between activity management systems, or jury-rigging solutions to emerging problems with sticky tape and string. However, donor agencies' activity management systems have to serve a number of purposes simultaneously, with the main elements being project-cycle management, payment management and information management. In all these areas, each individual donor will generally have a quite specific set of requirements to meet owing to government-wide policies on financial management, project approval, procurement and results measurement and reporting. Usually they will also have additional information collection and reporting requirements to meet that flow from their governments' results frameworks for aid. In these circumstances, I think the best that can be hoped for is agreement on a common international reporting standard for activity information (which we have), agreement to achieve certain levels of compliance with that standard by certain times (which we sort of have, though the agreement has mainly been honoured in the breach) and agreement to invest resources in a global mechanism that would give everybody and anybody the ability to access and manipulate the information provided (which we lack). A better capacity to see what is being reported by donors should improve the quantity and quality of what is reported, and make it increasingly likely that donor's individual activity management systems, whatever their differences, will fully and promptly dump activity information and related documents into the global pool.

Development programs should put more weight on the needs of the aid recipient than on the needs of the donor - see paper <a href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2812034" rel="nofollow">here</a>

How does this translate when you factor in cost of living? For example someone trying to survive in Australia on $3,000 would have a much harder time than someone surviving on the same amount in Nigeria. Therefore how valuable is this figure? I'd really like to see how the dollar value changes when you factor in food, housing and essentials being adjusted to the local economy.

I think this is the case for most of the provinces in PNG. Despite the richness, we still lack the management skills and our attitude seriously needs attention. Suprisingly enough, it is our own people who are charged of managing the resources like time, money, etc and the users of the infrasture, procedures etc who abuse the system. If all indivuduals can make an effort to contribute positively to the good of the country, I believe progress in the delivery of goods and services can be achieved. Otherwise, we'll still be developing ...

No doubt this is a good idea in the medium to long term but the urgency of famine in Southern Africa is here now according to media reports aired a few days ago. In one recent report from Malawi, it featured a poor mother trying to feed her four children on roasted lily roots that had no nutritional value and had to be gleaned from crocodile infested waters.Her 'husband' had run away and deserted her. The real issue is the the poor mother was only 15 years old. Before the medium and long term solutions can even begin to be planned and start working, the problem of too many mouths to feed from degraded and poorly managed farm land must be addressed. As a corollary, the leaders of nations like Zimbabwe that used to be a net exporter of food and is now a net importer of food should be confronted with their inability to successfully manage their nation but still personally manage to live in luxury themselves. Why aren't these leaders being held responsible and accountable? Therein lies the real issue. Until there is ethical leadership and accountable government in many African nations there will never be any long term solution that will be allowed to work. Unfortunately, those managing the world aid agencies tend to become rather myopic when this aspect raises it's multifaceted head. That also includes the UN as the chief culprit in this current, farcical situation.

This is a good approach to sustainable land management in most parts of kenya So, please share the training content will roll it out in Kenya

Well written Article - Win Nicholas

The Indonesian administration since 1963 of West Papua (West New Guinea) has caused immense problems diverting hundreds of $billions from Melanesia to Jakarta and western shareholders, introducing unregulated pests and diseases, and a level of corruption and political intrigue that helps no nation. But policy makers and government advisers are so scared of the boogeyman stories claiming Indonesia holds sovereignty and United Nations endorsement of the Indonesian claims, that they have failed to consider or recognised the real option of removing Indonesia from Papua. The source of Indonesia's shadow play are false news stories issued by Reuters in 1969 and 1962 alleging that the UN in 1969 had declared West Papua was part of Indonesia, and alleging the UN was endorsing a Dutch agreement for trading the people of West Papua to Indonesia.These fictions were published a month before journalists could get access to the 1962 agreement or 1969 transcripts, and the 1962 agreement at Indonesia's insistence was intentionally written so that only a lawyer familiar with chapters 11 to 13 of the United Nations Charter would be able to recognise that it was an United Nations trusteeship agreement which was the reason that it needed UN General Assembly approval. Unlike responsibility for other non-self-governing territories, the entire UN membership is jointly responsible for the welfare of UN trust territories; which is the reason that Indonesia told the US in 1961 that it would only agree to the US scheme if nobody publicly calls the trusteeship a trusteeship. And in the case of West Papua, not only is the United Nations caught legally by UN Charter article 85 but it is doubly responsible because the UN chose to send Pakistan and then Indonesia to administrate the new trust territory in 1962 and 1963. Every death and every ounce of stolen gold is on the United Nations hands. West Papua may seem large to Australia and Indonesia but its freedom is a small price for the UN and its members to pay to regain their credibility.

So call young CEOs and bureaucrats should not get excessive publicity for the sack of policy initiatives that are half baked. The SME policy is protectionist in nature as alluded by a number of other thinktank institutions as well. The announcement itself would scare off foreign businesses as already deterred by foreign exchange rationing issue .The local and international professional thinktank bodies in the county are there to provide critical policy analysis, advice and dialogues to ensures policy agendas are fine tune to protect the interest of every players in the market. Your office should critically undertake SME research to find what essentially the local entrepreneurs need at this stage? Does local businesses have the technical and financial capacities to ventures into advance and successful businesses. Is the government robust and find it feasible in assisting local businesses in the area of funding, market accessibility, infrastructures and skills upgrading? In the absence of these and other ranges of important factors, SME policy would not give the desired outcome. These are among many other requirements for effective SME policy implementation.

Hi Robin, thanks for taking the time to write this piece, I found it interesting and informative to read your perspectives. As someone who has spent ten years developing data management and interpretation tools in the private sector, I have often wondered about the opportunities for such work in the aid/NGO space. From reading your article it seems like there are two main problems at present - one is the usability & usefulness of the tools to date, the other is the quality of the data available on which they can operate. What are your thoughts on a system that aims to address these two issues at the same time - that is, a system that actually enhances an organisation's ability to manage its day-to-day operational data, while at the same time aggregating that data across participants and making it available via a suite of tools in a way that generates real intelligence and understanding of what is happening (both historically and in real-time) across a series of organisations, countries or sectors? The appeal to aid groups of using the system would be the removal of the burden of separately reporting on their activities, while at the same time collaborating with and learning from other organisations. For example, an organisation that plans to setup operations in a specific region could look at the data already aggregated for that area and make informed decisions about the most suitable vehicles, materials and so on, based on the experience of others already there. The same system also lets that organisation fulfil its reporting obligations to donors and the public, but importantly they haven't had to duplicate their efforts. The data that they've recorded is just as useful to them for internal management as it is to external users. Obviously there would need to be rules in place about what level of detail can be shared, but the principle would be clear - write once and use in many ways, with collaboration & reporting built into the system itself. Thanks again for your article, I'd love to hear your thoughts on this idea.

Hi Robin, From a structural point of view OECD would make sense, but after talking to a number of people who work around these committees I am not convinced that would work. They don’t really seem understand the technology and the use of technology, and are not prepared to let those that do define and build the next generation of tools. This is a general shortcoming across these relatively bureaucratic organisations. They don't have a good CIO/CTO and a sustainable technology strategy and they think they can do without, which is really not feasible in todays world.