Comments

There are so many issues here Terence and Sachini. As you say, a measure of quality or degree of action would be interesting, as calling for action (especially in the aid sector) is often pretty mild and unthreatening for government. Unless there are particular threats in the air (as there were at some stages during the Howard government) I don't think NGO managers are too worried about negative reactions from politicians. There may be a bit more concern however about offending DFAT staff who can make specific funding decisions, especially as a number of Australian NGOs appear to be moving into more of a contractor style arrangement with DFAT. My experience is that NGO managers are most likely to be concerned about not offending their individual and corporate donors and the degree and focus of advocacy is often shaped by this.

Public think Australian Aid = 13% when it's under 1% They think a lot of it goes to corrupt governments - it is strictly audited every year and under 1% is found to be fraudulent. Basically Australian Aid is one of the best value for money Govt programs we have and yet it's consistently sold short!

Thanks for the background. Rice policy has been contentious in PNG since the 1940s, and is <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2016/s4529992.htm" rel="nofollow">politically controversial again today</a>. Six decades ago serious production trials were overwhelmed by much cheaper (Australian) imports, along with technical, cultural and land tenure complications. (See Donald Denoon ed. 1981 A Time to Plant and a Time to Uproot Institute of PNG Studies and Scott MacWilliam 2013 Securing Village Life ANU E Press). PNG has not had the ‘rice riots’ found in Asia, but it's worth mentioning that in the 1980s PNG’s three successful votes of no confidence were all at times of inflation and rising prices for rice.

Thanks Ash. Yes, there is something about rice for sure, particularly in Asia, but I think it mainly reflects its large share of food expenditure. That being said, in Thai and other cultures, rice does have special status: e.g. Thai's often say gin khao (lit. "eat rice") when referring to any meal even if no rice is involved! May be on the other side of the world where maize is an integral part of culture and diet, the focus of food security policy isn't much about rice at all. For Indonesia, the goal of self-sufficiency has moved beyond rice and now includes soybeans, corn, sugar and beef. Self sufficiency is not necessarily a bad policy at all, especially when it is achieved through improved productivity and competitiveness, which reduces the costs of living particularly for the poorest of the poor. However, for Indonesia, the approach has been through protectionist measures such as import bans, import licensing, quotas and tariffs. These measures tend raise the cost of basic staples - and it's poor households that suffer the most.

Interesting post Tony, thanks. Can I pose a broader question - I know rice is a staple, there is large demand for it globally, and food security is an issue that will probably only get worse, but why have so many countries been obsessed with rice sovereignty over the years, to the point where it becomes about national pride rather than rational agricultural policy? It has been an obsession in Indonesia for a long period of time, including under current President Jokowi, and some terrible decisions were made to support it in the past (like the Mega Rice Project in Kalimantan, an environmental disaster). What is it about rice?

Excellent analysis Ashlee. As I see it you hit the nail on the head with your argument on transparency - do taxpayers want their aid money spent on aid advocacy or PR (no), or do they want readable and easily accessible information on the rationale for giving aid, what their money funds and whether these programs are actually working (yes). There's a difference between spending money to convince the public that the Australian program is great and spending to increase knowledge about Australia's aid efforts in particular and development co-operation more generally. I'll be interested in whether your forthcoming analysis on the numbers tells us more about this.

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.