Comments

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.

Thanks Amanda. For those of you interested in Amanda's corruption research, please follow <a href="http://ssgm.bellschool.anu.edu.au/news-events/podcasts/audio/3808/reporting-corruption-papua-new-guineas-public-financial-management" rel="nofollow">this link</a>. (the previous link in the last paragraph above is broken). If you're interested in mobile phone panel surveys I can also recommend <a href="https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/24595" rel="nofollow">this guide</a> from the World Bank.

Thanks Jeremiah for the insightful observation and commentary on the betelnut trade and consumption in Port Moresby. Some more observations and views to add in regard to the NCDC effort to ban and apply spot fine to betelnut traders and chewers in the city are these: Over 75% of the NCD residents at one point in life trade betelnut at the local market or at the resident streets or within living compounds and settlements to make cash income and sustain lives. To ban it or apply spot fine will not totally make a different to NCDC dream world of Port Moresby as free of betelnut (just imagine). There is confusing messages coming out from NCDC on its ban and fine conditions. Are they targeting (1) chewers or (2) traders or (3) both or (4) transporters or (5) growers or (6) stain and husks littering on the streets and office precincts. They need to get their target audience right and apply appropriate rules and regulations. They should not do that blindly. The NCDC still need to do extensive advocacy on health issues, public place image concern and other related issues to do with betelnut and adequately inform the public what is good and bad about betelnut before taking corrective measures, otherwise they are forcing on what people enjoy doing and keeping themselves busy. Also NCDC needs to do a number of surveys on betelnut trade and consumption in Port Moresby including: (1) the economics of betelnut trade and consumption (2) percentage of sellers/traders and chewers (3) the health issues associated with (4) what initiatives do traders and chewers prefer in the face of ban and spot fine (5) what’s the next option for traders and chewers and (6) how long the ban and spot fine will last. They need to hear from the traders and chewers, rather than imposing on them. However, the thriving informal betelnut industry will still remain in Port Moresby and support three quarters of the city residents and the neighbouring Provinces of Oro, Central, Gulf and other access route to Port Moresby.

Thanks Tony!

Good idea Terence! I look forward to reading your blogs not just on improving aid effectiveness but also aid advocacy effectiveness!

Hello Anthony. Thank you for your interesting blog post. You have provided a particularly accessible explanation of 'big data', so thank you especially for that. I also wrote a blog post about the potential for new technology to be used in data collection. My post specifically focused on Papua New Guinea and suggested some concrete techniques that could be applied, such as phone interviews and SMS surveys. You can read it <a href="https://devpolicy.org/remote-data-collection-in-papua-new-guinea-an-aid-to-policy-deliberations-20150707/">here</a>. I’d be happy to talk to you further about this. Amanda. 🙂 www.ahawatson.com

Thanks Anne, That's a great question/idea. And there would be really good research to be done by someone working alongside an NGO in this area. (As you say, access to data like usage stats would be crucial.) Thinking about your comment, one thing that struck me is that many big companies (the example given is usually the New York Times) randomly allocate different versions of their website to different visitors, and then analyse how visitors behave (in the NY Times' case, whether they click through to read articles or not). I'd be fascinated to know if any NGOs did this and what they found when they did. Thanks again. Terence