Comments

Thank you Michael, You raise issues that I am passionate about and I couldn't agree more. I would also encourage anyone interested in 'development' to read Tess Lea's Bureaucrats and Bleeding Hearts. Cheers, Phil

Great review of this important book. The findings resonate very much with <a href="http://www.clc.org.au/files/pdf/2014_Evaluation_of_CLCs_Development_work-La_Trobe_University.pdf" rel="nofollow">our review of Central Land Council's community development program in Central Australia</a> (see sections 7 & 8) which despite the dysfunctional and ever-shifting policy environment within which it works seemed to be supporting local processes to solve problems, not least because a) the majority of funding for this is from Aboriginal people's own royalty payments and b) the legitimacy of the Land Council as an Aboriginal organisation which provides an important brokering role.

Thanks Marc for your comment. It is possible we are more aligned than maybe your response queries. I am pretty sure as an individual I did sign onto the Campaign page a long while back. While I am not overly active, I do apply my very rudimentary social media skills to support the Campaign. My commentary was not to question where the private sector was on the day – and you know from our past dealings I think more opportunity should be explored to bring a range of actors together. I also hope my commentary made it clear that I actually tip my hat to the leadership from the NGO community. I do not disagree that there is room for private sector to also be vocal, though possibly there are various ways in which messages and opinions can be delivered. As Robin Davies’ separate post confirms, none of us should have walked away from viewing the announcement with a feeling that things are fully back on track. There are statements being made during an election cycle; sometime after that a government that forms then ‘governs’ and history shows us that not everything always plays out exactly as hoped before the polls closed. My commentary meant to talk to the announcement, its content, which left me with a feeling that something is missing – it might exist, but it wasn’t discussed. The fact is that the Parliamentary Secretary introduced the event stating we would hear of a “policy that Tanya will announce.” Beyond the discussion of funding commitments to NGOs and UNHCR, Ms Plibersek agreed to stop the clock on aid cuts. She also talked to the issue of transparency. That was it. The announcement on a number of occasions referred to sectors and activities where Australia is making a difference - in agriculture, in governance, in policing and so on. These are all areas where the private sector is also currently working, including in partnership with the aid program, to make a difference. I know the government’s view on the role of the private sector in development. I would have liked to have heard something about this in the opposition’s ’policy’ announcement on the weekend.

I am not sure that this is a particularly helpful or effective influencing strategy. This hardly comes across as welcoming and inclusive. And I note Robin's comments on this which are all pertinent. I would ask whether the private sector has been 'asked nicely' to support this campaign in a way with which they are able and willing to engage.

Bob, I'm struck by the bridge analogy, and wonder if the original project goal was to replace the old bridge or supplement it (to provide the two-lane highway). What I'm getting at here is that the outcomes of a project might not always (or often) be the ones the funder planned for, and in some cases there may be unanticipated changes, both for better or for worse. This suggests to me that when we revisit projects to evaluate sustainability we cannot simply rely on quantitative indicators devised to measure predicted outcomes from the project proposal -- we need to be much more flexible and insightful. On the whole, my impression is that revisiting projects after completion, even very expensive projects, is the exception rather than the rule, and that such ex-post-facto evaluations are not done well or over sufficient time to judge sustainability with any sophistication. I used to teach planners and architects, and there is a well-know concept in the field known as post-occupancy evaluation, which involves visiting built structures some time after completion to compare the designers' conceptions of how the space would be used with the way that the occupants in fact use it. Such evaluations are in fact extremely rare, and most architects regard them with indifference. Hmmm.

To be fair, it's not at all obvious how a corporation would sign up to support the campaign from the web page linked above. It's pitched at individuals. One <a href="http://australianaid.org/action/host/" rel="nofollow">sub-page</a> indicates that you can support the campaign 'whether you’re a surfer, or a musician, a library or a church' but again doesn't provide any obvious way for an institution rather than an individual to sign up. And <a href="http://australianaid.org/who-we-are/#join" rel="nofollow">this</a> 'Who we are' page also provides no obvious way for an organisation to join; in fact it tends to imply that the 'we' refers to a pre-formed, closed group. It's not just that the web site asks for an individual's name; it's also that it urges people to 'pledge their vote' for a fairer world. Corporations and other institutions don't vote, and I wonder about the wisdom of this tactic in any case. It sounds almost as if a person has to make a theoretical commitment to vote in favour of the contender that's most generous on aid, which right now is certainly not the Coalition. Presumably the idea was to build a community of people who want to say that the parties' aid policies will be important to them as they decide what to do with their votes -- 'aid matters to me' rather than 'I pledge my vote'.

How predictable this is when knowing the truth behind the "aid". My expat friends and I, living in Indonesia, have discussed "aid" at length and have come to the conclusion that it is simply money transfers between entities. (Some say criminal types.) Of course Education is the first to be cut. If you educate the people they will see that corruption is taking money from them. If they are healthy they will be able to see and hear clearly that the aid that should go to them is going in someone's pocket. And, if they have good food, they will live long enough to change the society and be self-sustaining, which is definitely not good for getting more "aid" monies. As an engineering person, I see the construction is sub-par and expensive. In reality, a project is an excuse to transfer monies. Health professionals cannot understand why so much is spent and so little is being done in health care or health education. In the education sector, we have seen that there is no real education of students, everyone passes so that the monies can be issued. My friendly group has investigated many cases and found that only 40% of the "aid" gets to the designated project. 60% is spent in overhead. In the U.S., we have two organizations that have those kind of numbers; one is the mafia, with their money laundering business, and the other is the federal government, whose business is spending the taxpayers hard earned money. Which one of these does AusAid fall under? Faith-based groups and private investors get more done with less money by having less government involvement. The boots-on-the-ground people work hand in hand with those who want better lives. If there was more transparency in government and fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers (investors), the world would change in a very short time.

Gee it would be great to see the private sector get behind the Campaign for Australian Aid! Strangely, while it is a non partisan campaign open to all organisations, a quick look at the campaign homepage and organisations belonging to it reveals the private sector is conspicuous in their absence. And yet they have so much to offer in the joint effort to rebuild Australia’s aid. As my mum taught me, maturity is about sharing the load. Applications that enable companies to join the campaign can be found <a href="http://www.australianaid.org" rel="nofollow">here</a>.

Yes, one of the saddest phases of projects is finalisation when so many enthusiastic people ask where continuing support, of even the most limited technical kind, will come from. Donors and governments alike are generally unwilling or unable to provide access to continuing help of this kind. Short term and one-off training is one of the most ineffective ways to bring about sustainable change.

Thanks Simon. Yes, I agree it is an issue that has not been given enough thought. Neglect might be a more accurate description. Your question goes to the heart of the problem with sustainability. As your observations imply, it is a complex matter and I remain to be convinced that the idea of sustainability is necessarily the most helpful concept here, particularly when the word seems to be used increasingly as a 'feel good' slogan in so many contexts now. Maybe continuing benefit or continuing impact? The central idea of sustainability in projects of all kinds has been the continuation of benefits which, in the ideal situation, will be clearly and realistically defined in the project design. I wonder if they are, especially in education. The behavioural change you refer to in education should, ideally, be strong enough to survive most of the unpredictable influences and support continuing change and improvement and not be limited to the implementation of (say) one unchanging teaching method or one specific management tool. Unlike bridges, an additional complication in education is that many projects operate at several interlocking levels and, further, can also include physical infrastructure such as school buildings. All this leads to the difficult matter of how you measure sustainability. We certainly need to do much better than a lot of past practice which has been little more than a quick judgement resulting from a very limited sample of cases (districts, schools, teachers) that have received assistance. Another curiosity is the contrast between the attention given to evaluating sustainability, which has been very limited, with the attention given to impact evaluation. As you correctly observe, it seems we have not yet grasped how to think about the issues properly. Curious!

I enjoyed reading your comment Ai, and thanks for making the points on strengths and supporting local people. I'd love to hear your thoughts when the Summit is over - to see if you feel like the outcome document achieves what the Summit is hoping for and incorporates the dominant ideas from the online discussions.

Hi Paul and Jo, thank you for very interesting posts! I had been the one whom rescued by the humanitarian organizations in the past, and now work as a healthcare professional. I think I have a somewhat different views from yours. I have been participating WHS online forums and discussions from the beginning, and its agenda ( Prevent and end conflicts, respect rules of war, leave no one behind, working differently to end need, invest in humanity) is fair. I don't think WHS is ignoring the existing issues... Paul mentioned that WHS is failing by only aiming to " preserve and retain emergency capacity, instead of boosting the emergency capacity ( Please correct if I am wrong). There are other things that certainly need to be discussed at the Summit ( I am NOT saying that emergency response is less important) to mobilize and empower the local knowledge and power ( particularly in Global South) to prevent dependency on external actors/ aids/ organizations ( this was one of the most frequently discussed topics during the online regional consultations). Like Jo says, voice of voiceless needs to be heard, and I cant agree more with this remark. I believe, overall, what WHS is trying to achieve is to build the stronger resilience within the local communities ( The conflict stricken areas or disaster prone regions) by shifting the mode of working, from top-down to bottom up, or deficit focused to strengths focused.