Comments

Hi Matthew, The analysis is certainly useful. According to the Merchandise Trade Statistics (VNSO, 2015), Luganville contribute to 70 % of export and Port Vila 30% in 2014. Luganville represends the 4 northern provinces and Port Vila represents the 2 southern provinces. Pam damaged the 2 southern provinces. So the impact of Pam on agricultural export may be disqualified in your analysis. Tourism may be impacted. But tourism has is always been fragile. The inflow of Pam Aid should certainly alleviate some loss, at national level. -Simon Tiwok PS: I'm currently studying an MPP programme at VUW. I used to work at the Reserve Bank of Vanuatu. All views expressed here are my own.

Joel, good but depressing article, thanks. Luckily there are other countries interested in development in Africa - For instance, I am working on a Tanzania project (a study of illicit financial flows, for the central bank) funded by Norway. Australia does run a risk on missing out on an interesting and strong-growth future. Best, Alex

I am not convinced by the "long game" argument - it reaffirms that it is difficult in PNG and many other countries to get tangible results in the short term. I agree there must be policy reform and the political will to ensure an equitable distribution of the benefits of economic growth. Others are better qualified to comment on how best to do this? I also agree with the Australian aid focus on health and education. As the major development partner, we should be able to address both ie "walk and chew gum". However, aid often doesn't reach the grassroots, raising questions about its effectiveness over the past decade. My experience, based on nearly 15 years working at provincial level in PNG health, is that health indicators generally have not improved and the vast majority of Papuan New Guineans are no better off than they were a decade ago. For many, the situation has gotten worse.

Rest in peace, Mr Anthony Clunies-Ross. Thank you for your genuine work for the common good.

British and European history, colonial and trade, influences development assistance policy today. By virtue of its colonial and maritime trade history, and its position in the Bretton Woods institutions, Britain has several reasons to use development assistance for economic and public diplomacy. That national interest narrative is established ("punching above our weight", "influencing the global powers" etc.) and the 0.7% GNI policy justified by the narrative. Australia lacks such a narrative. There is an opportunity to develop one. If we are truly part of Asia, if we see Asia as a focus for economic diplomacy, trade and cultural exchange (the "what") then development cooperation could be woven into the narrative and policy responding to the opportunity (the "how"). That is missing. Perhaps the Development Policy Centre could work with other Think Tanks and private sector actors to start the process of building a narrative of Asian engagement and trade that includes a role for aid. We all have good reason to contribute to such a debate.

Thanks Ravi. I had relied on the bilateral aid figure for Cambodia provided in the budget highlights table <a href="http://dfat.gov.au/about-us/corporate/portfolio-budget-statements/Pages/budget-highlights-2015-16.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>, but the page to which you refer (<a href="http://dfat.gov.au/geo/cambodia/development-assistance/Pages/development-assistance-in-cambodia.aspx" rel="nofollow">here</a>) makes it clear that the $10 million is not regarded as part of the bilateral budget. It's unclear why, though. Presumably it is being drawn from the cross-regional allocation since it shows nowhere else.

Robin--excellent commentary. However, may I point out a minor factual error regarding aid to Cambodia. According to DFAT's Cambodia country page ' An additional $10.0 million will be provided in 2015-16 in line with Australia and Cambodia’s agreement on refugee resettlement.'

Rest In Peace Anthony and May God bless your family.

Thank you all for this useful summary. I'm glad that DFAT aid staffing has not been cut at this stage as it will require significant staffing numbers and skilled staff to ensure that the massive cuts within countries preserve the most effective poverty reduction programs.

Extreme poverty will not end from no where,the governments needs to find out the root cause upon poverty. The government itself may cause the situation to be more worse or a little bit good. And talking of the use of predictions based on the World Bank’s $1.25 per day as a sign of extreme poverty, i don't think identifying that as a criteria for poverty measurement is a resolution, NO!. Governments and different development institutions or organizations should ask themselves as to " why people are living under $1.25 per day?". If they will be able to answer that question, its obvious that they will find causes and setting up of strategic solutions towards the problem, otherwise extreme poverty can never stop.

Robin – sage commentary, as always. I comment in this post as it is the most recent in the threads relating to the budget release; in reality I am probably commenting broadly about the cuts now the dust has settled a little. We've heard the speeches from both sides about their versions of a future for Australia. The relative silence on the slashing of the aid budget in both speeches is telling. Being “approximately the 13th largest donor” is not a mask Australians should accept with any pride. I am under-impressed though unsurprised. I was enthused by the New Aid Paradigm's focus on a results/investment link, so I am somewhat bemused by its application to these budget cuts. Of the previous cuts I argued that we needed to talk less about how to spend and more about how to leverage. That was when we were at 5 billion. Today I argue the same holds true. I am not defending the cuts; I don’t think they can be defended. None of us should accept these decisions as good, but it is what it is. I doubt tomorrow the Government will come out declaring a typo and put back another billion or so into the aid program. So it is now up to us all to do what we can to support what has, to date, been considered a strong aid program and we need to help to keep it that way. We are a myriad of stakeholders - NGOs, private sector, civil society, contractors and so on. So while it has been previously highlighted through The Development Policy Centre's surveys that we all have vested interests, never has it been more important to be as one. The aid program needs us (and others) to succeed. We know it and so does the aid program, yet none of us alone are the panacea for development. It is the right thing to come together and work with the aid program to ensure it delivers. It is also the right thing to come together and maintain the rage. We are better than approximately 13th and the world deserves us to be better than that. Could together we create leveraged results better than what is being invested by ‘number one’ donor? I don't know but shouldn't we at least have a go?

The allocations to UN agencies demonstrate just how little the Government took into account their own rhetoric when it came to making the cuts. As you rightly point out, Robin, the distinction made between 'humanitarian' agencies and 'non-humanitarian' agencies was entirely arbitrary - based not on their demonstrated results, actual mandates or the size of their programs, but simply where they happen to sit in the budget structure. The result is that Australia now provides $19 million in core funding to UNRWA, despite the limited geographic scope, relatively small budget, and complete lack of programs in Indo-Pacific - while at the same time providing only $12 million to UNDP and $21 million to UNICEF, organisations with extensive and important programs in Australia's own region, much larger budgetary needs, and mandates at least as relevant to the Abbott government's stated priorities. It's not clear to me why the budget - which is notably thin on details and basically leaves it up to individual program managers to make and determine how to absorb the cuts within a specific program - needed to dictate exactly the amount each UN agency would receive. It didn't do this to other multilateral organisations (other than the ICRC), nor to the NGO program or any of the country programs. Why wasn't it left to those who actually understand and have ongoing relationships with the UN organisations to make the difficult decisions about how to divide up the resources once the cuts had been made?