Comments

Hi Robin. Thanks for this thought provoking piece. I was surprised that there was no mention of the framework proposed in the independent aid review (p.126) for allocating aid to countries that Stephen played a key role in crafting for the Rudd Government. Country allocations in this framework were based on i. poverty; ii. national interest; and iii. Australia’s capacity to make a significant difference. Indonesia unsurprisingly scored the highest priority with a '1' - 'medium' for poverty, and 'high' for the two other categories. While you highlight the practicalities of having to take the aid portfolio to the chopping block and there has been a lot of water under the bridge since the independent aid review, wouldn't these same criteria make for a worthwhile framework in considering the aid cuts now?

This is interesting; but a couple of points from my own research. As a % of GDP aid from NGOs has been remarkably stable at around 0.03% for the last fifty years. It has gone up (to as much as 0.08%, but is now back to about 0.04%) in the last 10 years following the tsunami effect. In sense it depends on your base year to determine grimness. The ABC story chose 2004 to show things as being particularly grim, but that was an abnormally 'good' year. It is in line with the long run levels. It is the attitude to aid that has tanked and is a real issue, which is another story about the drop off in development education spending since the 1990s. The rise in ACFID membership is really about associate members being abolished (2010 I think?) and them all being full members to be able to sign the Code If we count the associate and full members over the last forty years the change had not been that great. There are both definitional and baseline issues in this analysis.

G'day Jonathan, First time caller, long time listener. I'm fascinated to know your thoughts on why MSF and Compassion choose not to be part of ACFID. Does it really matter? Do they need to be part of ACFID? Cheers!

Thank you very much Robin. This is an excellent overview of the report and the context. I struggled through the report and couldn't really make heads or tails of it. The context you provide is therefore invaluable. I remember vividly the orientation workshop that DFAT held for those of us who received ADRA scheme funding. There was a panel of senior DFAT (then AusAID) managers and one of them actually said something to the effect of "In my twenty years here, I cannot think of one occasion when evidence influenced my policy-making." He obviously didn't hear the words before he said them but that said a huge amount about the role of evidence/research in the organisation.

Thanks Tess. Interesting news and comments. I think this discussion should take place at many levels and that PIFS should allow for this to happen. When this discussion mushrooms then we will need to harness the outcomes of the discussions and bring that together at some stage in the future. There are many ports of call between now and then and we can begin to capture the discussions and bring the outcomes forward for a start. Secondly, AUS&NZ will need to find their place in the new geopolitical configuration that is currently being shaped outside as well as inside the Forum. Lastly, the Forum should recognize that there are many more spaces that have opened up over the last six years when they went into shut down mode. We will have until 2017 - 2020 to figure this one out and space and time should be given to our people to talanoa on this one...yu save?

Thanks Nancy, To be clear: I agree with you, effectiveness should be our guide. But, thanks to political decisions, the timeframes are too short for much of this to be done. Given this case, I think the approach I offer is (at least as a starting point) the least worst option. As to whether aid is given to assist development or for other reasons such as geo-strategy, like you I want my taxes to fund development. And one way of thinking about the the tool offered above is that it offers an approximate guide to the development impact of the cuts. And where we see deviations from those suggested above we should ask why. There may be good answers (i.e. DFAT might demonstrate they have good evidence to show that our aid to Pakistan is strongly justified on development grounds, or working very well) but it will fall to those deciding where the cuts will fall to offer this.

Hi Terence, Thanks for this-very interesting and possibly the only option to make aid cuts with the time constraints. I am with Joel. I am against a holistic approach where we look at percentages and calculations as opposed to effectiveness of aid and impact caused by the aid. This makes me reflect on whether aid is given as a means to an end; or as an end in itself (is it meant to impact positively on development) Will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Thanks Joel, I agree that there are much better ways of cutting an aid programme. Just not in 6 months. Similarly, while I think decisions might be made to stop working in a particular sector or cut spending to a particular multi-lat, I doubt any of this can be done as quickly as country-based cuts. To be clear on the main point of my post: I don't think there's any good way of cutting an aid programme by 20% in 6 months. Nor any good cause for it. All I can offer is what I think is the least worst way forwards now. Terence

Hi Terence, Thanks for this. Interesting perspective and good use of data. Even though you provide sufficient caveats, I worry that such calculations and numeric contortions hide the more fundamental questions that DFAT needs to be asking as it looks for cuts: - which programs are working and which are not? - what can be achieved in a $4b aid program? - do the cuts require a new strategy rather than just variations on the level of cuts (10% or 20% or 30%)? I guess I am arguing that rather than having calculations drive the cuts, DFAT needs to re-develop its strategy and have that drive the cuts. Of course I doubt this will happen partly due to the tight timeline (cuts announced in December and first round of budget proposals needed in February) and partly due to the fact that redesigning the aid strategy less than a year after the launch of the new strategy in June 2014 would be an admission of complete failure. I would prefer some bold (and likely unpopular) decisions by DFAT - pulling out of certain countries; cutting all work in certain sectors; ending contributions to certain multilateral agencies - that are based on a revised strategy of what the aid program can and should achieve. Joel

GDG is also an umbrella entity from memory that provides tax-deductibility to smaller NGOs? If so - may reflect a proliferation in activity at that level.

Global Development Group is a surprising one? Not a major presence on the web or in media, little interaction with peer agencies in the sector, no obvious dedicated constituency, no clear point of differentiation from other aid NGOs in their approach - and yet shooting up the fundraising charts, from a low base. Is it because they're the only aid NGO in Queensland?

Hi Jasmina, That's something we are interested in looking into. I haven't stumbled across anything yet but would be very grateful if anyone could steer us in the right direction! Regards, Jonathan