Comments

There are a few in the National Library as well (early 2000s). If you want older ones pre-2000 then there are ACFOA Archives (MSN 9347) in the National Library as well.

Hi Ashlee, As you state, we are making good progress in reducing overall child mortality. But what is really important about these trends is how little progress we are making in reducing neonatal mortality (first 28 days of life). The lines for child (under 5) and infant (under 1) are relatively steep compared to neonatal. Not surprisingly, neonatal care is really challenging as you have to get to the child and the mother (often in the home) right after birth (most neonatal death is in first week of life). So this is about outreach work, community health workers and also getting women to give birth in health facilities. Neonatal health is the opposite of low-hanging fruit. It's the fruit at the very top of the tree that is hardest to get to. But we need to get some taller ladders (not to take the metaphor too far...). Joel

I have seen the documentary and it is a little bit confused. The problem on Wala is that the cruise ships did a deal with a landowner - but not the ones complaining in the documentary. Secondly, the Government does not get anything from this - contrary to the assertions from the documentary makers. The Government makes some money from fees at Port Vila Port and other charges but it does not amount to very much. In the old days (before the current management of SSS) they also almost never paid - however - that was not the fault of Carnival but their intermediary in Vanuatu. Since SSS got new owners things improved markedly. So the documentary could have done with a proper fact check and historical timeline. The challenges of this industry today are more to do with the externalities presented by Joseph's team and ironically this is something that AusAID could help with and there was progress when the new wharfs were built under the ECF. If we look at the tourism industry in (say) Asia and see how it currently works in terms of operators working in a more cooperative fashion with locals only Carnival comes close. The rest of the industry pretty much works against any sort of local development and this is what worries me about this documentary and also Stephens blog. It is not to say there is nothing wrong but in my opinion - by far the bigger problem - is the way the non cruise industry works in Vanuatu. This reminds me of working in Finance - by taking on challenges and admitting things are wrong and trying to fix them you become the target. External observers then end up creating a perverse environment for policy makers because you end up overly criticising the very people that are willing to change things.

Thanks Patrick for the heads up. I emailed ACFID earlier this morning to request access to their annual reports prior to the 2009-2010 FY (given that subsequent ones are accessible on their website).

Joanna the figures are available each year in ACFID's Annual Reports

Hi Rick, We have every intention of releasing the raw data, though parts of section 1 ("about the respondent") may not be shared to remove any chance of participants being identified. Regards, Jonathan

Cutting the ODA budget has not lost votes for the coalition and it may have actually gained them a few. Taking to folks in one cafe that I frequent reveals to me that many think Australia gives tons of aid and that most of it is wasted. On the first, the fact is that we give 36 cents in every $100 that we earn. The response I get from most Aussies to the above is: Are you sure? Yes, I am! Most of us spend many multiples of the above on chocolates and the like. On whether most aid is wasted, I would like to believe that this is not the case. But we need good data and thorough analysis to get the skeptics onboard. And unless and until lucky Australians are told of how little we give away to those less fortunate and shown that what we give delivers much needed support, there is little chance that we will ever reach the 0.5 percent target.

Hi Robin, Fundamentally, I think that fact-checking regarding the 450,000 kind of misses the point: the aid cuts will have a big impact on what AusAID is able to deliver and that includes life-saving or life-prolonging interventions, education that expands opportunity, agricultural interventions that fill hungry bellies. Whether the figure is 450,000 or 300,000 or something else, is not - to me at least - the crux of the matter. So we shouldn't spend too much time analysing the figure. That being said - I am going to do just that! As you note, the $2000 figure is an extrapolation of Global Fund spending by Global Fund analysis of lives saved. So the $2000 figure represents an extrapolation on analysis based on some GF assumptions – and then assuming that the AusAID cuts will be applied at a consistent percentage to the health sector – and within the health sector to interventions that are equally cost-effective. That represents multiple assumptions. In the absence of specific data from the Coalition on the nature of the cuts, assumptions do have to be made but the 450,000 is hard to validate at this time. There are however a number of health interventions that can save lives for around $2000 (or much less) so that figure itself is not inaccurate. For example: • “Expanded vaccine coverage is among the most cost-effective programs we've considered. In Sub-Saharan Africa, <a href="http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/immunization" rel="nofollow">available estimates</a> claim that it costs approximately $14 to fully vaccinate a child and $200 to save a life with this program.” • Bednets "cost under $10 each to purchase and distribute (including all costs), and this intervention is <a href="http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets " rel="nofollow">generally considered</a> to be among the most cost-effective ways to save lives. We estimate one life saved for just under $2,300 (this does not include other benefits of ITNs).” • The World Health Organization has <a href="http://www.who.int/choice/results/mnh_afroe/en/index.html. But it confirms that lives can be prolonged/saved for very little money" rel="nofollow">cost effectiveness tables</a> but they are not organised by “life saved” but rather by “disability-adjusted life year saved”. If the AusAID cuts are to programs that deliver immunisation coverage (which a good chunk of AusAID health spending does), then the World Vision figure does have some merit. I personally wouldn't use the 450,000 figure as it implies specificity where we have little. But we can all agree that the aid cuts will have an impact on lives saved and hunger and development. Joel

Really interesting article you've written Sophie. I'm writing my honours thesis on public opinion and the size of the foreign aid budget so it was really nice to finally see the collection of primary data esp. in terms of total dollar amounts. I was wondering if you would be interested in sharing this data - that is if it's easily accessible. If not, thanks for writing a really useful article!

SBS Dateline has produced an item (I have not seen it) which poses some awkward questions about Carnival's engagement with the the people of Wala island plus one of the (Vanuatu) weekend papers carried concerns as voiced by some other participants in the tourism industry about alleged "bully boy" tactics on the part of Carnival/P&O. <a href="http://www.sbs.com.au/dateline/story/about/id/601721/n/Vanuatu-s-Broken-Dreams" rel="nofollow">This link</a> is to some information about the Dateline item.

Alex, Agree with your points and interesting application to security needs. I can add to this by saying that long-term measures generally carry more uncertainty than immediate actions, because of the uncertain nature of the future. Your food distribution vs. development of new vaccines example is a good one - it's not certain that after 20 years of research there will be a viable vaccine, whereas the benefits of money spent on food distribution are comparatively reliable. This isn't an argument against spending money or effort on long-term measures, just another factor to consider. Perhaps it implies that, for example, we should be willing to try to help prevent the situation where Myanmar relapses into civil war, etc., even if we don't believe that this outcome is very likely. Michael

Re "we look forward to sharing the results with you." Will you also share the raw data? (anonymised to the degree necessary)