Comments

I think the USAID office in PNG has been open for 6 months.

Thank you for your comment Tess. I very much agree with your sentiment that it is important for key players to be honest with themselves and stakeholders — I think aid and development sector jargon is another barrier to broader understanding in the community of what humanitarian assistance and aid really does and what the process involves. Putting a simple message forward to the public to get support, but then using jargon/technical language in reports and other documents and basically making information impenetrable to laymen, is a problem. I think the NGO sector does a much better job at publishing clear, readable reports (or at least more accessible executive summaries) that cater to a wider range of readers than government agencies or multilaterals. I feel there needs to be more communication materials in this middle ground... not overly simplified but not overly technical.

I think your penultimate point is particularly valid - if agencies make this information available and include it in their communications then there is hopefully less risk of it being held up as some sort of smoking gun by someone else. And of course as media develops agencies are becoming more adept at tailoring messages according to the intended audience and the means by which it is to be transmitted. But in order to build transparency and, more importantly, sustainability, it is really important that the key players are honest with themselves and their stakeholders about the reality of what they are doing and the environment in which they are doing it.

Dear John, Thank you for sharing a provocative post on funding to multilateral development banks. I think if you re-read my blog again you will see that it is very clearly about core contributions to the IDA16 replenishment round. I don't dispute that Australia gives earmarked funding to the multilateral banks, and this reported on the AusAID website. The issue is that picking projects and programs, and then earmarking funding for these could be thought of as bilateral aid--with the multilateral banks being used as an agent. There has been a proliferation of this kind of funding in recent years, not just from Australia but also other donors. And I'd argue that this undermines, rather than strengthens, multilateral banks. I look forward to discussing this and other concerns with the balance of your report during the panel discussion tomorrow. Best regards, Matt

I find it interesting that Korea and Japan did so well in the ActionAID analysis but so poorly on the CGD's Quality of ODA assessment. Any thoughts on why that may be?

The whole report is now available online at the link contained here. I agree that it is really important that assessment (which may include criticisms) of aid effectiveness and efficiency has to be done with a great deal of rigour and appropriate criteria need to be applied. It is essential that recipient countries' leaders are well informed in order to enter into meaningful dialogue with (potential) development partners and in terms of the domestic situation for donor countries, aid should not be at risk of becoming a political football on the back of poorly constructed critiques.

A review of ‘Measures and standards of performance and accountability of partner country systems in public financial management, procurement, fiduciary standards and environmental assessments’, especially with regards procurement, suggest that progress has been at best patchy. While some emphasis has been placed on the development of procurement legislation and regulations, these documents by themselves does not deliver an efficient and effective public procurement system. Governments need to invest in the institutions, process and procedures of public procurement. While public procurement is a key element of government administrative programs, specifically the management of public finance, the magnitude and significance of public procurement is usually not fully understood by stakeholders. The role of public procurement in reducing costs and improving operating performance without adversely affecting the breadth or quality of government services is also not well understood. Even with the best of intentions on the part of the responsible agencies in partner governments and donors, the importance of good procurement is not well understood and high level support for effective reforms is weak. Good public procurement is underpinned by high-level support for the public procurement system, clear institutional structures, a robust legal regime, a capacitated cadre of procurement professionals and effective governance and oversight institutions and processes. In many countries, public procurement has not been viewed as having a strategic impact in the management of public resources. It is largely treated as a process-oriented, ‘back-office’ support function often implemented by non-professional staff of the buying agencies. Consequently, little effort is expended to ensure that the policies and rules and the institutional framework governing public procurement systems are maintained in a manner that ensures that public funds are used in the most efficient and economic way and that systems deliver the best value for money. But recently, this has been changing. • In the last few years, the Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action have provided renewed focus on strengthening procurement systems at the country level. • The OECD has developed an integrated set of tools and good practices to improve developing country public procurement systems and their contribution to development outcomes. • In the face of shrinking budgets and the need to fight corruption, many governments have realized that significant savings can be gained by a well-organized public procurement system. • Many developing countries have realized that a well-organized public procurement system contributes to good governance by increasing confidence that public funds are well spent. • Many developing countries have instituted reforms aimed at making their public procurement systems more transparent and efficient and increasing the accountability of public officials. Public procurement is the single largest area of public scrutiny into acts of alleged corruption as it represents a major cost to the system – not only in terms of lost money. While further work is required in this critical area, a start has been made. It will be very interesting to see what happens at Busan, including with regards to continuing reform of public procurement. Mr. E. John Blunt is an Institutional and Public Procurement Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments. He is currently on assignment with the Southern African Development Community in Botswana.

I notice that the 2009 ODE claim (which you quote) that AusAID's gender policy isn't having an impact puts a lot of emphasis on the fact that violence against women continues to be endemic in Melanesia (see p.51). This suggests to me that we shouldn't rely on this as a serious evaluation of the gender policy. Are we really going to blame AusAID for continuing violence against women in Melanesia?

Given the number of new AusAID recruits without development experience (especially at the senior levels where recruits are more likely to come from other government departments than other development organisations) it is not surprising that issues requiring technical development expertise - such as gender mainstreaming - are dropping off AusAID's radar. Additionally the aid budget has dramatically increased in past years without staff numbers increasing on par - how are staff meant to find the time to focus on a mainstreaming without additional resources, space to reflect and learn or capacitated and committed leadership?

With regards to the corruption issue, there was a very interesting article in The Age on Monday 10th October 2011 referring to “corrupt millions stashed here” : claim (Dylan Welch, corrupt millions stashed here: claim, The Age, 10 October 2011 refers). The article suggests Australia may be sheltering hundreds of millions of black dollars funnelled out of South Pacific countries by corrupt politicians and public officials, with the money laundering being tolerated by an unconcerned federal government. Papua New Guinea in particular is believed to suffer from the avarice of some of its officials and politicians, with a senior police officer recently claiming the country loses as much as 50 per cent of its budget - about $A1.9 billion - through fraud and corruption every year. Evidence gathered by several international organisations had also made particular claims about politicians from PNG - which has undergone a massive minerals boom in recent years - buying property in Queensland. A cursory examination of Queensland property registers by The Age found at least a dozen properties valued at $150,000 to $3.1 million owned by serving members of the PNG cabinet and their families. The claims have been made at a Queensland conference by governance expert Professor Jason Sharman. He called on the Australian government to drop its ''nonchalant attitude'' towards the problem, which he said restricted regional aid, governance and security policies. I commend the article to you. Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/corrupt-millions-stashed-here-claim-20111009-1lg5f.html#ixzz1aNJ6gNfX <em>E. John Blunt is a Procurement and Institutional Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments. He is currently working with the Southern African Development Community Secretariat in Botswana.</em>

That Australian-funded programs have found a way to work within constraints to improve services to those in need, is to be commended. A key to the future success of the program will be the continuing strong high-level Australian political support, resourcing and flexibility to enable the program to be ambitious, innovative, flexible and catalytic. I do note that despite the progress and achievements, the Zimbabwe program continues to contain significant risk due to the ongoing fragility of the country’s recovery. At some stage, Australia and other development partners will need to focus on strengthening government institutions, including and especially those involved in public procurement to enable a transition from donor led programs/projects to government led programs and also a transition to budget support. The strength, efficiency and effectiveness of these institutions should be centre of any on-going country strategy. When and how this re-focus occurs, will need to be considered and discussed soon. <em>E. John Blunt is an Institutional and Public Procurement Expert with extensive experience in leading public procurement reforms in a variety of international development environments. He is currently on assignment with the Southern African Development Community Secretary in Botswana.</em>

Sean Greetings from the frontline of climate change: Funafuti, Tuvalu. thanks for your comment on a key issue. I note in the State of Pacific Youth 2010 the following: The adolescent birth rate is highest in the Marshall Islands (138 per 1,000) and Papua New Guinea (104 per 1,000), with rates higher than Bangladesh (133 per 1,000) and or close to Laos (110 per 1,000), the countries with highest adolescent birth rates in the Asian region. So adolescent pregnancy is both a result of the youth bulge and part contributor. A major cause is the lack of economic and social opportunties - shown by the fact that outer island adolescents in the Marshall Islands have double the national rate. So my view is that the reducing adolesent birthrate requires a more complex set of interventions than simply providing access to birth control. Best wishes, Richard