What is aid?

Aid is referred to as Official Development Assistance (ODA), which is the amount of money any government gives that can be considered as ‘official aid’.

hands and feet.jpg

Flint Duxfield/AID/WATCH

Wealthy donor countries set the guidelines for defining “Official Development Assistance”. This allows donors to artificially inflate the amount of aid they claim to provide by including items which do not contribute to poverty alleviation.

In addition, there are many misconceptions about aid, trade and foreign policy which affect our analysis of Australia’s and other nation’s aid programs.

Contemporary approaches to aid and development follow a long history from colonialism and post-colonialism through the post-World War II establishment of the United Nations and other international institutions. An understanding of this history enables us to appreciate the structural inequalities and imbalances in power in the global community.

In recent years, some new players have emerged in the aid environment. These developments reflect changes in global power relations. This includes states such as China and Taiwan taking on roles as key bilateral donors and the growth of private actors as donors. The growth of philanthropy and private capital flows in aid may be seen a reflection of the increasing power of private capital in the global economy, vis a vis nation states.

Aid priorities are subject to various differences of opinion between AusAid, NGOs and others. There are competing views on issues such as:

aid for development driven by economic growth
security interests
increased recipient autonomy
grassroots development.

The official objective of Australia’s overseas aid program is “to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest”.

AID/WATCH

Aid should be first and foremost guided by the needs of communities, allowing communities to determine their own development needs
Aid should promote local ownership and sustainability
Aid should be based on principles of social and environmental justice and support sustainable and long-term self-determination.
Aid should be a mechanism of global social responsibility; not a tool for Australia’s national interest.
The final outcome of aid should be to remove the need for aid

The international community addresses the conflicting views on aid priorities through initiatives such as the Millennium Development Goals and the Paris Declaration, intended to render aid more effective in alleviating poverty.

Myths about aid

Some common myths about aid...

nick_moir.jpg

Courtesy/ Nick Moir

NGOs get all the money

NGOs receive less than 10% of the Australian aid budget.

A much larger proportion of Australian aid is in fact paid to private (mostly Australian) corporations[i]

“Developing countries need Trade not aid”

Trade alone is not enough to reduce poverty. Harsh free trade policies increasingly pushed on ‘developing’ countries by rich, western governments often do more harm than good.

Chronically poor communities “are often not in a position to take advantage of economic growth”[ii]. Many countries that experienced large increases in economic productivity, such as Brazil and Mexico, also experienced sharp increases in income inequality with no increase in living standards for the very poorest people.[iii] A 2007 World Food Program Survey found that every second rural child in Lao PDR was chronically malnourished and that there had been no improvements in this chronic malnutrition over the past 10 years[iv] despite strong GDP growth in that period (4-7% per year[v]) . The experience of Pacific Island communities further challenges the much repeated mantra that ‘growth is good’. According to Tim Anderson:

“The orthodox economic argument for policies aimed at ‘broad based growth’ (the benefits of which are said to ‘trickle down’) is particularly thin in PNG, a food rich country with a huge subsistence sector. If subsistence farming is displaced by corporate industries which do not both outweigh the value of subsistence production and evenly distribute the benefits of that production, people will be worse off. Economic growth by itself means little in PNG.”[vi]

Export-driven global trade is also a key accelerator of global warming. Climate change will have a devastating effect on the world’s poor, particularly communities living along coastal areas.

“Aid can help Australia and poor countries at the same time”

Australian aid motivated by our own security and commercial interests has frequently ignored the needs of the poor. Two of AusAID’s largest projects during the last five years, the Enhanced Cooperation Program (ECP) to Papua New Guinea and the Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands (RAMSI) were heavily motivated by Australia’s security interests in the region rather than direct poverty alleviation. Australian assistance to Iraq has also been dominated by a narrow pursuit of economic interests dealing little with the reconstruction of Iraq.[vii]

A recent IMF report also points to the influence of other interests in government aid allocation. Governments and NGOs have committed to working to meet the Millennium Development Goal on reducing infant mortality. However, an IMF investigation revealed that NGO aid favours countries with high infant mortality, where as bilateral (government) aid actually favours countries with already lower infant mortality. The IMF found that “NGO aid significantly reduces infant mortality while bilateral aid does not.” [viii]

Last updated 12 November 2010

[i]‘Who profits from our foreign aid? Where the little known dominate’

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/07/23/who-profits-from-our-foreign-aid-carving-up-the-pie-where-the-little-known-dominate/

Accessed 29th October 2010

[ii] UK Department For International Development – Research for Development http://www.dfid.gov.uk/r4d/chronicpovertyfeature.asp

[iii] Hensman, C.R, Rich Against Poor: the Reality of Aid, Middlesex, England: Penguin Books Limited, 1975.

[iv] Lao PDR Comprehensive Food Security & Vulnerability Analysis - December, 2007, World Food Programme, Vulnerability Analysis and Mapping Branch, p13.

http://documents.wfp.org/stellent/groups/public/documents/ena/wfp178397.pdf

[v] Promotion of Renewable Energy, Energy Efficiency And Greenhouse Gas Abatement (PREGA) Lao PDR, May 2006, UNCAP, Green Growth, p12.

http://www.greengrowth.org/download/green-business-pub/Greening_of_the_Business/Governments/Lao_People_s_Democratic_Country_Report.pdf

[vi] Anderson, Tim. Australia pushing the new colonial agenda in PNG, Post Courier, PNG, 13 December 2004.

[vii] Doran,Chris. Determining their National Interests: Australia’s Economic Intervention in Iraq, AID/WATCH, 2007.

[viii] Does Foreign Aid Reduce Poverty? Empirical Evidence from Nongovernmental and Bilateral Aid - IMF Working Paper, IMF Institute, Nadia Masud and Boriana Yontcheva, 2005, p20. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/wp05100.pdf

What is NOT aid?

The OECD, an association of wealthy donor countries, sets the guidelines for defining “Official Development Assistance” (ODA) – another term for aid. Civil Society Organisations have frequently raised concerns that the OECD guidelines allow donors to artificially inflate the amount of aid they claim to provide by falsely including foreign policy spending which is not related to development.[1]

what is not aid.jpg

ODA is not limited to funds spent by Australia’s aid agency, AusAID. You may be surprised to learn that Australian aid figures are inflated by including spending on:

controlling ‘irregular’ immigration and upgrading of detention facilities in Indonesia;[2]
training Burmese intelligence officers and counter-terrorism workshops;[3]
cancellation of debt, which is contrary to international agreements.[4]

Debt cancellation:

Is a crucial step forward for developing countries;
Releases them from unfair repayments, many of which were accrued by undemocratically elected dictators or through irresponsible lending by donors;
Repayments divert much needed government funds away from programs addressing social problems affecting health, education and local infrastructure;

Debt cancellation should not be regarded as official development aid. Wealthy countries must take responsibility for their complicity in generating the global debt program through unscrupulous trade policies.

Australia's Debt Cancellation

Debt cancellation is usually counted as an expense for the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, in the 2008-09 budget $238.2 million in debt cancellation for Iraq was included as ODA. An additional $668 million had been included in the previous two financial years. Australia’s 2010 contribution to the Multilateral Debt Relief Initiative (MDRI) is also included in the budget and amounts to $22.6 million.[5]

Many countries, particularly in Scandinavia, do not include debt cancellation as part of their ODA. In fact, Norway has gone a step further, accepting shared responsibility for having played a role in the global debt problem due to irresponsible lending policies.

The hypocrisy of Iraq’s “debt” to Australia

Australia sold wheat on loan to Saddam Hussein’s regime - 95% of Iraq’s debt to Australia was related to these purchases.[6]
Australia then invaded Iraq on the premise that Saddam Husseins dictatorial regime was an ‘immense burden of terror’ on the Iraqi people.[7]
The Australian government still considers the debt made through its own corrupt dealings with Saddam to be the responsibility of the Iraqi people.

Result = aid budget diverted from poverty reduction to Iraqi “debt cancellation”.

Counting debt cancelation as part of Australia’s aid program artificially inflates the size of our aid budget.

Scholarships

Aid figures are also inflated through the inclusion of scholarships supporting students from developing countries to study in Australia.[8]

Scholarships:

Bring financial benefits to Australian institutions:[9]
Are funded through the Australian Scholarships Initiative to the tune of $1.4 Billion of aid money every 5 years:[10]

There is little evidence to suggest that scholarships deliver any significant benefit (in terms of poverty alleviation or otherwise) to the students’ home countries.

By contrast, significant evidence exists that direct spending to national education within recipient countries leads to poverty alleviation[11]; yet Australia’s aid initiative for national education receives only $540 million over 5 years[12]– one third of the amount spent on scholarships!

Aid funding in grants or loans?

Half of Australia’s 2005 tsunami aid package to Indonesia took the form of an interest-free loan requiring repayment[13]. Although the conditions of loans provided as aid are more lenient than those in private capital markets, the obligation to pay them is no less a burden.

In addition, the decision of where the loan money is spent is made by Australia and the governing elite in developing countries, yet the people who will pay back the loan are the children of the poor majority of those countries.

According to James K. Boyce the “default setting is for aid to flow to those who wield power” rather than directly to the people who need it most.[14]

To change this, donors have to make a conscious effort in determining where their aid money goes, paying close attention to inequalities which exist across income classes as well as racial, ethnic, linguistic, religious, and cultural divides. Donor nations must consider not only which countries, but who within those countries, receive and control aid.

Find out more about AID/WATCH's priorities for aid and the policy changes which we would like the Australian Government to take.

Last Updated November 15 2010 Next page

1 Reality of Aid, 2006, Online http://www.realityofaid.org/roareport.php?table=roa2006&id=5 accessed June 2008

[2] Australian Government, Budget 2010-2011, Budget Paper No. 2, Immigration and Citizenship. http://www.budget.gov.au/2010-11/content/bp2/html/bp2_expense-15.htm

[3] Goodman, J. (2007) The Australian aid program: Aiding the Burmese Intelligence systems. AID/WATCH, Sydney.

[4] United Nations (2003) Monterrey Consensus of the International Conference on Financing for Development, p10. http://www.un.org/esa/ffd/monterrey/MonterreyConsensus.pdf

[5] AusAid 2010-11 Budget Summary p.60

[6] Doran, C. (2007) Determining Their National Interest: Australia’s Economic Intervention in Iraq, AID/WATCH, Sydney, p.12.

[7] PM commits nation to war March 20, 2003

http://www.smh.com.au/news/After-Saddam/PM-commits-nation-to-war/2003/09/15/1078191366124.html

[8] AusAid, Scholarships Overview, http://www.ausaid.gov.au/scholar/pdf/overview.pdf

[9] EURODAD, 2006, ActionAid, 2006, Reality of AID, 2006 Op Cit.

[10] 2007-08 Federal aid budget statement,p25

[11] Simon Appleton, Education, Incomes and Poverty in Uganda in the 1990s, Centre for Research in Economic Development and International Trade, University of Nottingham, United Kingdom, P.5.

http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/economics/credit/research/papers/CP.01.22.pdf

Servaas van der Berg, Poverty and Education, International Academy of Education, p.1.

http://www.iiep.unesco.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Info_Services_Publications/pdf/2009/EdPol10.pdf

[12] 2007-08 Federal aid budget statement,p25

[13] AID/WATCH, International Response to the Indian Ocean Disaster: a donor analysis focus on Australia, 2005

[14] James K. Boyce, ‘Unpacking aid’, Development and Change, 2002, 33(2), pp. 239-246

A brief history of aid

The Following Timeline shows the development of aid from colonial times to present day.

Colonialism

Britain and other imperial powers exported capital and manufactured goods to colonised countries in return for substantial imports of raw materials. This set up trading relationships that persist through to this day.

Aid money from the colonisers to their colonial governments, usually in the form of loans, was never enough for genuine economic development, instead it usually benefitted urban elites and colonial business interests.

1944-46 Post-war development

The United Nations was established along with international financial institutions (IFIs): International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD or World Bank) & the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

World Bank founded to raise capital for the reconstruction of Europe and Japan; original aim of the IMF was to promote international monetary stability.

Aid was viewed as a way of supporting ‘developing' country economies to industrialise, attracting large scale investments of capital and technical expertise that would lead to western style industrial development.

While this process was successful for many European countries, the power imbalance between the (primarily Western controlled) International Financial Institutions and the recipient countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific meant that industrialisation attempts largely proved disastrous for communities and environments in countries mandated for ‘development'.

1949 Modernisation and industrialisation

Development aid focused on the dominant economic and political theories of the time.[i] US President Harry Truman stated that ‘underdeveloped' countries had to modernise and industrialise if they wanted to tackle poverty and economic problems.

Industrialisation proved largely disastrous for communities and environments mandated for development largely due to the power imbalance between the IFI’s and recipient countries in Africa, Asia and the Pacific.

1950s-1960s Decolonisation

Notions of the ‘developed' and ‘developing world' emerge out of decolonisation and the lack of industrialisation in many newly formed independent states. What happended next is up for debate; certainlyTthe idea of tackling poverty took hold and the UN and Bretton Woods Institutions (originally formed for post-war reconstruction) became mechanisms for action on development, although many would argue that the institutionisation of aid programs amounted to neo-colonialism.

1970s A more human approach

Development focused more on social considerations such as health (life expectancy, infant mortality rates and disease), education, income distribution, and gender equality, rather than simply macroeconomic growth.

The UN family of organisations and the World Bank conceded that, whilst the old model of development aid led to some significant economic growth, it had made little impact on social indicators of poverty such as life expectancy, infant mortality rates, income distribution and education levels.[ii]

1980s The Lost Decade of Development

Recession in the industrialised world and debt crisis in developing countries ensues. The structural adjustment policies of the World Bank and regional development banks force major economic reforms through privatisation and deregulation in the developing world.

2000 Millennium Development Goals

Partly as a response to the failure of explicitly growth-focused aid in alleviating poverty, governments come together to form an international action plan to increase the amount of aid by 2015 to 0.7% of GNI and to target poverty reduction in eight areas.

2005 The Paris Declaration

91 countries make a joint agreement on aid effectiveness. The Declaration sidelines growth as the foundation of aid effectiveness, instead focussing the principles of recipient ownership, alignment, harmonisation, managing for results, and mutual accountability.[iii]

[i] For more, see Hunt J., ‘Aid in an era of globalisation’, Dialogue: Journal of the Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, 22:3/2003, pp 4-11.(9) Louis Emmerij, 2002, “Aid as a flight forward”, Development and Change, 33(2), pp. 247-260.

[ii] Louis Emmerij, 2002, ‘Aid as a flight forward’, Development and Change, 33(2), p.239-246.

[i] The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness and the Accra Agenda for Action, OECD, 2008 http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/11/41/34428351.pdf

Resources for research on the history of foreign aid

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/213344/foreign-aid/256255/History

The emergence of new donors

Bilateral Donors

In recent years, China and Taiwan have emerged as significant donors in the Asia-Pacific region. Concerns have been raised from traditional donor nations such as Australia, with both nations accused of:

Exchanging aid funds for political and diplomatic purposes;
A lack of cooperation with other donors;
Operating a ‘no questions asked’ approach to aid, which fails to encourage ‘good governance’ or engage with international aid effectiveness criteria;[i]
Beyond the Asia-Pacific, Britain has warned that China’s unconditional aid and cheap loans in Africa risks driving countries back into debt and undermines efforts to create democratic and accountable administrations.[ii] However, China has described its aid program as a “strategic partnership with Africa, featuring political equality and mutual trust, economic win-win cooperation”.[iii] Both China and Taiwan have proved vulnerable to donor criticisms and have signalled an increased willingness toward international cooperation and away from their so-called ‘dollar diplomacy’ approach.

Criticisms from Britain, Australia and other traditional donor nations may have some merit, however they are also highly hypocritical. Most nations seek to pursue their own economic and national interests through programs of foreign aid, including the Australian government.

[i] Strings Attached: China’s Pacific aid under the spotlight’ABC News, 22nd June 2008. Online http:// www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/06/22/2282018.htm , Accessed 12th September 2008

[ii] The Guardian, ‘Chinese aid to Africa may do more harm than good, warns Benn’ 8th February,2007

[iii] Ibid.

Philanthropists

Philanthropy – at its most fundamental - has been described as the sharing of private resources for public benefit.(14) As the rich get richer, philanthropy has experienced an explosion of available capital. In 2001, the financial resources dedicated worldwide to philanthropic action were estimated at US$240 billion in gifts and nearly double that in total assets.(15) The philanthropic industry is becoming increasingly crowded and diverse. Organisations traditionally unassociated with the provision of charity and aid – mutual funds, financial services firms, and e-commerce companies providing the internet technology to manage fundraising efforts – have become an integral part of modern day philanthropy.

How does philanthropy fit in with the established aid players?

Philanthropic donors and bilateral government agencies are increasingly adopting joint partnerships, with public private partnerships (PPPs) being the most dominant form of collaboration. After signing a Memorandum of Understanding in February 2006, AusAID pledged $25 million over a four year period to a collaborative partnership with the William J. Clinton Foundation.(16) Aimed at addressing HIV/AIDS in the Asia-Pacific region, the Clinton Foundation and AusAID are working together with public health authorities in countries like PNG, China and Indonesia to scale-up treatment and care for people living with HIV/AIDS.

CASE STUDY

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation:The Microsoft Of Public Health?

To say that the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has become the Microsoft of the public health world is not as brazen a statement as it may seem. The Gates Foundation currently rivals the incumbent global public health multilateral, the Geneva-based World Health Organisation (WHO), in funds and global influence. As of April of this year, the Gates Foundation has committed $US16.5 billion in grants aimed at addressing health issues in developing nations since its formation in 2000.17 WHO, on the other hand, has a total budget of around $US4.2 billion for the biennium 2008-09.(18) Bill Gates and his wife Melinda appear dedicated to eradicating malaria once and for all through their foundation. But is it enough to pour money into a global issue like malaria? A number of commentators in the public health scene have raised concerns over the perceived universal benefits wealth and a highly targeted approach can have. Dr Arata Kochi, a malaria expert and veteran of the public health scene, is one such commentator. Dr. Kochi stated that “Gates can solve problems with money – but a lot of money leads to a monopoly, and discourages smaller rivals and intellectual competition”.(19)

As with many institutions involved in aid, philanthropic foundations are to varying degrees open and democratic. Generally they do not give grant recipients or the communities in which they operate the ability to hold them to account.(20) To respond to this it is essential there be mutual accountability. This refers to the parties within a partnership being accountable to one another for their actions and the honouring of agreements. This approach is difficult to measure, however, and requires the philanthropic individual or body to take a degree of responsibility for how the money they give away is used.

(14) L ucy Bernholz, Creating Philanthropic Capital Markets: The Deliberate Evolution. Wiley, US, 2004. (15) Philanthropy Australia, Tax Concessions for Arts Donations: Australia, US, UK, Canada. Australia, 2001, pg.1. (16) AusAID, AusAID-Clinton Foundation Partnership.http://www.ausaid.gov.au/keyaid/hivaids/foundation.cfm accessed 28th May 2008. (17) Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Foundation Fact Sheet, http://www.gatesfoundation.org/MediaCenter/ FactSheet/default.htm accessed 10th May 08. (18) World Health Organisation, Programme Budget 2008-09 (19) Arata Kochi cited in The side-effects of doing good. The Economist, New York, 23/02/2008. (20) Peter Frumkin, Trouble in Foundationland: Looking Back, Looking Ahead. Bradley Centre for Philanthropy and Civic Renewal, Hudson Institute.

What are aid priorities?

The priorities of aid are worthy of open and rigorous public debate. Competing views exist on issues such as aid for development driven by economic growth, security interests, increased recipient autonomy, or grassroots development. This section captures a few differing perspectives around what aid priorities should be.

Priorities of AusAID

The official objective of Australia’s overseas aid program is “to assist developing countries reduce poverty and achieve sustainable development, in line with Australia’s national interest”.[i] The 2006 White Paper, Australian Aid: Promoting Growth and Stability set out a policy framework for the aid program, with economic growth and regional stability at the centre of Australian aid. The paper set out four key themes:

Accelerating economic growth
Fostering functioning states
Investing in people
Regional stability and cooperation

The Howard Government maintained that accelerating economic growth was the foundation of aid effectiveness, contrary to international action plans in the Millennium Development Goals and 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness.

Delivering aid in line with Australia’s own national interests has seen aid used as a tool to promote strategic and commercial concerns over poverty alleviation. This has led to significant increases in funding to governance programs and decreases in funding for health and education over the last ten years.

An Aid/Watch survey showed that only 4% of Australian community members support using aid to advance Australia’s strategic interests, as opposed to 43% of Australian Parliamentarians[ii].

The new Labor government: a new beginning or more of the same?

The change of government in 2007 hailed some changes in Australian aid, however much still needs to be done to make our aid more effective. Setting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) as aid effectiveness benchmarks and committing to increasing levels of aid are good first steps. The Labor government has so far been very strong on symbolism with ‘partnerships’ and ‘mutual responsibility’ being the new aid rhetoric. However, there is still a long way to go to meet international aid targets and many aid practices remain unchallenged, such as Australia’s high levels of Technical Assistance and the use of tied aid (Link to :see 'Australian government' aid web section). AusAID’s priority of national interest in aid also remains unchanged.

[i] http://www.ausaid.gov.au/about/default.cfm Accessed 29th October 2010

[ii] Aid Watch, Attitudes to Aid - Survey p4.

Reality of Aid and NGOs

The Reality of Aid (RoA) project is the only major North/South international initiative focused exclusively on analysing and lobbying for poverty eradication policies and practices in international aid. The RoA network believes that aid must have a clear, exclusive focus on poverty: The promotion of donor short-term foreign policy interests, so common over three decades in the allocation of aid resources, must give way to a mandate for ODA that focuses exclusively on poverty reduction and the rights of poor and vulnerable people.(22)

Vulnerable people include indigenous groups, persecuted ethnic groups and classes, as well as victims of environmental degradation. The priority given to security, which focuses mainly on the Western preoccupation with the ‘war on terror’, must be removed from the official criteria of aid. Instead, international assistance needs to be guided by international human rights and humanitarian laws, closely aligned with the United Nations’ Millennium Development Goals.

From this perspective aid must also promote local ownership in conflict resolution, which will ensure peace is a process owned by locals, not introduced from the outside. Aid should support and protect spaces for inclusive processes allowing the people involved to build frameworks for peace. Donors must assist by investing in conflict prevention, which can reduce the costly reconstruction of societies hit by conflict.

The RoA network promotes donor harmony with bilateral, multilateral organisations and NGOs working towards the same goal of poverty alleviation guided by a collective focus on human rights.

Another voice in the aid debate is Make Poverty History (MPH). MPH is a “non-partisan coalition of more than 60 aid organisations, community and faith-based organisations” which encourages all political parties to move towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals by 2015. MPH argues that aid is an important strategy for achieving the MDGs.

However, if aid is to work effectively in assisting the poor it needs to be accompanied by a just global trade environment.

(22) For a more detailed breakdown of aid trends and themes, see the 2006 Reality of Aid report online http://www.realityofaid.org/roareport.php?table=roa2006&id=5

Southern Groups

Southern Civil Society Organisations (CSOs) and NGOs are often best positioned to promote local ownership of development that is driven by the cultural as well as the social and economic needs of communities.

IndigBali.jpg

Flint Duxfield/AID/WATCH Workshop on the People's Protocol held with Indigenous Peoples from Sumber Klampok, East Bali.

The Foundation of the People of the South Pacific International (FSPI) is a network of NGOs which focuses on people-centred programs in Pacific communities that foster self-determination and self-reliance.

Many Southern CSOs and NGOs like FSPI advance the rights of southern citizens by promoting more effective states, essential services in health and education and the autonomy of diverse peoples. They view aid, not as service provision, but as support for their activities that promote social justice and self-reliance. This contrasts with many aid programs delivered by government agencies and development NGOs from rich donor countries like Australia.

Case Studies: Alternative Development Approaches

The Bismark Ramu Group (BRG)

The Bismark Ramu Group (BRG) is a grassroots civil society organisation. They work with communities in the Madang province of Papua New Guinea on local empowerment, education and community development. BRG don’t deliver aid; nor are they a watchdog or an advocacy organisation. They work with communities in PNG to help them to understand their own development rights and be in control of their own development futures. Campaigners from BRG travel long distances through PNG to meet with communities actually or potentially affected by ‘development’, most often when they are approached by large companies or international infrastructure projects to use their land. BRG provides the information and resources communities need to make informed decisions about their own development futures. They ask critical questions and assist communities to see the big picture, from promised short-term benefits of large-scale development to the long-term consequences of environmental upheaval.

Slum Dwellers International (SDI)

SDI is an unorthodox and very effective international civil society organisation. The number of people living in slums is increasing every year, standing at around one billion today [1]. As a network of people who live in slums across the globe, SDI is an alternative to government and international agency aid and development approaches:

“…SDI affiliates seek to remind the state and international agencies of their obligations with respect to equity. Since they question the capacity of these agencies to deliver, they constantly seek situations that enable those who are affected by poverty to become organised and united in ever-expanding networks, and to play a defining role in the way in which governments and multilaterals discharge their obligations to the poor.”[2]

The networks:

set up savings schemes that enable women to deal with crises and avoid debt cycles;
protect squatter areas from demolition by city councils or developers; and
protect women from violence, often perpetrated by states.

SDI’s radical approach, using international networking of the urban poor to support and share information internationally, challenges dominant development policy and practices.

[1] UN FPA ‘Population Issues’ Online http://www.unfpa.org/pds/urbanization.htm Accessed 12th June 2008

[2] http://sdinet.org/rituals/ritual9.htm Accessed 29th October 2010

AID/WATCH

Aid priorities of AID/WATCH

aidwatch priorities.JPG

Aid should be first and foremost guided by the needs of communities, allowing communities to determine their own development needs;
Aid should promote local ownership and sustainability;
Aid should be based on principles of social and environmental justice and support self-determination;
Aid should be a mechanism of global social responsibility; not a tool for Australia’s national interest;
The final outcome of aid should be to remove the need for aid.

These priorities require significant work at the grassroots level and towards a restructuring of global development finance.

Last Updated November 15 2010 Next page

Millennium Development Goals and the Paris Declaration

Under Construction

Millennium Development Goals

The United Nation's eight Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) focus on key social factors that are crucial to poverty alleviation:

Eradicate extreme poverty and hunger
Achieve universal primary education
Promote gender equality and empower women
Reduce child mortality
Improve maternal health
Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases
Ensure environmental sustainability
Develop a Global Partnership for Development.10

Although the MDGs have been justifiably criticised for their top down, one-size-fits-all approach, they unite international development efforts around the single focus of tackling poverty. The Reality of Aid Network has recently released a detailed assessment of the MDGs and the progress of donors with regard to this.

The Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness

The 2005 Paris Declaration on Aid Effectiveness makes further progress towards improvements in international aid but it does not go far enough.
The Declaration is limited by a failure to place human rights and justice at the heart of development. It fails to redress the imbalance of power between donors and recipients[i] and it has weak targets.
The Reality of Aid Network believes that without redressing these failures the Paris Declaration will not be enough to alleviate poverty [ii]

According to a 2008 OECD survey, Australia’s progress in its commitment towards the Paris Declaration target is far behind the other donor countries.

Australia’s progress in implementing the Paris Declaration (2008)[i]

[i] AusAID's Management of the Expanding Australian Aid Program, The Australian Agency for International Development (AusAID), Australian NAtional Audit Office, Attorney-General’s Department, ACT, Australia, 2010 p96.

[i] Reality of Aid 2008 Report (Abridged version) page 4

[ii] 1Reality of Aid 2008 Report (Abridged version) page 23