Ineffectual aid program needs total rethink
19 January 2011
This is an edited version of PAUL OATES’ submission to the independent panel currently conducting a review of AusAID for the Federal government
TRADITIONALLY Australia’s overseas aid program seems to have been evaluated on the basis of inputs without apparent regard for achievement of purpose and micro objectives.
Aid effectiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Viewed by rural PNG people the many hundreds of millions of dollars in overseas aid since independence in 1975 has proven totally ineffective.
The easiest and simple benchmark to assess the effectiveness of AusAID programs is one that already existed in 1975, when there was a system of providing law and order, justice, communications, education and health to rural PNG people.
Today the system of providing government services to the rural PNG people is so fragmented, underfunded or non existent as to be almost totally ineffectual. In essence, rural services in many areas are no longer available.
Yet there are only two basic changes in the circumstances between today and 1975. The first change is that PNG is now a sovereign country with its own government and public service. The second is that the population of the country has doubled and is set to double again in less than another 30 years.
Certain recent initiatives by AusAID have been very well received. For example, the funding of primary school students; the provision of school text books; and the initial medical patrol into rural areas of the Central Province.
But why have people with expertise and experience not been offered involvement in any aid program, possibly in a voluntary capacity? There are many who have had PNG experience and those with practical experience should be canvassed when programs are designed.
My submission to the review highlights these points:
AusAID has not been getting down to an operational level that is actually helping the average PNG person.
Before any aid future program is commenced, publicly reported benchmarks for evaluating program achievement must be established.
AusAID programs must detail what ongoing skills transfer has been achieved by each program and how this has been assessed.
Existing expertise is to be canvassed and utilised in program design and operational implementation.
Non government organisations should be included in service delivery projects.
Local stakeholders need to be established and incorporated into any aid program implementation phase to ensure ongoing ownership and value adding.
Before any workable solution can be designed, the problem must be defined. It has been established that the current AusAID distribution system has not been effective in delivering services to the majority of rural PNG people commensurate with the amount of funding provided. What went wrong?
The current distribution of services is controlled by the PNG government, including the responsible public servants. Yet the PNG public service is not held accountable for service delivery. Even the PNG Prime Minister is on record as saying his PNG Public Service is corrupt. Inefficiency is also a significant problem.
Clearly the wrong people are involved in the process. Actual stakeholders must be involved in all levels of service delivery to ensure ownership.
More details on the Independent Review of AusAID are at http://www.aidreview.gov.au/index.html. Submissions must be received by 2 February. The Review’s Report will be available in April.
Sorry to offend you Lucy. All I can say is that the missionaries of today are not what they were in the past when your Mum was here.
PNG is not the same place now ... corruption on a terrifying scale is in every corner.
There are still a handful of genuine church workers; usually independent of the big organisations and working alone.
Thank you, Paul, for your never-ending efforts to see some positive change.
Incidentally; a retiring High Court judge has called on the judiciary to deal with outstanding cases against Michael Somare, Arthur Somare, Patrick Pruaitch and Paul Tiensten.
He commented that the judiciary is the last bastion of hope for the people of PNG, and must act independently of the government....
Posted by: Lydia Kailap | 20 January 2011 at 07:52 AM
Lydia - I agree with most of what you said, however I do take offence at you suggesting that missionaries would not be there if not for some of the reasons you suggest.
Missionaries, even in their own country live on wages below the average income of their country. In PNG, most of what is provided is not privately owned by the missionary but by the church.
To suggest that they come because of free housing, a car, a house meri and free education for their kids would mean they could not get any of this in country of origin. In fact all these things are of a higher standard, aside from the haus meri, in their country of origin.
My mother (single Australian lady) did 27 years of missionary service in PNG. The houses (various locations) she lived in belonged to the church. The car in rural EHP was a 4 wheel drive for the clinic. In pom we had no car.
She never had a haus meri while trying to raise me and working 60 hour weeks. She couldn't afford international school fees for my high school so I ended up at Kila Kila HS and had a blast. On return to Australia the church still provided for her.
Our extended family, most of who are atheist, have trouble comprehending the life she has lived with minimal financial reward for serving church.
Has serving PNG through the church rewarded her financially for the 27 years of service? Not at all. But she does say she has lived a life fulfilled.
Apologies for going off on a tangent from the main thread.
Missionary's daughter.
Posted by: Lucy Timmer | 20 January 2011 at 01:03 AM
AusAID is a law unto itself; just like a business that is required to donate a certain sum to the community for the sake of good business.
Phil is correct in saying that the established NGO's are also corrupt and will just follow the same path as the government and its departmental heads.
The fact is this: you cannot trust anyone in PNG to do the right thing ... they all follow the trend of "snatch & grab".
I have seen church pastors steal the funds from the coffers; NGO workers work the system to get school fees donated to orphansfor their wantoks; money paid to a musician to conduct AIDS awareness that was used to get drunk and enjoy 'ladies of the night'; the list goes on forever.
Buggered if I know the solution; just get a decent and intelligent person to walk out on the street and hand out the money to people who are obviously suffering?
Peter and I have given our life savings and every cent we can earn to try and help; it has helped in our little corner of PNG.
Realistically, there are very few that would do it unless there was something in it for them personally. Of the thousands of missionaries in PNG, how many would be there without the house, car, salary, haus meri and school fees?
Then you have every man and his dog criticise what you do from an academic perspective; can't get funding from anyone because you don't fit "the criteria".
We could sit on our bums and work on the paperwork to fit the criteria; but then we couldn't possibly do what needs to be done to get the job done.
Honestly, if it were not for those beautiful and bright kids in PNG, I'd wipe my hands (and all other extremities) and walk away.
Posted by: Lydia Kailap | 19 January 2011 at 09:59 PM
I have also sent a submission to the Aid Review and it is basically along the same lines that Paul has presented.
I also pointed out that in future, once aid programs are identified, our Foreign Minister has to challenge the PNG government to start providing the services any government is expected to provide its people.
AusAID should support any shortfall, it cannot nor should it replace the government's responsibilites.
A while ago, I wrote to the AusAID people explaining that, as an Australian, I was entitled to see a detailed account of the money that they had spent in PNG over the last year.
Of course my request went entirely ignored. I asked myself what are they hiding? They should be proud of all the projects they have supported, not hide them.
Australians can tell AusAID what we think is needed, but the ones who know for sure are the good people of PNG. So please send your submissions. They will be invaluable.
Posted by: Trevor Freestone. | 19 January 2011 at 12:59 PM
I've developed a fairly jaundiced view about the poorly managed dystopia that is PNG.
Explaining to AusAID what they need to do and actually getting them to do it are two very different matters.
In fact, I'm sure they already know what needs to be done. Unfortunately I suspect they are in bed with all the vested interests and I doubt whether the big multinationals who feed off Australian aid money will allow them to effect any meaningful change. Neither will the PNG government.
You can't expect what is really a corrupted aid provider (not that they would ever acknowledge it), and a corrupt government in cahoots with ravenous multinationals whose bottom line is the mighty dollar, to effectively address corruption in a country like PNG. Why kill the goose that lays the golden egg?
It would be interesting to watch, however, should the changes mooted by Paul take place, how these companies and the politicians, colluding with their new friends in the NGOs or the grassroots LLGs, come up with innovative new ways to rort the system.
Still, one has to try, without that there's no hope at all.
Posted by: Phil Fitzpatrick | 19 January 2011 at 10:48 AM