Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?
Options
Comments
-
It was an NCO (not the UN) that provided some fascinating data on Africas ecological footprint;
http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/blog/africa_approaching_biocapacity_limits
It's not just Africa that will experience massive population adjustments in the next 2 decades. The most of the world will start to experience increases in mortality's other than natural due to food shortages. It's just countries like Africa that are already on the boundary of sustaining theselves will be hit first and hardest, a marker of whats to come for the rest of the world.
Population growth is linked to oil production. You only have to overlay the two graphs to see the correlation. Food and education and gender empowerment come about through energy resources like oil providing these things. As oil declines so will the food production that is artifically supporting this population.
It's not the job of Ireland or Europe to look after anyone, except ourselves perhaps.
We are about 6 billion past where we should be in world population that is sustainable propped up by an abundance of cheap oil. As we are very likley passed peak oil it's time we started being honest with ourselves about whats going to happen to al these people.......morality doesn't change facts, sorry if your angry, so was I for a long time but it wont change anything that will happen in the next two decades.
What won't change anything is attitudes like yours. You're just ignoring the points I've made, and you're just making things up. I've heard a lot of arguments for and against aid, but impending doom is a first.0 -
Anyone who has worked or is working in the aid industry will know how secretive the business is. The contractual sign-ups on confidentiality, press relations, information sharing etc for aid workers are as confining as the secret services. Those who challenge this secrecy because of irregularities etc invariably find themselves in deep water as for example:
Ken Fogarty and Fran Rooney resigned from the GOAL board because Mr O’Shea the CEO had told them he had no longer trust in them (as reported). Since when does the CEO hire and fire the board and how can there be checks and balances if one man and his family run an NGO which last year received €14.5 million of government aid?
Mr Wardick, a respected Head of International Dept in Irish Red Cross had to resort to blogging to expose the now public irregularities of the organisation that were depriving Haiti earthquake victims from €160K held in a Tipperary bank a/c under signature of the Vice Chairman of IRC. Mr Wardick was dismissed by IRC and his case for unfair dismissal has still to be heard.
More on http://governancereformatirishredcross.blogspot.com/2012/01/parliamentary-committee-exposes.html#comment-form.
The aid business NGOs file audited accounts which provide the minimum legal information required and this is next to useless for any traceable accountability of public and private funds. Why do NGOs feel they can get away without reporting back to donors on how money is spent – the answer is evident from the many posts to this topic which want to keep the aid funding pipeline going at all costs. This results in annual reports that are little more than PR exercises rather than a means of accountability for the trust placed in them by the general public and the government on whom they mostly depend.
Those who with good intent work in the aid sector will score some successes here and there but that is micro success which should be set against the macro problem that NGOs have become self-serving and with vested interests (often involving government or personal interests).
The aid industry uses a professional language and modus operandi of its own which results in exclusivity and again – secrecy. It claims to be engaged in participatory development and then comes along with the latest complex methodology of logical framework or whatever which the poor do not understand and which ensures their exclusion.
The secrecy of the aid business extends to the field where in the tsunami relief operation for example you had some communities in Sri Lanka were assessed by 10 + different NGOs. This was all because of the lack of sharing of resources and information in the highly competitive but lucrative funding on offer at that time. Another terrible waste of aid money in the midst of death and destruction.
Some would expect that Dóchas the development NGO umbrella organisation would have a role to play but yet again they are only interested in a facade of conformity which is voluntary and self-regulating and again another waste of aid money.
I could go on to describe the even greater waste of money in bilateral and multi-lateral aid but suffice to say, the time for change is now. It’s time that aid is no longer wrapped in secrecy and that reasons for costly mistakes are no longer swept under the carpet but exposed for lesson learning of how aid should or should not be provided / delivered.0 -
Some good points Zorbas, the entire industry of aid looks to be corrupt much to many peoples surprise. It's a business that makes money for many in the west.
@sissorman - I dont have an attitude. My concern is very real and it's for Ireland which will be facing its own food shortages somewhere down the road in the years to come. The facts are that Africas population is just far to high for the useable land it has. It was too large in the 1950's when people there were suffering from famine and now its 5 times that big the problem is worse.
Until we tackle the over population issue at the same time we try to 'help' by putting them on long term welfare that appears to of done more harm than good (didn't band aid solve this problem in 1985?) In 1985 there was a population of 500 million, many of whome were starving as we had to raise billions to feed them. Their numbers have now doubled to 1 bilion and what a surprise they are now all hungry again becausew the part of the world they live in is harsh and CANNOT support such a high population. Why is it so hard to accept that fact?
Too many people chasing too little food and the problem is being compounded by us providing it to them fueling more population growth wich was unsustainable in the first place.0 -
Anyone who has worked or is working in the aid industry will know how secretive the business is. The contractual sign-ups on confidentiality, press relations, information sharing etc for aid workers are as confining as the secret services. Those who challenge this secrecy because of irregularities etc invariably find themselves in deep water as for example:
Ken Fogarty and Fran Rooney resigned from the GOAL board because Mr O’Shea the CEO had told them he had no longer trust in them (as reported). Since when does the CEO hire and fire the board and how can there be checks and balances if one man and his family run an NGO which last year received €14.5 million of government aid?
Mr Wardick, a respected Head of International Dept in Irish Red Cross had to resort to blogging to expose the now public irregularities of the organisation that were depriving Haiti earthquake victims from €160K held in a Tipperary bank a/c under signature of the Vice Chairman of IRC. Mr Wardick was dismissed by IRC and his case for unfair dismissal has still to be heard.
More on http://governancereformatirishredcross.blogspot.com/2012/01/parliamentary-committee-exposes.html#comment-form.
The aid business NGOs file audited accounts which provide the minimum legal information required and this is next to useless for any traceable accountability of public and private funds. Why do NGOs feel they can get away without reporting back to donors on how money is spent – the answer is evident from the many posts to this topic which want to keep the aid funding pipeline going at all costs. This results in annual reports that are little more than PR exercises rather than a means of accountability for the trust placed in them by the general public and the government on whom they mostly depend.
Those who with good intent work in the aid sector will score some successes here and there but that is micro success which should be set against the macro problem that NGOs have become self-serving and with vested interests (often involving government or personal interests).
The aid industry uses a professional language and modus operandi of its own which results in exclusivity and again – secrecy. It claims to be engaged in participatory development and then comes along with the latest complex methodology of logical framework or whatever which the poor do not understand and which ensures their exclusion.
The secrecy of the aid business extends to the field where in the tsunami relief operation for example you had some communities in Sri Lanka were assessed by 10 + different NGOs. This was all because of the lack of sharing of resources and information in the highly competitive but lucrative funding on offer at that time. Another terrible waste of aid money in the midst of death and destruction.
Some would expect that Dóchas the development NGO umbrella organisation would have a role to play but yet again they are only interested in a facade of conformity which is voluntary and self-regulating and again another waste of aid money.
I could go on to describe the even greater waste of money in bilateral and multi-lateral aid but suffice to say, the time for change is now. It’s time that aid is no longer wrapped in secrecy and that reasons for costly mistakes are no longer swept under the carpet but exposed for lesson learning of how aid should or should not be provided / delivered.
So from your experience of lacking accountability, what is your stance on the aid budget?0 -
Very substantive points, each of which need robust discussion!Anyone who has worked or is working in the aid industry will know how secretive the business is. The contractual sign-ups on confidentiality, press relations, information sharing etc for aid workers are as confining as the secret services. Those who challenge this secrecy because of irregularities etc invariably find themselves in deep water as for example:
Ken Fogarty and Fran Rooney resigned from the GOAL board because Mr O’Shea the CEO had told them he had no longer trust in them (as reported). Since when does the CEO hire and fire the board and how can there be checks and balances if one man and his family run an NGO which last year received €14.5 million of government aid?
Mr Wardick, a respected Head of International Dept in Irish Red Cross had to resort to blogging to expose the now public irregularities of the organisation that were depriving Haiti earthquake victims from €160K held in a Tipperary bank a/c under signature of the Vice Chairman of IRC. Mr Wardick was dismissed by IRC and his case for unfair dismissal has still to be heard.
More on http://governancereformatirishredcross.blogspot.com/2012/01/parliamentary-committee-exposes.html#comment-form.
The aid business NGOs file audited accounts which provide the minimum legal information required and this is next to useless for any traceable accountability of public and private funds. Why do NGOs feel they can get away without reporting back to donors on how money is spent – the answer is evident from the many posts to this topic which want to keep the aid funding pipeline going at all costs. This results in annual reports that are little more than PR exercises rather than a means of accountability for the trust placed in them by the general public and the government on whom they mostly depend.
Those who with good intent work in the aid sector will score some successes here and there but that is micro success which should be set against the macro problem that NGOs have become self-serving and with vested interests (often involving government or personal interests).
The aid industry uses a professional language and modus operandi of its own which results in exclusivity and again – secrecy. It claims to be engaged in participatory development and then comes along with the latest complex methodology of logical framework or whatever which the poor do not understand and which ensures their exclusion.
The secrecy of the aid business extends to the field where in the tsunami relief operation for example you had some communities in Sri Lanka were assessed by 10 + different NGOs. This was all because of the lack of sharing of resources and information in the highly competitive but lucrative funding on offer at that time. Another terrible waste of aid money in the midst of death and destruction.
Some would expect that Dóchas the development NGO umbrella organisation would have a role to play but yet again they are only interested in a facade of conformity which is voluntary and self-regulating and again another waste of aid money.
I could go on to describe the even greater waste of money in bilateral and multi-lateral aid but suffice to say, the time for change is now. It’s time that aid is no longer wrapped in secrecy and that reasons for costly mistakes are no longer swept under the carpet but exposed for lesson learning of how aid should or should not be provided / delivered.
Out of interest, what's your background in all this? If you want to go Private Message, grand.0 -
Advertisement
-
'Corruption' is a big allegation. I'm not saying aid isn't misappropriated, but I very much doubt the aid industry is as corrupt as the private sector who pay massive amounts of bribes each year (e.g. extractive industries) facilitated by secretive banking sectors (e.g. Switzerland) in developed countries (along with the recipients). Global illicit financial flows in 2009 were $1.3 trillion; Africa loses $148 billion annually to illicit capital flight/corruption. Most of that is committed by foreign multi-national corporations.Lantus wrote:the entire industry of aid looks to be corrupt much to many peoples surprise. It's a business that makes money for many in the west.
Is aid as corrupt as this?
There is no doubt that there are serious concerns around population and land sustainability. Agricultural development research finds that, actually, land in sub-Saharan Africa is under-utilised for a variety of reasons and could actually support the existing population. Experience has also shown that a development policy can be the best population policy; through a combination of measures, Bangladesh brought its population under control. As people develop, they no longer need large families as an inter-generational 'social insurance policy'. This is one key rationale which drives large families in sub-Saharan Africa - infant mortality is very high.The facts are that Africas population is just far to high for the useable land it has. It was too large in the 1950's when people there were suffering from famine and now its 5 times that big the problem is worse.0 -
A counter agrument against Foreign by the judicial/economic experts Becker and Posner. - link.
Whilst they make some good points on the in-effectiveness of grand mega-projects, I'd be unsure of their reasoning that as the US Military provides a Pax Americana that this is in essence an effective form of aid, and no mention is made of the resources the US itself derives from say Africa.
Saying that, my own pro-Aid tilt for not for political but for religious charity sense, so I can understand how Irish citizens might not be overly happy about such aid.0 -
ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »I'm aware of the history of aid, and its many shortcomings, as well as the various "silver bullets" that ultimately lead to no change. I should not have said that I "expect" this ( RANDOMISED CONTROL TRIALS RCT) to become a gold standard. I should have said that this kind of concrete evaluation needs to become standard.
.
Let me share some considerations on your silver bullet of Randomised Control Trials otherwise known as RCT though the latest version is RCT4D or something:
Randomised trials can be useful in development economics but the danger comes with those who believe in it so strongly they elevate it to the Holy Grail and forget about the social science that should go with development research.
It is not the first or only means of rigorous data collection.
It is after all RCT a 7 year old economic statistical tool and only interested to know whether something works and is irrelevant to how it works (implementation).
RCT will not answer questions about why aid fails due to creating aid-dependence, entrenchment of the hold of the corrupt elite, poor management, human behavior and the like.
What happens with RCT is that the experts come into the community but the implementation of the RCT is left to an NGO that is both well-known and trusted by the community. Is it any surprise then that the intervention is shown to work? As I said before independent evaluation is the only reliable means of assessing a programme.
To make things worse the incentives for RCT “experts” to make their names and produce “sexy” or headline grabbing results are enormous professionally and materially. With that motivation, just to tweak the design or results a little and to ignore the inconclusive / negative findings to get that recognition is not difficult and who will challenge them? Before you know it these “manipulated” results are generalized and become unsupringly the accepted / credible way to do development in the development studies learned establishments.
The growing influence of the RCT approach means that wrong conclusions could have serious consequences. And wrong conclusions are entirely possible: randomized trials are not infallible; as medicine’s sordid history demonstrates. Economics could learn from that experience.
Also because RCT is expensive, corners will increasingly be cut and implementation will be less rigorous as time goes on.
RCTs is like the drunk looking for his car keys under the street lamp when he knows he lost them elsewhere, because the only place he can actually see is under the street lamp. Those who promote RCT often don’t know much about development as a whole so their vision is necessarily limited.
Realistically RCT techniques can be fed into the armory of evaluation tools but it must work alongside qualitative and behavioral research. Because of the cost it is unlikely to be mainstreamed except for the World Bank and such players. For that reason there is good money to be earned from studying the technique and in promoting it also.
For me I would not want to see RCT experts come to the field simply because they don’t come with the answer or the money in how to deal with the control group of the very poor without exploiting or disappointing them.0 -
ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »[for instance] Conflict minerals in the Congo that end up in our phones and other technologies that perpetuate [...] conflict
African natural resources are predominantly controlled by the governments of African states who sell these commodities to states outside of Africa (and thereby generate revenue). Are you suggesting that Western states should boycott certain governments that infringe human rights? It certainly would not promote an argument for subsiding these governments through monetary aid.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »EU and American subsidisation of domestic industries that flood African economies with cheap goods that their industries cannot compete with (e.g. cotton, poultry, cereal-based foods),
So African economies can import. I don't really see what the problem is here. It is specifically interesting that you point out that these imports are 'primary goods' thus undermining your next point. Also, if African governments wanted to protect domestic industry they could just slap tariffs on all imports. Of course, trade barriers have generally proven to be a bad thing (precisely because it removes competition and drives up the CPI).ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »tariff structures that encourage the export of primary goods as opposed to processing and capture of the value that tends to be generated further up the production chain elsewhere, etc etc etc.
Tariff structures that encourage export? This would be a conglomeration of Western governments choosing not to heavily tax such imports, and African governments choosing not to heavily tax these exports. In reality, whether or not a country is a banana republic has more to do with the producer than the consumer.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »I actually don't have the time to go looking for data on which African countries are stable. It would depend on your definition. But I'd say the vast majority are relatively secure and stable, with the exception of some pockets of instability. The same goes for Western countries, I'd say there are quite a few involved in conflict to various degrees. Eastern Europe springs to mind, as well as the obvious military campaigns by the US, UK, NATO etc.
Law and order is patently absent in much of Africa and this is the single most important hurdle which these countries have to overcome. Whether or not these countries are involved in military campaigns is largely irrelevant.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »Maybe more significant is the backing of certain factions in African conflicts by Western interests.
The West tends to back either people who look like the 'good guys' (organisations that ostensibly promote western values of democracy and peace) or tin-pot dictators that look like they may prove to be loyal allies. Neither policy has had much success rate but looking the other way (such as in Rwanda) has arguably proven worse still.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »Nonetheless, I don't think conflict affects aid delivery to the extent you believe. Sure, where conflict occurs, it is certainly an issue. But conflict is not occurring to the scale you make it out to be.
There doesn't need to be a war for there to be conflict. Whilst domestic African economies prove incapable of providing a stable enough basis for domestic development, without the need for outside interference, the situation is ultimately nonviable.ScissorPaperRoc wrote: »That people are suffering is not subjective. To deny our role in contributing to it and our responsibility to alleviate it is not objectivity.
You believe that we are guilty of Africa's ruination and must use this guilt to spur ourselves into providing an endless flow of aid that seemingly improves little. I would say that that belief is neither accurate in the former nor logical in the latter.0 -
'Corruption' is a big allegation. I'm not saying aid isn't misappropriated, but I very much doubt the aid industry is as corrupt as the private sector who pay massive amounts of bribes each year (e.g. extractive industries) facilitated by secretive banking sectors (e.g. Switzerland) in developed countries (along with the recipients). Global illicit financial flows in 2009 were $1.3 trillion; Africa loses $148 billion annually to illicit capital flight/corruption. Most of that is committed by foreign multi-national corporations.
Is aid as corrupt as this?
.
Irrespective of whether the private sector is more corrupt or less corrupt than the aid industry it is clear that corruption affects the poorest most, in rich or poor countries because it exacerbates inequality and poverty.
The problem for aid is has to work with governments in low income high poverty countries which are more corrupt than developed countries largely because of poor governance, underpaid civil servants and the law, acceptance of bribery by big business, capital flight and dirty money (often from the drugs trade).
We in Ireland are now suffering the cutbacks in health, education and social services which poor countries had to suffer under the aid conditionality of structural adjustment and which again affects the poor most. As in the developing world where the poor had not benefited from the dysfunctional economies here in Ireland those most affected by cuts would not have benefited from the profits of the bankers and bond holders. While we get used to the idea of picking up the costs of risks gone wrong, we share the new problems of globalisation which ensures total lack of accountability to the poor. This all points to a more complex and charged situation than before and one which the aid industry in not well prepared for.
In this reality, the aid industry can either impede or turn a blind eye to corruption or feed it by being accomplices to corruption. For big development projects such as the Yamuna bridge / river training in Bangladesh or the Komati Dam project in S Africa there was to my knowledge a 15% and 10% provision for “facilitation”. A new way to cover corruption costs now is to allocate a % to “success” or in other words a bung paid to local agents for getting the job done and which usually involves bribery.
For the most part aid is given without accountability to the beneficiaries – the recipient governments do not have transparent budgets or accounting. The “partner” NGOs have invariably limited accounting and often work where audit trails are impossible. Donor countries also do not have transparent aid budgets.
This is the case in Ireland where the aid accountability and transparency is inadequate – we just don’t know how aid is spent usefully or wasted. So long as we accept that the government or NGOs here have aid budgets, income and expenditure accounts and reports that are designed for secrecy rather than for accountability, then we are all accomplices to corruption.0 -
Advertisement
-
. It would be a waste of money to pay consultants/auditors to follow every single euro from the website donor in Ireland to the hungry person in rural Zambia, so the NGOs set a level of audit control that is, subjectively, acceptable.
It's ridiculous to spend 0% on audit and oversight and it's equally ridiculous to spend 100%. So, they pick a middle amount, based on experience, on collaboration with other NGOs and on donor demands. They publicise their accounts, have their activities open to donor (large donor) inspection, and work goes on.
)
This is the type of response that Aid agencies and NGOs train their new recruits to trott out. They invariably have had no field experience and innocently reproduce the answers they have learnt in a few donor relations workshops.
You must be well aware that project budgets are kept secret between the donor and the implementing agency. The budget is not explained to the project or service stakeholders and therefore they do not know if they receive their entitlement or not. I have never seen a detailed project to help the poor shared with the general public who often provide all or the majority of the funding. Show me an agency or NGO report which would satisfy me as a donor that my money has been well used.
I have seen the stage-managed activities open to large donors who in turn are not interested in failures which would challenge or undermine their judgement - its a fail-safe system that ensures there are no complaints. How can the poor complain if they do not know what they are entitled to and who are overwhelmingly grateful for anything they get?
Aid NGOs may do some good work but they set themselves above critism and are afraid to admit failure in the most difficult work you can get.
Look at the stuff you as an NGO will trott out and you will see its all overwhelmingly positive and lacking in any credibility to those who know anything of the business.
All to often it amounts to taking money from the poor here to give to the already rich there.
If NGOs have the confidence that they can stand over their work then why be secretive. Why not share a detailed budget before the event and then report (narrative and financial) by results to the public and you will have plenty of donations. Why use guilt as the motivator when you can professionalise and do a proper job to be proud of?0 -
Apologies if already posted
White Paper unveiled on Irish Aid.
"Minister of State for Development Joe Costello today announced the public consultation phase on the review of the White Paper on Irish Aid as part of the Programme for Government."0 -
Irelands 2012 budget: How much for Overseas AID?
I do not see why the government should any aid be sending aid overseas.
It should be left up the ordinary people if they want to help people in other countries.
there are plenty of NGO that people can donate money or time to instead of the government doing it for us.0 -
I don't see how this is different from the commercial private sector. Skilled staff begin somewhere, whether private company or NGO. Less experienced people are tasked with appropriate responsibilities and move from there. Mistakes can happen, but but meritocracies seek to minimise this. Why are NGOs held to such an impossible standard by people?This is the type of response that Aid agencies and NGOs train their new recruits to trott out. They invariably have had no field experience and innocently reproduce the answers they have learnt in a few donor relations workshops.
Yes, NGOs deploy 'other people's money' - but isn't this the same as private companies spending investors' money? In the private sector, you're investing to make profit; in the NGO sector, you've investing to save and improve lives of the much worse-off. Most would agree that's the right thing to do within Ireland, and as long as our lifestyles continue to affect those poor people in the developing world, we should contribute our share.
The reality is private companies actually don't pay their fair share. $1 trillion is lost to developing countries as a result of quasi-legal tax evasion by multinational corporations; a further $1 billion is lost through illegal means (e.g. illegaly repatriating corporate profits). Africa loses twice what it receives in government aid every year ($148 billion). Now, if governments topped corporations ripping off poor countries, things could be very, very different.
But until the abuses of rich countries stop, we have a responsibility.0 -
I am very proud of our continued commitment despite the current Economic problems.
A little perspective might be required when we consdier what struggling in Ireland means compared to what atruggling in some of the sub-Saharan countries means.0 -
. Why are NGOs held to such an impossible standard by people?
Yes, NGOs deploy 'other people's money' - but isn't this the same as private companies spending investors' money? In the private sector, you're investing to make profit; in the NGO sector, you've investing to save and improve lives of the much worse-off. Most would agree that's the right thing to do within Ireland, and as long as our lifestyles continue to affect those poor people in the developing world, we should contribute our share.
But until the abuses of rich countries stop, we have a responsibility.
In this thread, we are focussing on overseas aid and I was directing my comments at the need for NGO accountability. It is however worth noting that the concept of accountability as previously applied to private business and government has only recently started to be applied to NGOs and they have a long way to go.
NGOs for far too long relied on a carefully nurtured profile of commitment, values and good intentions as a sufficient basis for accountability and to judge by the public discontent with organisations such as Irish Red Cross and GOAL , the concept of public accountability for results and impact has still to be adopted.
The rapid growth of NGOs, the emergence of suitcase NGOs, the increasing use of NGOs as service and operational deliverers, the increase of money channelled through NGOs, and generally because of the importance, visibility and higher stakes involved in NGO work all are reasons why governments, funders and the public are more demanding of standards, greater transparency and certification etc.
NGOs are now important components of civil society and with the influence and even power they wield in shaping aid policy, must necessarily be more accountable than in the past. Time moves on and as the Swiss banks can no longer operate in secrecy, so the NGOs of this country should respond to demands for accountability with more than a “PR workshop” response such as: “they pick a middle amount (of money to spend on accountability) based on experience, on collaboration with other NGOs and on donor demands. They publicise their accounts, have their activities open to donor (large donor) inspection, and work goes on”.
Some NGOs have started to introduce controls such as the Humanitarian Accountability Project (HAP) but these are not well know or understood by the general public. How many Irish NGOs abide by agreed aid delivery standards?
In the business world, the “Enron effect” and here in Ireland the “Anglo scandal” have changed the level of trust in the wider business world forever while the scandals in the aid sector here and elsewhere understandably spill over into questions of NGO legitimacy and credibility.
NGOs, such as the Oxfams of this world, have challenged companies, governments and multilateral organisations (WB, IMF etc) to become more transparent and accountable while they have previously themselves lacked the accountability demanded of others. One World Trust for example, found that some NGOs—including the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), CARE International or Oxfam—ranked lower on the organization’s accountability scale than oft-criticized bodies such as the WTO and the OECD, or companies such as Rio Tinto or GlaxoSmithKline.
Accountability of NGOs is provided only to those who have the power to demand it so that is why they report to “large donors” and then use that at their mantra that “they are accountable”. Try to get accountability as a public donor and the NGO reverts to the old “trust me” concept of accountability.
Traditionally “the board” of the NGO are also held up as the means of checks and balances however when you see the likes of Irish Red Cross and GOAL deal with difficult or non-compliant board members, you realise that there is a serious break-down in accountability. There appears to be often an unacceptable level of nepotism and “closed shop” in the running of NGOs.
Examination of the Annual Reports by NGOs shows them to be a PR exercise rather than a true reporting mechanism to provide a degree of accountability?
Many NGOs routinely hide behind basic audited accounts as accountability which do little to satisfy public donors. Much of NGO money is channelled through “partner organisations” and so the audit trail only reaches as far as the transfer of money to the 3rd party. It still has a long way to go to reach the intended beneficiaries who are in turn invariably kept in ignorance of their entitlements.
Umbrella organisations such as Dóchas could be expected to set standards of operation and accountability however they are looking at a system of self-regulation and thus provide certain respectability without responsibility – again no accountability.
The key to accountability and transparency of NGOs working in overseas development should be to their primary stakeholder - their programme beneficiaries. This accountability should be on the basis of entitlement rather than down to the goodwill of the NGO or contracted implementer. In reality, apart from the relief work, I have never seen accountability to programme beneficiaries and on the contrary have seen misappropriation / misdirection of funds without penalty. If NGOs could explain this beneficiary accountability methodology, then they would go a long way to satisfying donors and indicate that they understand about moral accountability.
My point is that it is time NGOs here seriously provided accountability as to the impact they are making in terms of value for money.
NGOs should accept that accountability can;-
Improve the organisations operation and learning.
bring trust and commitment = more resources.
counter accusations of secrecy, undemocratic decision making and lack of good governance or standards.
Justification for aid to compensate for injustices or to ease guilt is, in my opinion, poor reasoning.0 -
I am very proud of our continued commitment despite the current Economic problems.
.
What we want is aid to be proud of which shows impact.
Blank cheque or blind faith aid all too often fails to reach the poor and too many in the aid business cover up the inevitable failures.
If we do not subject government aid in these hard times to rigerous "value for money" tests, then we never will.0 -
What we want is aid to be proud of which shows impact.
Blank cheque or blind faith aid all too often fails to reach the poor and too many in the aid business cover up the inevitable failures.
If we do not subject government aid in these hard times to rigerous "value for money" tests, then we never will.
Very true. I thought that was what the OECD's DAC was for though.
My point is more against people who want the aid contribution reduced purely because things are relatively bad in Ireland at the moment.0 -
Very true. I thought that was what the OECD's DAC was for though.
.
The DAC is very much concerned with the macro and focusses on the mechanisms of the recipients rather than donor countries. In their 2011 survey to assess progress towards the Paris Declaration targets for more effective aid they found that only one of the 13 targets were met.
Monitoring and evaluation of Irish Aid is unclear but I would be surprised if it was not done by "reliable / predictably uncritical" consultants.
Certainly the accountability is poorly communicated meaning that it lacks transparency.0 -
My point is more against people who want the aid contribution reduced purely because things are relatively bad in Ireland at the moment.
And that is bad, why?
Because they keep feeding the same drivel non stop? "As bad as we have it, we're not as bad as Africans'."
The continent is massive. Ireland is tiny compared to it. So, why doesn't the massive continent help itself? What has it to do with Ireland?
Again, is it because according to the NGOs, "they are unable to help themselves," or words to them effect.0 -
Advertisement
-
And that is bad, why?
Because they keep feeding the same drivel non stop? "As bad as we have it, we're not as bad as Africans'."
The continent is massive. Ireland is tiny compared to it. So, why doesn't the massive continent help itself? What has it to do with Ireland?
Again, is it because according to the NGOs, "they are unable to help themselves," or words to them effect.
Leave them all to rot you mean?
We can't solve it all so do nothing you mean?
I won't try and argue, suffice to say if the political will to abolish our contributions was there then they would be abolished.0 -
you know the funny thing is that aid doesnt help, if a 1/4 of the money spent on aid, got to the poor regions in forms of fairtrade good, or paying them what they deserve then the country would actually improve, watch black gold0
-
-
-
-
if the political will to abolish our contributions was there then they would be abolished.
And if public will was there then public donations would be "sufficient" and politicians wouldn't have to decide how to spend our taxes on foreign aid.
Sorry: that should be politicians wouldn't have to decide how to spend bailout money on foreign aid, which is being paid back for with our taxes.
I would suggest the idea of loaning money to sub-Sahara African nations but when that happened we had people moaning about how their burden of debt was what was preventing economic progress in these countries. Western politicians realised that they were not going to be paid back anyway so they just wrote off such debts.0 -
The person above (Zorbas) who refers to the awful goings on in the Irish Red Cross and Goal makes a very valid point. In particular the Irish Red Cross has tarnished the image of the whole overseas aid sector. Only on the 19th January 2012 they were hauled up before the Dail's Public Accounts Committee to account and explain their corporate misgovernance and their widely reported financial irregularities. The Irish Red Cross were hauled over the coals by the TDs questioning them. The TDs were obviously aghast and disbelieving at the untruths and feeble responses given by the Irish Red Cross. Still though the Government gave the IRC over €800,000 for 2012. These organisations have taken advantage of the public's trust and misused it. They need to be held to account and very closely scutinised. Just because an organisation says its honest and does good work does not mean its true.
The link to Irish Red Cross's disgraceful performance in the Dail on 19th Jan 2012 is:
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/ACC/2012/01/19/00004.asp[/URL]0 -
The focus on “inadequacies” of accountability is again on GOAL and Irish Aid as another of their ex-board members Fran Rooney has publicly explained his resignation as down to the culture of secrecy and resistance to reform at senior management level.
Irish Aid is reported as saying that its audit of public funds to GOAL was limited because of lack of information and that GOAL’s board meetings were chaotic and lacking the technical expertise needed.
Mr Rooney, who survived even a shorter term in office than the previous Chairman, appeared surprised that GOAL’s CEO turned down perfectly reasonable good governance requirements such as:
- An audit committee reporting to the board to replace a finance committee reporting to Mr O’Shea.
- A remuneration committee to determine top salaries
- Technical assistance in the appointment of a HR Director.
Having worked in the aid business these blockages on accountability should not come as a surprise. Mr O'Shea would predictably react to reform with his own strategies in mind:-
- Important that the GOAL CEO controls the financial information provided and which he deems fit for Board eyes.
- Important for the GOAL CEO that he remains in control of salaries including the one which he pays himself and other members of his family.
- Important for the GOAL CEO that he controls appointments so that the appointee is beholden to him alone for his/her future.
As with the Irish Red Cross officials who attended the Public Accounts Committee of the Dáil last week; GOAL put forward their pathetic excuse for the serious fraud (£90,000 lost) uncovered by Irish Aid in their Malawi operation to poor accounting which has now been rectified.
This excuse comes from the GOAL Chairman Mr O’Mahony who like the Irish Red Cross Chairman last week appears eager to dismiss criticisms of failures as poor housekeeping and purports to know that “all is well”.
It is good that Irish Aid is actively questioning and auditing some of the money which it trusts to NGOs to use in the service of the poor. Unfortunately, they will find that this cannot be done as a desk monitoring exercise and unless they commit funding and expertise to field monitoring and specific programme audit trailing, NGOs will quickly adapt to circumvent their efforts.
It is critical that rigerous auditing is done by Irish Aid, if they do it at all, because otherwise NGOs will use the claim of auditing as answer demands for accountability. In the review of the Tsunami £20 million spending, the level of monitoring by NGOs was criticised as totally inadequate and we will never know now how much money was wasted on that relief and recovery operation.
For Irish Aid's own spending, it is important that they use independent auditing and monitoring - otherwise questions of credibililty will arise.
Read Examiner reports relevant to above: http://www.irishexaminer.ie/ireland/goal-fraud-blamed-on-financial-systems-182601.html#ixzz1lVff5bi4d more: http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/rooney-quit-over-culture-of-secrecy-at-goal-182645.html#ixzz1lVdljfyH0 -
Interesting interview on RTE radio now about GOAL and its lack of transparency and accountability.
Keep chasin' the money. You can't lose.
Very cagey and unconvincing interview from the GOAL chairman. To think that our money goes to these guys day in and day out.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't see how this is different from the commercial private sector. Skilled staff begin somewhere, whether private company or NGO. Less experienced people are tasked with appropriate responsibilities and move from there. Mistakes can happen, but but meritocracies seek to minimise this. Why are NGOs held to such an impossible standard by people?
Yes, NGOs deploy 'other people's money' - but isn't this the same as private companies spending investors' money? In the private sector, you're investing to make profit; in the NGO sector, you've investing to save and improve lives of the much worse-off. Most would agree that's the right thing to do within Ireland, and as long as our lifestyles continue to affect those poor people in the developing world, we should contribute our share.
The reality is private companies actually don't pay their fair share. $1 trillion is lost to developing countries as a result of quasi-legal tax evasion by multinational corporations; a further $1 billion is lost through illegal means (e.g. illegaly repatriating corporate profits). Africa loses twice what it receives in government aid every year ($148 billion). Now, if governments topped corporations ripping off poor countries, things could be very, very different.
But until the abuses of rich countries stop, we have a responsibility.
Is this not the business of the governments in those countries to solve their own tax problems?0
Advertisement