The Aid Debate

Samantha Magick

In the current budget year, the Australian government increased Overseas Development Aid (ODA) to PNG to an estimated A$436 million and more than doubled ODA to other Pacific Island nations.

For many in the Pacific Islands this is underpinned by a sense of entitlement- as a result of Australia's colonial legacy and its continuing economic influence in the region. Certainly the impact and direction of this aid is the subject of healthy debate in Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands.

That debate is not so pervasive among the Australian taxpayers funding ODA, although non-government organizations and academics are engaged. AID/WATCH'S Tim Anderson says, "Cynicism and self-interest have consistently driven Australian policy towards PNG in the colonial and post-colonial eras."

Brad Pettitt from Murdoch University in Perth believes, "The aid program is finding its effectiveness once again compromised by multiple objectives-this time by national security and counter-terrorism initiatives. The dominance of these objectives is perhaps an even greater threat to the integrity of the aid program than the use of the aid program for Australian commercial purposes."

Pettitt points what he believes is the overemphasis on law and order, over other needs such as education and health in the Solomon Islands intervention. This is a chicken and egg situation though. Does law and order need to be restored in Solomon Islands for other economic activities to take place? The Australia-Pacific Business Council and many Solomon Islanders believe so.

Of course aid is about political pragmatism as well as compassion, or as Jayadeva Uyangoda of Colombo University says, "There is no innocence in the politics of humanitarian assistance."

Fijian Alf Simpson as a consultant to the World Bank and the former director of the South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission, is well-versed in donor-recipient relations. He told Pacific Magazine he was concerned that while a well funded early warning system is necessary for the Indian Ocean countries, a similar need in the Pacific is being overlooked because of the mistaken belief that Pacific Island countries are prepared for such a catastrophe.

"We're going to have this gilt cage covering the stable and the horse has already bolted. There's a little foal in there which might try and bolt in 100 years or so, the next tsunami, but next door we have a stallion, which is the Pacific Ocean."

His colleague, World Bank Senior Natural Resources Economist Sofia Bettencourt, says "the donors themselves are causing a lot of disincentives. The biggest disincentive is that politicians do not know when the next disaster will happen and it may not happen during their political life. So why should they take money away from something that might be a high priority to something they are not sure might happen."

"The money pours in after a disaster, because it comes in the press and it is politically savvy to come out with disaster relief but very few people invest in prevention. It's not sexy enough, it does not get attention, it's pervasive and not visible and that incentive system needs to change."

The question of accountability also extends to non government organizations working in the region, whether they are church, social or environmental based. A clear example of this arose during the Red Cross's Bali bombing appeal last year when controversy arose over how much of the A$14 million raised would be going directly to Australian victims of the blast, and how much on the organization's day to day operations and recovery and reconstruction work in Bali.

We don't have all the answers. But it is important we all keep asking the questions, and get answers and transparency -of donors, of implementing organizations, and not least, of our Pacific Islands governments.