I have always been an advocate of the long-time UN recommendation that developed countries commit at least 0.7% of their GNI to overseas aid programs.

But it has got to be the right sort of aid. And therein lies the big problem. There is apparently NOTHING in our entire aid regime that is oriented towards reducing birthrates, stabilising populations and engendering regimes of sustainability in recipient countries.

But then, how could we do this, given that we don’t do anything of the sort ourselves?

We can expect our aid budget to continue to decline as a percentage of GNI. One of the main reasons is that we are burdened with rapid population growth and hence an ever-rapidly-increasing demand for infrastructure and services, and for our national income to be spent on them, and on all the other negatives things that this continuous rapid growth has caused and will cause in the future.

Another reason is that our aid, while apparently being fairly effective in achieving its goals, is not being effective overall… because the goals are basically wrong, and will remain so for as long as they are not closely linked to achieving a sustainable future.

So, we will understandably become jaded with the lack of real overall improvements in many recipient countries, and we will understandably have a lot of pressure to spend more of our money at home on things that desperately need it.

In short: for as long as we don’t address sustainability ourselves, and don’t orient our aid programs strongly towards sustainability, our international aid budget is bound to keep declining.

Tim you're not listening.

The public are screaming at you, we don't give a damn what the rest of the world thinks about us, if it ever does. What we do care about is people on over $200,000 PA personal income, from an aid organisation, lecturing us that we don't give enough.

When you can show you have donated all of your earnings above average, come back & talk to us about us giving more aid to overseas recipients.

Till then our ears are shut.

Tim,

Have you heard about phantom aid?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/phantom-aid-never-leaves-our-shores/2007/05/27/1180205079584.html

I saw and heard former PM Howard say Australia was giving $800 million to Solomon Islands but in that country no new development by Australia can be seen.

Yesterday a friend called from Honiara and said he was dying. He has Diabetes II. The hospital apparently cannot afford the medicine.
Recently another friend was in Munda hospital and his infection was getting worse, apparently due to lack of money for correct antibiotics. I was there.

SI people have always lacked cash but previously they had abundant free seafood but that is no longer so available. Protein deficiency malnutrition now seems common. There has been a 69% increase in maternal mortality, linked to anaemia. NCD is overflowing hospitals.

On the Australian side of the Coral Sea there have been seven dead whales on Fraser Island coast in a recent 2 year period, more elsewhere and there is evidence of whale starvation.
Unprecedented (low population) mass starvation of mutton birds is occurring.
It’s not just malnourished islanders out there.

Devastation of SW Pacific seafood has occurred since modern world population explosion.
Independent evidence of substance indicates sewage nutrient pollution is feeding algae. Algae is killing seagrass food web nurseries. The problem not overfishing as media claims without scientific evidence.

The problem is not CO2.
AGW – IPCC science has not even measured and assessed photosynthesis-linked warmth in ocean micro and macro algae plant matter.

As for some solutions, SI people need employment. So what about special MDG projects in Australia with a fly-in fly-out workforce from SI?

Could World Vision help inspire UN assistance to actually develop MDG focussed employment in partnership with Australia?

Creeks and rivers need noxious weeds taken out.
Wetland ecosystems and farmers need water.
Open ocean needs vital management.

A possibly significant project might be a northern Qld wet season water harvesting system with aqueduct running south to upper catchment of the Darling River that already runs to SA.
Barnaby Joyce has insight and has no negating science.

The Coorong needs water.
Southern Ocean animals need food from The Coorong

“Overall the period from 2007 to 2012 can be seen as one in which Australia made substantial progress towards realising an aid program that reflects our capacity and status as one of the world's wealthiest and most secure nations. However in the past two years a series of backward steps, culminating in the Coalition's decision to suspend growth in the aid program, has brought this progress into very serious doubt.”

Tim I agree that the latest trends in Australian government aid are bad news.
What saddens me most is that the it seems that the our governments do not realise that our national well-being depends on the well-being of our trading neighbours. The more we help them constructively the more we help ourselves.

Ludwig, I am interested in your statement:
“There is apparently NOTHING in our entire aid regime that is oriented towards reducing birthrates, stabilising populations and engendering regimes of sustainability in recipient countries.”
I would suggest that this is no more than a personal opinion.
My understanding is that “reducing birthrates, stabilising populations and engendering regimes of sustainability in recipient countries” are always direct results of development aid projects. Birthrates decline, sustainability improves as the people living at subsistence level become more secure in their futures.
There has been a definite positive trend in the fight against world poverty and that should be encouraging us to at least maintain our international aid budget.

Hasbeen, you declare that your ears are shut. How sad.
Your argument seems to be about shooting the messenger.
Please open your ears and eyes and start asking yourself what you can do yourself, what you can afford to do yourself, what you are willing to do yourself, based on your own circumstances to help reduce poverty.
Why don’t you let us know what you are able to do, what you are doing to help defeat poverty.
That would be constructive.

JF, you have raised a most relevant point. My understanding is that much of our government overseas aid is tied.
It is not available for addressing the real needs of the target country. Instead it is targeting Australian companies imposing Australian demands on the target country. In the case of the Solomon Islands I suggest that you look at the cost of the Australian police/military presence there to maintain Australian standards of law and order. That is where the aid money has most likely gone – back into the pockets of Australians.

<< My understanding is that “reducing birthrates, stabilising populations and engendering regimes of sustainability in recipient countries” are always direct results of development aid projects. >>

Really, Ron H?

Indirect, inadvertent and insignificant results at best, I would think.

While some of our international aid programs might have some small impact on reducing birthrates, that is nowhere near enough to be able to say that we are assisting them to reach sustainability.

Sustainability isn’t in the mindset of those who govern Australia, no matter which party might be in power. And it isn’t in the aid agenda:

http://aid.dfat.gov.au/aidissues/Pages/home.aspx

Quote:

The fundamental purpose of Australian aid is to help people overcome poverty. Australian aid is guided by five development priorities, as set out in An Effective Aid Program for Australia: Making a real difference – delivering real results.

The development priorities of the Australian aid are:
• health
• education
• economic development
• governance, and
• humanitarian.

End quote.

There is a series of ‘Building a sustainable future’ ‘factsheets’.

But I would question how effectively these aspirations are in achieving a sustainable future. And I wonder how well our aid programs conform to these.

It seems that DFAT is not tuned in to the need to comprehensively curtail population growth in many recipient countries and that a little bit of a reduction in the birthrate is nowhere near good enough.

It seems that they are dealing almost entirely with the supply side of the equation – better economic growth, better agriculture with improved efficiencies and the like, while letting the ever-increasing demand for food, and everything else, go practically unaddressed.