Blog

Kerry/Lugar Foreign Aid Reform Bill in Markup Today

by Global Washington Policy Coordinator Danielle Ellingston

The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is scheduled to mark up the Kerry/Lugar Foreign Aid Reform Bill, S. 1524 today, despite objections from the State Department.  According to Foreign Policy’s blog, the Cable, State Department leaders asked Senator Kerry to hold off on moving the bill forward, at least until they had a chance to finish the Quadrennial Diplomacy and Development Review (QDDR).  Kerry would have complied with this request, but Senator Lugar reportedly forced his hand- Lugar would withdraw his support for the bill if Kerry didn’t move it forward.  And understandably, Kerry could not afford to lose Lugar.

The State Department was asking a lot of Kerry, since the QDDR isn’t due to be completed until fall 2010.  That is a long time to wait for action on foreign aid reform by Congress, and a lot can happen in a year.  If Congress wants to have a say in this process, it needs to get its chips on the table now, especially with the administration taking so long with each step.  The White House has already shown us how slow it can be, by taking more time to announce a USAID administrator nominee than the polar ice caps need to melt.  If moving forward on this bill helps push the White House to move a little faster on foreign aid reform, so much the better.

S. 1524, the Foreign Assistance Revitalization and Accountability Act of 2009, strengthens USAID by restoring its policy planning staff and giving it new authority to oversee foreign assistance programs throughout the government.  It is a small but necessary step in modernizing U.S. foreign assistance, which is fragmented and uncoordinated.  Maybe everything in this bill and more could be accomplished through the QDDR and the Presidential Study Directive, but without Congressional action that could take a very long time.

There are two other foreign aid reform bills which have been introduced in the House.  H.R. 2139, The Initiating Foreign Assistance Reform Act of 2009, was introduced by Howard Berman in April 2009, and directs the President to develop a comprehensive national strategy to promote global development, as well as a system for monitoring effectiveness.  H.R. 2639, The Global Poverty Act of 2009, introduced by Adam Smith of the 9th district of Washington State in May 2009, directs the President to develop a similar strategy, with the objective of eliminating extreme global poverty and achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people living on less than $1 per day.   The NGO Bread for the World has a nice side-by-side comparison of S. 1524 and H.R. 2139 in its blog.

NGOs Live by the Code, Ideally

By Xeno Acharya, Global Washington intern

The use of a code of conduct as an ethical guide is not new. Previously popular with the military, the code has recently become fashionable among NGOs. Over the past decade, a lot of NGOs have formed and tried to adhere to various codes of conducts. They come in different flavors, these codes. They are either country specific (click here to see an example of code of conduct for NGOs working in Ethiopia) or project specific (click here to see an example of code of conduct for NGOs working in HIV/AIDS), or they are country level codes that empower recipient countries and prevent donor communities from monopolizing aid activities, such as the Paris Declaration (2005).

Recently, a few big players in the global health arena have partnered to produce yet another NGO code of conduct for health systems strengthening. These partners, including Health Alliance International, Partners In Health, Health GAP, and Action Aid International, have managed to add more than forty-five different NGOs as signatories for the code. The NGO code of conduct for health systems strengthening came about as a response to the recent growth in the number of international non-governmental organizations initiated by increased aid flow. Due to crowding of NGOs with similar niches, recipient country governments have a hard time managing all the programs, making effective project implementation virtually impossible, thus counteracting the purpose of aid in the first place.

The NGOs code of conduct for health systems strengthening has the following six articles:

I. NGOs will engage in hiring practices that ensure long-term health system sustainability.
II. NGOs will enact employee compensation practices that strengthen the public sector.
III. NGOs pledge to create and maintain human resources training and support systems that are good for the countries where they work.
IV. NGOs will minimize the NGO management burden for ministries.
V. NGOs will support Ministries of Health as they engage with communities.
VI. NGOs will advocate for policies that promote and support the public sector.

These types of codes offer practical ethical standards for NGOs and donors engaged in development work. These standards aim to improve the quality and impact of their work. All of this sounds well and good, but the question still remains—how much of this well intentioned code is having an effect and changing NGO behavior? A brief talk with one of the strongest advocates for the health systems code, Dr. Steve Gloyd of Health Alliance International, suggests that the code is not being adhered to even by signatories who were at first excited about it. “Most of the staff in the signatory NGOs don’t even know about the code”, said Dr. Gloyd when asked about its effectiveness. The signatories are voluntary participants of the code, acknowledging it as a guiding principle to real change. Some NGOs, however, face structural problems in implementation that the code fails to address.

What is missing from this effort to improve NGO functioning in low and middle income countries? What would the alternative look like? Although having a centralized, international monitor for NGO activities in recipient countries (such as a coalition of donor agencies, foundations, and big international NGOs) would be ideal, it would probably not be feasible because of the vast number of NGOs around the world. However, a network of the few biggest players in global health in collaboration with recipient country governments could not only manage the NGO code of conduct, but it could also monitor NGO effectiveness and alignment with country national development strategies. Using country governments to help monitor NGO effectiveness (and adherence to the code) has the drawback that governments are prone to corruption. This however could be overcome through checks done by the coalition. If the recipient country’s government is corrupt and dysfunctional, channeling aid away from the government and to its local NGOs could help in initiating a dialogue, both within the recipient country and internationally among donor communities. Mandating the code for all NGOs working in a recipient country will decrease the tendency to dismiss it as something optional. Perhaps the monitors of the code could learn something from the way the military makes ‘recommendations’ for a code of conduct!

Resources:
GDRC NGO Codes of Conduct

Anti Corruption Resource Centre – Developing a code of conduct for NGOs

Organization for Economic Co-operation & Development – The Paris Declaration and Accra Agenda for Action

Former Gates Foundation Leader to be Nominated for USAID Administrator

by Global Washington Policy Coordinator Danielle Ellingston
Rajiv Shah, formerly the director of agricultural development at the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, will be named to head USAID just in the nick of time.  He has already been confirmed by the Senate for a position in the Department of Agriculture, so it is possible that he will sail through confirmation for USAID administrator and we will have someone in place in early 2010.

Shah’s bio is impressive: he has an MD, a degree in economics, and a lot of international development experience.  He also has ties to the Seattle community, having served on many boards of local organizations including the Seattle Public Library and Agros International.

Much has been said about Shah’s youth- he is only 36 years old, which could be an asset but it may also work against him.  According to a hill staffer quoted by the Politico Blog, “He will be a good antidote to some of the stagnancy currently plaguing the agency and will hopefully have a mandate to fundamentally change the way business is done over there. … Also hear from the Agriculture Committee staff that he’s done a great job thus far and is very well-respected.”

It sounds like Shah may be the agent of change that is needed over at USAID, since talk about foreign aid reform is heating up.  2010 is going to be an important year for foreign aid reform.