The New Zealand government’s aid in developing countries is not going to projects where it is needed most, says Oxfam, according to a new report published by agency today.
Less than two percent of aid spending went to activities focused solely on climate adaptation, according to the latest data in the report, and almost half have no gender equality component, despite a long-standing commitment from the government to mainstream gender across its aid programme.
With the global pandemic threatening to put progress against poverty back by decades, the report says now more than ever New Zealand needs to expand its aid budget. Aid remains a crucial tool for governments to use to make sure everyone, everywhere has their fundamental needs met for safety, good health and economic security.
The report, called Collective Resilience: New Zealand’s aid contribution in times of inequality and crises, is the first external review of New Zealand’s aid programme in over two decades.
Oxfam New Zealand’s Communications and Advocacy Director and co-author of the report, Dr Joanna Spratt, said: “While New Zealand’s aid contribution has some firm foundations, there is room for substantial improvement, including in climate action, gender justice and addressing inequality. Aid has a critical role to play in fighting both inequality and poverty, as the world faces looming challenges due to a pandemic, global recession, and climate destruction.
“We are yet to witness the full impact of the coronavirus in developing countries across the world. What is certain is that the spread of the virus will be catastrophic for people already living in poverty. Meanwhile, climate breakdown remains a significant challenge to ensuring all people, everywhere, can survive and thrive.”
Collective Resilience outlines six principles for improving both the quality and quantity of New Zealand’s aid, along with a suite of recommendations, for example, expanding its focus on climate action. Currently, despite New Zealand’s focus on giving aid to the Pacific region where climate breakdown has been declared the region’s greatest threat, we rank just 18 out of 29 OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) peers for aid contributions to climate adaptation.
Spratt said: “In a world where humanity is more connected than ever before – a fact the coronavirus pandemic starkly shows – aid is a crucial area of government expenditure to invest in the wellbeing of all people. Together we can navigate a path forward that puts people and planet first, and New Zealand’s overseas aid has an important role to play in forging this path.”
“Less than two percent of aid spending went to activities focused solely on climate adaptation, according to the latest data in the report, and almost half have no gender equality component, despite a long-standing commitment from the government to mainstream gender across its aid programme.”
This is very vague and waffly. Please be specific, with examples.
Although it may be vague there may well be reasons for that.
At least it is an alarm call towards much further investigation.
Corso many years ago was an aid agency that collected widely across NZ and had govt grants. Corso collected clothes initially but grew in size. It was revealed after private investigation that Corso had grow fat and most of its budget was spent on administration and salaries. At one stage it was netting over 10 million pounds in the 1960s
Public confidence was lost, donations declined and it went out of the “charity” business.
Where ever there is money you will find corruption given time.
Oxfams findings need investigating.
I agree, when complaining state case, otherwise it gets lost in the Sea of Troubles. It’s getting so that anything definite should be numbered. With research showing that people have less retention and hardly read an email past the first para. there need to be coherent, cogent informed paras that are pinned by numbers. And then they have to reply by numbers, and if something isn’t covered you point to the question number and say that this is not covered adequately in this 1…a and this 1b… etc. It would be a case of me telling how to suck eggs, ie its all been heard and known before, but such a lot of things we accept as given, are not customary at all. I loved Kim Hill this morning on Radionz – she wanted precise info not generalisations and I think she was questioning Minister Hipkins. He was good too.
Comments are closed.