International aid and development changes
Global inequalities will continue to have a significant impact on New Zealand both as a member of the
international community and internally as the country faces increased migration pressures, potential regional
conflict, and the demands for resources. Official Development Assistance is one strategy to meet the
international obligations the country has made and also improve the prospects of those who have less. An
important component of this strategy has been addressed through aid and development programmes of both
government and non-governmental agencies, including Churches.
Mainstream New Zealand Churches have a long tradition of supporting vulnerable people in need throughout
the world through international aid and development programmes. The partnership between the government
and NGO sector has been applauded by the OECD and other international observers. This partnership has a
fine record of helping poor people and those affected by disaster to survive in difficult situations and improve
their lives and livelihoods. In the process the organisations have made sure that the needs of the people
remain paramount.
With this history of strong effective work, it was particularly difficult that on 19 April 2010 the Government
announced the end of the 35 year partnership between government and non-governmental organisations.
This ended a scheme that provided matching funds and grants through a collaborative system that was peer
and expert reviewed, had no regional quota, was valued within the church constituency, was based on best
development practice and rated as a world benchmark by the OCED at its last review. It has been replaced by
centrally controlled, contract schemes which seem to be designed to meet other agendas.
Church Leaders are deeply concerned about the impact of these changes, for many reasons, including:
The strategic focus of the changes: There is a change in the express focus from poverty elimination to
sustainable economic development. We do not see these goals as opposing, and agree they are frequently
aligned. However genuine development must give priority to the needs of the world’s poor, including
addressing the causes of impoverishment and enabling communities to take ownership of solutions in order to
ensure that everyone has a decent chance of life. We also note New Zealand's obligations as a signatory to the
UN Millennium Development Goals which committed both rich and poor to halving global poverty.
Good, effective and lasting change must begin with the poor determining their own goals and being actively
involved in the way these are achieved and measured. Purely Church aims such as building our infrastructure
and influence have never been the aim of faith-based development work. The government too must be careful
to maintain standards of good development practice that put the needs of the local people before other
foreign policy objectives such as trade and influence. The new policy and funding arrangements are not
aligned with best practice.
Projects, programmes and partnerships whose futures are now uncertain include those with groups involved
with advocacy, promoting better governance, securing/protecting human rights and livelihoods especially for
vulnerable groups, different economic priorities (e.g. small farmers versus large commercial interests) and
recovering from or resolving conflict and community tensions.
The new arrangements are based on a contract for services model. NGOs will contract for specific outcomes
with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in a given time frame. This may mean working to meet New Zealand
requirements rather than local priorities. It is unclear what if any allowances will be made for groups who
cannot meet the contract because of conflict, climate change or changing economic circumstances.
Their impact on vulnerable communities: The announcement of the changes, only ten weeks before the end
of the financial year, gave our local agencies and our international partners’ insufficient time to prepare new
programme priorities or funding streams. While interim arrangements were eventually put in place, they came
too late and at a significant cost to the partner groups, who have valued the previous scheme, and are now
fearful for the future and the wellbeing of the communities with whom they work.
By 2012/13 the allocated $26 million budget will fund: 75% Pacific, 15% South East Asia, 10% elsewhere. Most
NGOs give proportionately more funds to the rest of the world, reflecting need and New Zealanders (i.e.
taxpayers) interest in these regions. The changes are likely to increase competition between and duplication of
services within the Pacific. A sudden massive increase in Pacific funding runs the very real risk of creating
“make work’ schemes to absorb the new available funds. This is not genuine demand driven development and
may instead distort the real needs picture in the Pacific for many years.
While the government had signalled a change, the details were not known until July with new applications due
in September. Many projects supporting extremely vulnerable and impoverished communities beyond the
Pacific will be ended with short notice to fit in with the new scheme. It is not an exaggeration to say that lives
may be lost as a result of these changes. New Zealand's links with these other regions will be weakened.
Their impact on church agencies: Development agencies and partners are finding it difficult to plan for the
future, with outcomes of the changes still uncertain until the first decisions under the Sustainable
Development Fund are known. These were scheduled to be received in early November but are not yet
known as of 17 November. The timing and speed of the changes has not allowed sufficient time to plan ahead
and find new funding streams to support projects and partnerships made under previous arrangements with
government. Our church members active in fundraising have expressed disappointment at the changes that
mean the trilateral connection of donor, agency and government has been lost.
The process and timing of the changes: The changes have been characterised by unilateral decision making
and a lack of consultation. Numerous requests through the Council for International Development (Umbrella
Group for NZ Aid agencies) to meet with the Minister were declined, and there was a general reluctance to
engage with the sector. Philosophical and principled concerns about the changes were dismissed publicly as
agencies’ “self-interest”. The changes have occurred in haste, and without adequate planning and
communication. The goalposts have been regularly shifted, such as the announcement of significantly
different regional quotas three months into the financial year to those previously indicated, and other
substantial changes. We believe the way forward is a collegiate approach that works on solutions not
compounding existing problems.