Asia-Pacific, Development & Aid, Global, Global Geopolitics, Headlines

AUSTRALIA: Rebuff of U.N. Agency Riles Indonesia, Activists

Bob Burton

CANBERRA, Mar 9 2004 (IPS) - Despite opposition from non-government organisations and Indonesia, the Australian government is determined to end its support for a U.N. agency that funds agricultural development projects to combat rural poverty.

In a submission to the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties meeting this week, Indonesian’s ambassador to Australia Imron Cotan protested Canberra’s decision to withdraw from the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).

Cotan requested the Australian government ‘‘reconsider its decision to withdraw its membership of IFAD’‘.

The Indonesian government, Cotan wrote, ‘‘has always highly regarded the outstanding role played by Australia as a member of IFAD in promoting international cooperation in the area of agriculture. As a prominent country in the agricultural industry, Australia has a significant contribution to the development of the agriculture sector particularly in the developing and less-developed countries.’‘

Last week, the Australian government announced that it would end its funding and participation in the IFAD, a Rome-based U. N. agency established in 1977 as one of the major outcomes of the 1974 World Food Conference following major famines in Africa.

Tim O’Connor of the Sydney-based non-government organisation Aidwatch sees the decision as symptomatic of the current government’s antipathy towards the United Nations agencies. ‘‘The Australian government’s withdrawal is indicative of its retreat from supporting United Nations agencies. Under the Howard government approximately half the funding for various arms of the United Nations has been cut.”

But the Australian aid agency AusAid defends the decision on the grounds that the focus of IFAD is insufficiently focused on Asia-Pacific region. ‘‘The Australian aid programme’s priority regions of South-east Asia and the Pacific accounted for only around 7% of IFAD loans over the five years to 2002,’‘ AusAid complained in the National Interest Analysis it submitted to the committee.

Presenting evidence to the parliamentary committee Monday, the deputy director general of Papua New Guinea, Pacific and Global Programmes for AusAid Charles Tapp, delivered a blunt message.

‘‘The government’s commitment to the Solomon Islands, to the broader regional Pacific governments’ agenda and to Papua New Guinea and also to the security issues within Indonesia and other parts of South-east Asia is very significant. On this basis, IFAD has become even less relevant to our agenda than it was a year ago,’‘ he told the committee.

It is an argument that O’Connor has little time for. ‘‘While it is important that Australia plays a significant role in the Asia-Pacific region, that doesn’t mean we should turn our backs on countering poverty in Africa. We need to be a global citizen not a regional citizen,’‘ he said..

Ausaid also told the parliamentary committee that IFAD suffered from poor communication and governance problems. It is a claim that rankled with IFAD, which made a submission to the parliamentary committee defending itself..

‘‘IFAD is now under new management and a change agenda is in process.. à The proposal to withdraw immediately is rather precipitous, given that IFAD’s Governing Bodies have already commissioned a major Independent External Evaluation to back the reform process,” IFAD wrote. ‘’AusAID formally requested such an evaluation but now does not appear to be waiting for its findings before deciding to withdraw.”

The Australian Institute of Agricultural Science and Technology and the Australian Association of Agricultural Consultants also object to the government decision as signifying a move away from recognising the importance of agricultural development in reducing poverty.

‘‘IFAD was amongst the first to recognise and mainstream the role of women in alleviating poverty through agricultural development. IFAD proved that small-scale credit could be successfully and sustainable provided to groups who were previously considered un-creditworthy and has accumulated wealth experience in how to do this,’‘ they submitted to the committee.

‘‘By combining suites of these approaches, IFAD has improved governance from the bottom up and has created informed groups of empowered poor constituents who have the confidence to underpin higher (regional/national) level interventions designed to introduce sustainable, responsible governance. How can Australia afford to cut itself off from this hard-won experience?’‘ they argued.

As far as AusAid is concerned, however, other lending agencies and non-government organisations have adopted approaches such as micro-financing and empowering local communities. Late last year, AusAid hosted meetings in Canberra and Sydney of those with an interest in IFAD to canvass the possibility of Australia’s withdrawal.

While acknowledging that ‘‘the majority of active participants considered that Australia should not withdraw from IFAD’‘’, AusAid dismissed opposition as being self-interested. ‘‘Most of the leading opponents of withdrawal currently hold, or have held in the past, a financial interest in IFAD as consultants. Few non-government aid agencies have expressed any opposition to the decision,’‘ it stated.

However, another AusAid criticism is that there is insufficient economic benefit to Australian business to justify allocating 11 million U.S. dollars over the next three years to IFAD.

‘‘Australian businesses have much more substantial opportunities through Australia’s membership of other multilateral organisations. For example, the Asian Development Bank valued the contracts it awarded to Australian consultants in calendar year 2002 at 118.4 million Australian dollars (91 million U.S. dollars),”AusAid wrote in its analysis.

O’Connor argues that Australia focuses too much on a narrow view of the national interest and not on playing a role in relieving poverty. ‘‘If they think there is little benefit in it for Australia or Australian business – such as dealing with poverty in Africa – they are not particularly interested,” he said.