Jersey Overseas Aid Policy and Procedures Review (1998)

Overseas Aid

Policies & Procedures Review

February 1998

Private & Confidential

. POLICIES & PROCEDURES REVIEW

CONTENTS

Page

1  Executive Summary  1

2  The Role of Overseas Aid  6

3  Grant Aid  11  

4  Emergency Response  18  In the year 2000, four-fifths of the people of the world will be living 5  Community Projects  21  in the developing countries, most with improving conditions. But 6  Organisation  29  the number in absolute poverty and despair will still be

growingThe record of the last 50 years shows that the efforts of countries and societies to help themselves have been the main

APPENDICES

ingredients in their success But the record also shows that

A  Agency Feedback  31  development assistance has been an essential complementary

B  Community Work Project Questionnaires  40  factor. Properly applied in propitious environments, aid works

C  UK White Paper Summary  44  Development Assistance Committee

D  Development Assistance Committee Report (OECD)  51

Introduction

The Overseas Aid Committee appointed this review group to undertake a review of the policies and procedures of the Committee and to recommend improvements where appropriate. We have sought the views and suggestions of a cross section of interested parties in forming the conclusions and recommendations set out in this report. The group has also examined policy documents issued by national and international bodies in the field of development to ensure that recent thinking on this subject is appropriately reflected in our recommendations.

This report summarises the results of this review and makes a number of proposals for the Committee's consideration. It should however be understood that this is a working document and the group recognise that the evolution of policies and procedures is an ongoing process which must be responsive to changing conditions and circumstances.

Allocation of 1996 Budget (£2.6 million)

Grant Aid

Administration

Work Projects

Emergency Response

Overall we were impressed with the dedication and commitment of the people we encountered. It has been abundantly clear to us that Overseas Aid enjoys a fund of goodwill and dedication which are a major asset. Nowhere is this more apparent than in the efforts of the many individuals who give so much of their time to the work of the Committee. We were also much impressed with the attention devoted to establishing both accountability for, and effective deployment of, funds.

In summary, the approach of the Committee appears to be fundamentally robust and most aid is being channelled through a portfolio of development agencies into projects consistent with sound development principles. Looking forward and building on this foundation to further improve the Committee's effectiveness we recommend that:

 grant aid policies and principles should be broadened in scope, in light of international

guidance and experience, to permit the Committee to fund projects which are excluded under current criteria;

 the Committee should consider block funding selected Non-Governmental Agencies

where adequate evidence of effectiveness and accountability is available;

 emergency response funding should be maintained at the present level and the

Committee should consider channelling relief through the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs Relief Co-ordination Branch;

 Community Work Projects should continue to be pursued, following sound

development principles, as a vehicle for promoting awareness of, and support for, overseas development in Jersey;

 a senior individual with suitable skills and experience should be appointed to assist

with policy and strategy formulation and implementation, promote overseas development assistance, enlist, support and co-ordinate volunteers and supervise Community Work Projects;

 the States should ensure that other aspects of Jersey's policies are consistent with

international development objectives;

 the Island should expand its Overseas Aid programme in line with international

targets.

The Role of Overseas Aid

Jersey's peculiar constitutional position has evolved over many centuries. Within this context the natural focus of attention for the States has been with the regulation of the Island's internal affairs. However in recent times Jersey has developed from, in world terms, an unknown agricultural community, to an international financial centre. We have entered the global economy and become connected with people from places which our forebears could scarcely imagine. An appropriate response to global issues has now become a matter of our own self interest. This is acknowledged in the States commitment to the sustainable development goals of the Rio Earth Summit which also embraces the parallel imperative of addressing global poverty.

From a global perspective the magnitude of poverty presents a sobering picture:  more than 1.3 billion people live on incomes of less than $1 per day;

 more than 160 million children are moderately or severely malnourished;

 some 110 million children have no access to schooling;

 nearly a billion people are illiterate;

 over a billion lack access to safe water;

 half a million women in developing countries die each year in childbirth.

Notwithstanding these figures, United Nations forecasts suggest that eradication of poverty by the mid 21st century is both feasible and affordable. Whilst much of this will result from the efforts of communities themselves and private capital flows (for example consider the transformation of Pacific rim economies) soundly based development assistance will provide a significant contribution. Indeed the "ambitious but realisable" goals of the OECD Development Assistance Committee1, are a vision which might underpin the strategy of the Committee.

Thus, in our view, Jersey has a mandate to participate in development efforts as:  a practical demonstration of the principles of good governance which we espouse;

 an informed investment in building a secure and sustainable future for our children;

and

 an ethical response to the unacceptable conditions in which so many exist.

We endorse the Committee's pursuit of funding increases in line with the internationally accepted UN target. Funding is presently less than half the average for developed countries and only one fifth of the target[2]. Notwithstanding the strengths of the Committee's policy and procedures this aspect of States policy to be regretted in an Island which enjoys a national income which few other places can match.

We also endorse and encourage the Committee's initiatives to ensure that other aspect of States policy are consistent with, and supportive of, international development goals.

Grant Aid

By far the largest component of the Committee's expenditure is allocated to grant aid. A wide range of relief and development agencies are funded on a project by project basis within policy guidelines which have been established for many years. Policy has been developed with the overriding aim of ensuring that funds are applied to basic development needs whilst ensuring accountability within a

flexible and streamlined process. In our view this has served the Committee well. We recommend that:

 the Committee should continue to rely principally on the expertise of aid agencies in

this complex field. In this regard we believe that more attention can be focused on assessing the overall quality and soundness of approach of agencies. In our view, this would at least match and possibly exceed the effectiveness and accountability achieved by the current, more detailed, project by project evaluation;

 within a framework of robust principles, criteria should be expressed in terms of

development outcome measures as the preferred mechanism for establishing accountability (and effectiveness). This will enhance accountability and provide scope to embrace robust projects which are precluded by existing criteria;

 in regard to selection of agencies/projects clearly defined and appropriate priorities

and criteria should continue to form the flexible framework for funding decisions. However, within these guidelines we believe that the Committee could have additional regard for agencies and issues which find support within the Island. This could enhance the Committee's accountability to its constituency, promote development and encourage fund raising by Jersey groups.

The high level policies of the Committee should now be more fully articulated in these terms to demonstrate that its decision making framework is both transparent and open to public challenge. This will particularly assist in establishing a greater degree of coherence between grant aid and Community Work Project policy. Relevant aspects of OECD Development Assistance Committee material as well as Non-Governmental Organisation policies may provide useful and authoritative resources for this purpose.

Emergency Response

The Committee earmark funds of the order of £150,000 per annum for emergency response. We believe that it is both appropriate and desirable that Jersey continue to allocate funds of this magnitude for (soundly based) emergency use for several reasons:

 it is consistent with the remit of the Committee and meets expectations of Jersey

residents;

 it provides valuable publicity and confirms that the Committee is responsive to

immediate humanitarian needs;

 when effectively deployed it provides a highly visible demonstration of the way in

which extreme hardship is alleviated by the Committee and thereby assists in maintaining support for its work; and

 it expresses solidarity with the suffering population.

We recommend emergency relief preferably be channelled through the UN Department of Humanitarian Affairs Relief Co-ordination Branch. This will:

 provide a rapid and reliable mechanism for reasonable and effective response which

will do much to overcome the confusion, misinformation and duplication which in practice are characteristic of emergency situations;

 enable the Committee to retain control over both which disasters are funded and the

amount provided;

 improve accountability through the comprehensive reporting system; and

 promote the Island through the reporting system which will highlight the contribution

made by Jersey among governments around the world.

Community Work Projects

Since 1971 the Committee has organised parties of volunteers from Jersey to undertake building or similar work in developing countries for periods of four weeks. It is thought that around 1,000 islanders have participated in projects,

typically in parties of 10 to 20, in countries including, amongst others, Kenya, Zambia, Albania and Zimbabwe. Volunteers incur an actual or notional earnings sacrifice of the order of £50,000, contribute an element of the cost of travel (£350 per person) and undertake some fund raising.

Key potential benefits of these projects include both the building of awareness of development issues in our community and the personal development of participants. The group therefore recommend that Community Work Projects be retained as an appropriate use of States funds which is compatible with the mandate of the Committee. We further recommend that the amount of funding devoted to this area is not increased and that all projects meet development criteria consistent with those for grant aid. This will ensure that the cost of transporting volunteers to developing countries to undertake primarily unskilled labouring work and the choice of projects for which this is practical do not overshadow the development rationale. In support of this policy we propose that:

 more attention be directed to co-ordination tasks including provision of guidance and

direction which will help ensure that sound development approaches are adopted;  more emphasis be given to the role of the host community and in particular the critical

importance of its endorsement for, and ownership of, the project;

 work project selection criteria be brought in line with grants policy and opportunities

for Non-Governmental Organisations to assist in identification and selection of projects be sought;

 more importance be attached to the quality of engagement of volunteers in the life of

the host community;

 agreed working aims for the work projects be explicitly established to communicate

and clarify the underlying development principles;

 procedures for the work projects be standardised including Leader and Volunteer

selection;

 further effort be devoted to training and preparation for leaders and the volunteers to

reinforce the learning experience;

 leader manuals be developed incorporating both principles and practical aspects;  a standardised leader report format be introduced which encompasses all key issues;  leader and volunteer evaluation procedures be developed;

 debriefing of work projects on completion be introduced;

 evaluation of projects from the perspectives of the beneficiaries be introduced;

 consideration be given to increasing the volunteer contribution;

 continuing leader and volunteer involvement on return to the island be encouraged

and facilitated; and

 more importance be attached to skill transfer through inclusion of volunteers with

appropriate skills and secondments in both directions.

Organisation

The Committee adopts a cautious administrative policy which sought to make maximum use of the voluntary resources in discharging its duties. This policy sits well with the honorary ethos which features so strongly in our community and has been instrumental in channelling the maximum possible funding directly into development work. The achievements of the past twenty seven years are a testimony to the dedication of the many people whose voluntary efforts have underpinned the work of the Committee.

However, in view of the significance of the Committee's task and budget we recommend that:

 policy and strategy development must be given additional attention commensurate

with the importance of the role of Overseas Aid;

 advocacy and support building tasks must be pursued vigorously and systematically

to ensure that understanding of, and support for, Overseas Aid is nurtured in the Island generally and also in the House;

 opportunities to advance educational / awareness building objectives through co-

ordination of activities of development agencies, liaison with Education and other Committees and so on should be systematically pursued;

 as noted earlier, further resources should be devoted to orientation, supervision and

coaching of leaders, participants and host communities on Community Work Projects;  relief and development related initiatives by islanders should receive more support

and guidance. This would encourage local individuals and endorse their enthusiasm

whilst (where necessary) steering efforts toward sound initiatives and promoting

greater awareness of development.

These recommendations clearly have resource implications. We have no simple solutions to fulfil the requirements identified here and recognise that human resource scarcity is a particular issue in the Island. Nonetheless:

 we suspect that there are further individuals available in the Island who could be

engaged to undertake some of these tasks on either a voluntary or remunerated basis;

 development agencies may be able to assist with several tasks including provision of

expert assistance in the formulation of strategy and plans, promotional and educational work and aspects of Community Work projects;

 the Committee has the option to streamline its workload by changes in procedure (for

example reducing the number of community work projects which are organised, contracting out a proportion of grant aid administration); and

 despite the foregoing, even within present procedures, grant aid could be increased

without additional administrative burden through the simple device of increasing the value of individual grants.

However, we believe that these key requirements may be best met by appointing an individual with appropriate experience and skills who would have a wide ranging remit to advise on policy and procedure, enlist, co-ordinate, support and direct voluntary efforts, develop awareness of and support for development assistance and act as a catalyst for educational work.

Is a Trust Required?

A number of parties have tabled the possibility of establishing a trust vehicle to undertake some of the Committee's functions. Whilst this has operational attractions and particularly might encourage participation of non States members

we were concerned that such a strategy might serve to further weaken the support for overseas development aid within the House. This overriding concern led us to conclude that a trust vehicle would not be desirable at this time.

Concluding Remarks

Our observations in this report must not be allowed to eclipse the long record of achievements of the Committee and the many individuals whose time and energies are so freely devoted to relief and development work. We believe that, despite our concerns in regard to funding level, the Island can be proud of its record of rigorous exclusion of self interest in the administration of aid. Indeed this aspect of policy and procedures is a model we can hold up for larger neighbours to emulate.

This report could not have been prepared without the cooperation and assistance of many individuals and agencies to whom we are indebted. Clearly we have not been able to do full justice to the diverse views and suggestions expressed to us. Nor do we have solutions to all the challenges facing the Committee. Nonetheless it is our earnest hope that this report will, in some small way, serve to assist the Committee as it looks toward the 21st century and, perhaps, to a world which is no longer marred by the poverty so prevalent today, a world in which this particular Committee will no longer be necessary.

We have exercised reasonable skill and care in conducting this review and have relied on representations made to us but we have not sought independent verification or otherwise audited information provided to us. Neither have we been able to assess procedures and controls within the agencies receiving grants. Furthermore, this review has been undertaken on a voluntary basis and accordingly we have not been able to draw on either the resources or expertise which might be available in a more comprehensive review.

The Context of Global Poverty

In the considered view of the United Nations, "Development is a multidimensional undertaking to achieve a higher quality of life for all people. Economic development, social development and environmental protection are interdependent and mutually reinforcing components of sustainable development"3. The extent and depth of global poverty are sobering:

 more than 1.3 billion people live on incomes of less than $1 per day. Most of these

live in South Asia and Sub Saharan Africa;

 more than 840 million people go hungry or face food insecurity, i.e. where the next

meal is coming from;

 more than 160 million children are moderately or severely malnourished;

 some 110 million children have no access to schooling;

 nearly a billion people are illiterate;

 over a billion lack access to safe water;

 half a million women in developing countries die each year in childbirth;

 between 1987 and 1993 the number of peoples with incomes of less than $1 per day

increased by almost 100 million and the number appears to be growing in every region except South East Asia and the Pacific;

 the share of the poorest 20% of the world's people in global income now stands at a

miserable 1.1%, down from 1.4% in 1991 and 2.3% in 1960;

 the ratio of income of the top 20% compared with that of the poorest 20% rose from

30:1 in 1960, to 61:1 in 1991 and 78:1 in 1994.

These figures are not gleaned from a sensationalist newspaper or the propaganda of a cash-hungry pressure group, but from the UN Human Development Report 1997. Other facts which help put the problem into context include some from the US Government Agency for International Development (USAID)4:

 more than 3 million children worldwide died in 1995 as a direct result of water-borne

diseases stemming from unsanitary drinking and bathing water;

 the population of the world increases by the equivalent of an additional New York City

every month - at current rates the population of the developing world will double in 34 years;

 around the world, each day, 35,000 children under the age of 5 die of malnutrition and

easily preventable diseases.

Faced with such large indicators of suffering the situation looks bleak yet the UN report - the best available objective view of the state of the world's populations - is both depressing and hopeful at the same time, because the report suggests that eradication of poverty in the first decades of the 21st century is both feasible and affordable if we all play our part.

Such a statement appears unreasonable, yet the major aid donors have reviewed the figures and come to the same conclusions - the Development Assistance Committee of the OECD, representing the aid agencies of all major donors, proposed a development effort to achieve the following goals which they describe as "ambitious but realisable":

 Reduce by one-half in the proportion of people living in extreme poverty by 2015.  Universal primary education in all countries by 2015.

 Demonstrated progress toward gender equality and the empowerment of women by

eliminating gender disparity in primary and secondary education by 2005.

 Reduction by two-thirds in the mortality rates for infants and children under age 5 and

a reduction by three-quarters in maternal mortality, all by 2015.

 Access through the primary health care system to reproductive health services for all

individuals of appropriate ages as soon as possible and no later than the year 2015.  Implementation of national strategies for sustainable development in all countries by

2005, so as to ensure that current trends in the loss of environmental resources are

effectively reversed at both global and national levels by 2015.

The United Kingdom Department for International Development (DfID) has signed up to the messages in both reports. Claire Short, UK Secretary of State for International Development, put the case to the Institute of Directors in the following terms:

"It is both possible and affordable to eliminate abject poverty from the world...if we fail to grasp this opportunity, humanity and this planet on which we live will be in very serious difficulty by 2050 if not before...There are many people - perhaps many in this room - whose first reaction to my argument might be that my aspirations are laudable but in the real world unachievable. They are, I am happy to say, completely wrong. We have gained much experience of development over the past 50 years. In fact, more people have escaped from poverty in the past 50 years than in the previous 500 years of human existence. This provides us with the experience to complete our task...the conclusion of the [UNDP] report is that the elimination of abject poverty is affordable and achievable but that what is lacking is the political will...I should make it clear that my aim is to eliminate British aid and to close down my department. But in order to do this we must first meet our commitment to reverse the decline in British aid - halved from 0.51% to 0.27% under the last government and meet the UN target of 0.7% of GNP. When we reflect on the fact that people used to give 10% of their income to the church through tithing, 0.7% is a tiny commitment and the potential gain is in all our interests. Spending 0.7% of our GNP on poverty elimination is necessary for sustainable development and for the future security and happiness of all our grandchildren".5

What is Poverty?

Poverty comes in several forms - it can be Income poverty, where people have access to very small amounts of money; The World Bank sets a poverty line of $1 per day per person for international comparison. Poverty can also describe access to basic needs including health, education and essential services. It also recognises the need for employment and participation. From the Capability Perspective used by the UN, poverty also includes ability of a person to be well- nourished, have a reasonable lifespan and take part in a community life etc. The UN Human Poverty Index (HPI) has been devised to assess the relative standards of developing countries around the world from a comprehensive perspective.

The HPI ranking is based on three approaches to deprivation6:

 "The first deprivation relates to survival - the vulnerability to death at a relatively early

age - and is represented in the HPI by the percentage of people expected to die before age 40.

 The second dimension relates to knowledge - being excluded from the world of

reading and communication - and is measured by the percentage of adults who are illiterate.

 The third relates to a decent standard of living, in particular, overall economic

provisioning. This is represented by a composite of three variables - the percentage of people with access to health services and to safe water, and the percentage of malnourished children under five".

From the survey, the UN found that 28 countries had more than 40% of their population affected by poverty as described above, seven countries having more than half their entire populations being affected. (the table above lists countries with more than 40% of the population affected by poverty7).

The Local Context - Why Should Jersey Care?

International Commitments

There are well established international commitments and trends in development policy which demonstrates that overseas development aid ("ODA") should to be brought firmly into serious focus as a component of the Jersey budget:

 The UN target for overseas development assistance is 0.7% of GNP. Signatories to

Agenda 21 committed themselves to moving to this figure as a major component of sustainable development. Jersey is a signatory to this international instrument. Agenda 21 is about "Thinking Globally, Acting Locally". The States has on numerous occasions made strategic commitments to sustainable development and the Environmental Advisor is preparing a Sustainable Development Strategy for the Island. It is important that the full measure of our commitment is reflected in the final sustainable development strategy and that overseas development assistance is

included both in the Sustainable Development Strategy and also within the Strategic Policy Review.

 At the 19th UN General Assembly Special Session (UNGASS) held in New York on

23-27 June 1997, the problems and responsibilities of the international community with regard to overseas development assistance was emphasised. Prime Minister Tony Blair expressed concern about the fall in aid flows since the Agenda 21 commitments agreed in Rio in 1992. "My Government," he said, "supports the UN target [of 0.7% gross national product for overseas development assistance]...We are committed to improving further the quality of our assistance, reversing the decline in Britain's development assistance, and refocusing our efforts on combating poverty"[2].

International Governance

Jersey is often portrayed internationally as having a system of government which should be emulated by others; the Island is proud of being a distinct and unique government with a recognisable contribution to make on the world stage. For example, we play an important part in the work of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association ("CPA"). Many countries in the CPA are recipients of aid. Jersey has long seen itself as a paid-up member of this group of governments. If Jersey wants to be seen as a government at the leading edge of governance as well as financial industries, then it needs to demonstrate a level of commitment to governance which reflects our relative wealth. Jersey as a government is in a strong position to assist less developed countries. To fulfil our own desire to be seen and respected as a government with a role to play, we should be looking to show the way for countries in less fortunate positions. Stewardship, one of the key criteria at the decision-conference process, embraces international as well as domestic responsibilities.

Trade Potential

The developing world is an enormous potential market; as countries achieve the economic growth necessary for the transition from developing to developed status, so the potential for international trade improves. There is scope for Jersey to assist in the development of financial mechanisms that will assist the recipient country to achieve the necessary growth while at the same time opening-up opportunities for expansion into emerging markets. The OECD Development

Assistance Committee report that developing country markets for OECD exports have expanded by 50% since 1990. As populations grow and economies develop out of poverty, there is a potentially enormous market for the kind of financial services which Jersey, and companies investing in Jersey, specialise in. In very basic terms, the development of poverty-stricken countries could be in our own best interests in the long term as the number of potential clients increases.

From a more negative point of view, the international financial industry such as insurance are starting to take environmental issues such as climate change very seriously. If investments tied-up with the international finance community are affected by poor governance and development in the third world, the overall stability of the industry could be affected, with attendant risks for Jersey industries. The increasing globalisation of business and economies means that Jersey is only an island in geographic terms. In business terms we are part of a much bigger picture, and we must be taking such larger perspectives into view with regard to government decision-making.

Global Security

Development leads to improved levels of global security; this in turn leads to less cause for population migration and accompanying social and environmental stress. Political stability and social cohesion diminish the risks of war, terrorism and crime that inevitably spill over into other countries. Whilst Jersey might seem immune to such problems at the moment, international drugs trafficking, fraud and corruption are all symptoms which can easily impact upon the Island's reputation as a finance centre. Assisting developing countries helps us to protect ourselves in the longer term.

Similarly with issues of global environmental significance; climate change can easily be affected by inefficient development around the world. Although we may not be able to influence directly the course of a developing country, we should be playing our part in ensuring that development is of a form that is unlikely to endanger future populations of Jersey through sea level rise, climate change or ozone depletion. The actions of the developing world can rebound on the developed, as the major donors are already aware. The concept of a "spaceship earth" is very valid in this context. If the third world plunges into further chaos, it is likely that there could be long term disbenefits for all of us.

Moral Imperative

The basic motivation for development aid is humanitarian - it is a compassionate response to the 20% of our fellow humans that are suffering unnecessarily, having to survive on less than $1 a day, with little clean water, no education, poor health and inadequate nourishment.

Our society is grounded in the Judaeo-Christian tradition which both asserts that all people are created to experience a full and rich life which poverty today denies to untold millions and is fundamentally opposed to the injustices and oppression which mar the lives of so many people. These roots, which have for centuries nourished and given cohesion to our community are as powerful and persuasive as any in guiding our response in this matter. Whilst aid can only ever be a minor aspect of an adequate response in these terms it can function as a powerful symbol of the deeper concern and priorities which faithfulness to such a tradition implies.

Problems with International Aid

International aid has often been criticised for not meeting the needs of the poor. This situation is changing, but there are still major problems to be faced. In particular there is a large gap between the funds paid to relatively rich developing countries and those to the poorest. The Economist magazine reported several years back on some of the key problems[2]:

 The richest 40% of the developing world gets about twice as much per head as the

poorest 40%. El Salvador gets five times as much aid as Bangladesh, even though

Bangladesh has 24 times as many people and is five times poorer than El Salvador.  As budgets for emergency relief operations increase, so some developing countries,

recognising the trends, have shifted their appeals from development to emergency

relief contexts. This reduces the overall amount spent on development, even though

in some circumstances the emergency relief funding comes from a national

contingency budget rather than the development budget.

 "Tied Aid" is still an issue. Large amounts of aid are linked to a particular national

interest e.g. roughly a quarter of US aid is in the form of military assistance, and

roughly a quarter goes to Israel and Egypt alone. America also sees aid to Eastern Europe and the countries of the former Soviet Union primarily in strategic terms.

 Commercial interests are also clearly shown; Japan is open in admitting that most of

its aid programme goes to countries considered likely to become future customers.  All countries on the OECD Development Assistance Committee tie their aid to some

extent - the use of foreign consultants, specialist contractors and suppliers to a

project. This ensures that their services are employed in the developing country

where it can be reported as "assistance".

Is Aid Effective?

In view of the foregoing the place and value of aid might well be challenged. Indeed the publicity which from time to time surrounds ill conceived schemes on which funds have been squandered over the years may not be overlooked. Yet, like other human endeavours, the field of development has evolved and lessons have been learned. Current practice is based on sound foundations. That this is so is perhaps most evident in trends of major improvement which are clearly discernible in recent decades, for example:

 infant mortality has been cut by three fifths;

 adult literacy has risen from less than half to about two thirds;

 income poverty has fallen faster in the past 50 years than the last five hundred;  immunisation programmes have controlled smallpox (eliminated), polio (almost

eliminated) diphtheria and measles and simple effective ways have been found to combat infant diarrhoea, river blindness and guinea worm disease.

Much of this is attributable to the efforts of developing countries and some have now themselves become donors (for example consider the transformation of Pacific rim economies). Indeed, "development assistance is a co-operative partnership exercise between donors and recipients. The developing countries are responsible for their own development and development assistance can only be subsidiary and complementary to the efforts of the developing countries themselves".[2] Private capital flows to developing countries which now outstrip aid also represent a significant factor in the progress being achieved. There is

however no doubt that appropriately targeted aid continues to have a measurable and important contribution to the eradication of poverty as Jersey itself has known, in living memory11.

Aid and Development

The UK Government White Paper "Eliminating World Poverty" explicitly recognises the need for a coherent approach to sustainable development across the entire spectrum of policy. "Both nationally and internationally, there is a complex web of environmental, trade, investment, agricultural, political, defence, security and financial issues which affect relations with developing countries. These are driven by a range of policy considerations. all of which affect the development relationship, To have a real impact on poverty we must ensure the maximum consistency between all these different policies as they affect the developing world."

Aid cannot be viewed in isolation from other policies which affect development. Jersey has little opportunity to influence, for example, conflict resolution, dismantling of trade and non trade barriers to our markets, access to investment funds or rescheduling and cancellation of debts to engender financial stability. Yet there are other areas where States policies can align with development goals pursued by the Overseas Aid Committee including:

 combat of money laundering which can have a serious effect on a country's economy

even to the extent of corrupting entire financial and political systems. This is a particular challenge for offshore financial centres and Jersey's proactive stance in this regard are a positive contribution to development efforts;

 initiatives to stem illicit international trade in drugs which undermine the social and

economic development of countries contributes ;

 a regulatory regime which vigorously seeks to ensure that Jersey is not used as a

conduit to bypass international restrictions on arms trade and other activities which would undermine efforts to reduce conflict, protect the environment or engender responsible corporate practices (e.g. ethical trade in pharmaceuticals etc.);

 public sector procurement policies which are alert to opportunities to increase trade in

goods and services that provide income for poor people and reinforce basic human rights in the workplace;

 promotion of environmental conservation and sustainability;

 ethical investment policies (which may not be presumed, a priori, to be incompatible

with maximising returns).

Some of these issues have been taken up by the Committee. We strongly endorse this as appropriate to a development remit and consistent with international precedent. However, in the scope of this review, we have not been able to give further attention to these wider issues and we therefore recommend that they are taken up and examined more fully by the Committee as a separate exercise.

Conclusions

Jersey is in a potentially important position. Our review has provided ample examples that the approaches adopted by successive Overseas Aid Committees over the last 27 years have been rooted in sound development principles, prudent use of limited resources and commendable honorary service by executive officers, work party members and in administrative support. However there are improvements that can be made to provide for appropriate aid policies for the next century. As other donor nations are constantly reviewing their approaches for development to ensure that the maximum benefit accrues from aid budgets, so Jersey too should regularly review approaches to ensure that our policies and procedures continue to reflect best practice.

Our fundamental recommendations (which to a large extent reflect and expand upon current practice) are that Jersey:

 expresses its legitimate government responsibilities for development through adopting

the principles and aims of the OECD Development Assistance Committee as its the framework for aid;

 commits itself to overseas aid contributions conforming to international targets and

practice. The principles of Agenda 21 signed at Rio in 1992, and to which Jersey is

committed, enshrine a minimum level of overseas aid assistance of 0.7% of national income. Whilst this cannot be expected to be found immediately, it is important that the Island move towards this international target over the next ten years so that our policies and practice are consistent;

 endeavours to achieve consistency of policy with regard to overseas development. A

commitment to sustainable development will ensure that finance, trade, environment and development policies are consistent across the board. The Sustainable Development Strategy would be an appropriate vehicle to tie these elements together;

 more tightly targets aid on the most vulnerable groups in the least developed

countries as a genuine contribution to the eradication of absolute poverty in the world as outlined in the OECD Development Assistance Committee and the UN. (Albeit we acknowledge that the current approach already makes good use of limited resources, effectively targets relative poverty in many countries and accommodates funding for small community projects that slip through the nets of larger agencies);

 continues to pursue its flexible approach to funding through Non-Governmental

Organisations registered and approved by the UK DfID. The use of Non- Governmental Organisations as a delivery partner ensures that the aid can be brought directly to the local communities to ensure maximum effectiveness of service with accountability of management. The Committee currently spreads very limited resources across a wide range of Non-Governmental Organisations, many of whom are too small or specialised to be funded from larger donors;

 maintains the present balance between short term assistance for emergencies with

the need for longer term development work that aims to strengthen local capacities to bring about long term improvement of communities;

 focuses on projects that address the following issues:

reduce poverty while achieving broadly-based economic growth;

people-centred projects that give individuals, households and communities expanded access to economic, social, political, environmental and personal assets;

promotion of gender equality;

development of democracy and human rights;

sustainable development;

respond to the priorities of local people.

We stress that current criteria, which focus on sectoral areas of support such as water and sanitation, primary health care, etc. are sound and conform to these policies. However, the higher level policies delineated here provide a broader framework which accommodate existing principles whilst broadening the scope to embrace other legitimate development priorities.

Grant Aid

By far the largest component of the Committee's expenditure is taken up with grant aid. A wide range of relief and development agencies are funded on a project by project basis within policy guidelines which have been established for many years. This principle of working through recognised aid agencies is well established in donor countries.

In our review of this aspect of the Committee's work we established current policies and procedures by interview of relevant individuals and sought the views of a cross section of development agencies whose projects have been funded by the Committee (a summary of the results of the agency consultation is included in the appendices):

Present Policy

Policy has been developed with the overriding intention of ensuring that funds are applied to appropriate ends whilst ensuring clear accountability. The key aspects of this policy are reproduced in the panel below.

In our view these policies have served the Committee well and, indeed, several agencies have specifically commended both the flexibility with which criteria are applied and the streamlined procedure. Nonetheless, we believe these strengths can be built upon by the following recommendations:

 project criteria should be explicitly expressed in terms of both:

whether there is appropriate evidence that the development rationale is adequately worked out (in practice this is currently checked by evaluation of the project proposal); and

whether appropriate outcome measures have been incorporated into the agency's monitoring and evaluation process. For example, and oversimplifying for the purpose of illustration, basic education related project measures of success might be established in terms of literacy level improvement rather than existence of buildings per se.

Such criteria would provide the key mechanism to establish accountability through more

relevant and robust outcome based measures. Furthermore, there is growing recognition among practitioners and theorists that selection of measure/constraint can incline projects to give undue emphasis to those aspects even at the expense of the ultimate intended outcome. Development of its nature is complex and difficult (but not impossible) to measure, not least because of the long term character of much work. Nonetheless an explicit emphasis on outcome measures would go some way toward eliminating drawbacks associated with constraints expressed in terms which are indirectly linked to the intended benefits.

 closely allied to the previous point, the legitimacy and value of expenses such as

salaries and running costs, which may be the most significant aspects in terms of development outcome, should be accepted. Whilst a reluctance to fund these aspects is motivated by a concern for accountability this policy is prone to drive projects towards inappropriate ends. Accountability must be re-conceived in terms of development outcome measures or robust proxies;

 development is by nature a long term enterprise and therefore grant duration should

correspond to the life of the project (and hence the outcome). This would avoid the tendency to divert funds to less appropriate uses for the sake of one year "results". The policy of supporting only single year grants been adopted as an ultra cautious

strategy to accommodate the lack of assured funding continuity for the Committee. We believe that a more appropriate policy must be devised (within the acknowledged constraints of the States financing process);

 co-funded projects should be fully endorsed to enable participation in successful

projects which may be more effective than those currently funded by the Committee and which may be subject to more stringent or better monitoring (and hence accountability) in view of the larger sums at stake and requirements of other funders. (Present criteria do provide for co-funding in more limited circumstances);

 evidence of host community ownership of, and ultimate responsibility for, each project

should be mandatory to ensure appropriateness of the intervention and improve the likelihood of a successful outcome;

 criteria should, in principle, encompass larger projects which might have the critical

mass necessary to attract greater development expertise and better monitoring. This will help reduce proliferation of small projects created by the £50,000 ceiling.

 flexibility for innovation and learning which are important in this field should be

explicitly accommodated. Thus, for example, the remarkable successes which have been achieved through microfinance schemes for small businesses which otherwise have difficulty accessing commercial credit and financial services and fit well with the "hand up not hand out" principle should be able to be encompassed within the criteria;

 the number of agencies which are supported could be reduced. This would ease the

substantial administrative burden which may be disproportionate to the benefits of achieving a balance within such a small budget (in global terms). Whilst this has been sustained to date through the efforts and dedication of the Honorary Executive Officer, the Committee cannot rely on this indefinitely. (De facto policy has been to support a broad portfolio of projects and agencies with the intention of achieving a balance among the basic human needs of clean water and sanitation, primary health, nutrition and education);

 projects originated or administered by government or other official structures should,

in principle, be considered for support where there is appropriate evidence of accountability to electorate and democratic process. This will ensure that Jersey's policies are not perceived to deprecate the efforts and priorities of recipients and are

consistent with the partnership ethos which is an central theme within authoritative material such as the Development Assistance Committee principles12.

The Project Approach

The Committee, has, since inception, pursued a policy of inviting reputable development agencies to submit individual projects for consideration by the Committee in a standardised project proposal summary format. These are assessed, with the assistance of the Honorary Executive Officer, in terms of their relevance to the development priorities of the Committee and a selection made. Meetings are also held with selected agencies to supplement these proposals and, importantly, to enable the Committee to remain in touch with the development field.

Reports are prepared by the agency on progress which would be monitored by the Committee (in practice this monitoring is not being undertaken due to pressure of work).

This overall approach has been established to provide evidence to the Committee that funds have been applied to suitable development purposes. However the approach is critically dependant on the agencies to:

 select projects which are soundly based from a sustainable development perspective;

and

 monitor progress adequately

It is not clear to us that to the robustness of these fundamental aspects is enhanced in proportion to the effort expended by the Committee in detailed project

by project evaluation. On this basis one might argue that the Committee would be better advised to attempt to assess the competence and effectiveness of the agency (rather than the merits of a project). Following this line of thought, it could place the administration of part or all of its budget out to tender. Agencies could present a case for being awarded the contract which would include:

 a demonstration of the soundness of its approach;

 an explanation of the measurement and reporting processes it proposed for

accountability purposes;

 evidence of its track record in development (for example, this could cite, amongst

other evidence, accreditation by DfID for block funding purposes);

 proposals for marketing materials on the work done which would be provided for use

by the Committee to publicise and garner support.

Such a tender process would ensure that competitive disciplines are brought to bear on the agencies and might improve both the effectiveness of the development outcomes and the accountability. The principal drawback would be the exclusion of smaller specialist agencies (although conceivably one could stipulate that a main agency employ nominated sub agencies).

Project Selection Criteria

If the Committee wish to wholly or partially retain a project based approach there is scope to adopt a particular focus. Such a focus would build a fund of experience in a particular field and could conceivably allow Jersey to be recognised for contributing significantly to measurable progress in a limited field. Among the alternatives which might be contemplated are:

 a focus on countries which have some link with the Island. For example Jersey has

natural links with small commonwealth states. However, generally these do not have the most significant development needs; or

 a focus on particular geographic areas of need, for example the bottom 20 countries

measured in terms of HPI. However, given the Committee's limited resouces,

conditions in these areas may not be as conducive to development as in other countries and poverty exists in pockets in most countries; or

 a thematic specialisation, for example clean water supplies. This might serve to

reduce the number of agencies with which the Committee works. However this would exclude other areas which may deliver more per pound spent in development terms.

Each alternative has particular merits and drawbacks and the group saw no fundamental advantage of one option over another. However, we did note some support expressed by interested parties for a policy which is responsive to the interests of islanders. Provided this is underpinned by an insistence on fundamentally sound, sustainable development, drawing on the involvement of the local community would provide a vehicle to build understanding and support for the policies and focus of the Committee's work. It would however require more effort to articulate and implement such a policy and especially to demonstrate impartiality.

Selection of Agencies

A broad portfolio of development agencies are funded with the largest proportion channelled through leading Non-Governmental Organisations contracted by major funders such as DfID. The Committee also support a portfolio of smaller agencies working in niche areas. The effectiveness of an agency is gauged though the project assessment procedure described earlier together with scrutiny of agency financial statements (which must be audited), informal gathering of intelligence from a network of contacts, and information gathered in the course of field trips in connection with Community Work Projects etc. This approach appears to be reasonable in the context of the modest Overseas Aid budget. Indeed, the diversity of agencies and projects funded would render direct independent monitoring and evaluation impractical. Nonetheless we did not have the resources or skills to assess the soundness of the project work conducted by agencies and we have relied on assurances given to us by the Honorary Executive Officer and President that adequate steps are taken to ensure effectiveness. If the budget is significantly expanded we would expect this approach to be reconsidered in recognition of the larger sums committed. In the case of major agencies we anticipate that suitable assurance can be gained through the evidence provided by

assessments made by donors such as DfID as set out above. If an expansion of

funding to other agencies were also contemplated direct assessment may be  Policy Harmonisation

necessary to provide equivalent levels of assurance of the robustness of approach

and long run effectiveness of outcome. Such assessment will inevitably incur  Finally, we believe that the high level policies of the Committee should be set out some cost.  in a more complete format than presently available to ensure that the decision

making framework is both transparent and open to public challenge. This will be increasingly important if a greater degree of coherence is established between

Allocation of 1996 Grant Aid (£2.2 million) grant aid and community work project policy. Reference could be made to authoritative documents produced by, amongst others, the OECD Development

Assistance Committee and Non-Governmental Organisations to provide a robust Main Agencies and clearly defensible foundation and context for the Committee's policies.

Miscellaneous Projects

Small

Agencies Medium Sized

Agencies

17

Disaster Response

The Committee earmark funds of the order of £150,000 per annum for emergency response. We believe that it is both appropriate and desirable that Jersey continue to allocate a fund for emergency use for several reasons:

 it is consistent with the remit of the Committee and meets expectations of Jersey

residents;

 it provides valuable publicity and confirms that the Committee is responsive to

immediate humanitarian needs;

 when effectively deployed it provides a highly visible demonstration of the way in

which extreme hardship is alleviated by the Committee and thereby assists in maintaining support for its work; and

 it expresses solidarity with the suffering population.

Policy Guidelines

The Review Group propose that a formal emergency aid policy statement be prepared (setting out what is now implicit practice) in line with the basic internationally accepted humanitarian principles in that such response should be:

 for the immediate relief of human suffering;  proportional to need;

 appropriate to need;

 non-partisan;

 independent of political considerations; and  accountable to the States.

Emergency grant should be spent as efficiently as possible in terms of bringing maximum relief to bear for the cash provided. As far as possible, grants should be provided for immediate spending in the economy of the receiving country. This avoids high transport and purchase costs and provides a direct injection of cash into an affected economy in need of recovery.

In terms of proportion of funds earmarked for emergency relief the group were not aware of any appropriate benchmark but considered that the present level (£150,000) adequate in terms of the likely benefits, even if overall funding for Overseas Aid were to be increased.

Relief and Development

There is considerable international debate as to the linkages between relief and development. Until recently, the model was one of a "continuum from relief to development" where development and rehabilitation activities followed on when the immediate relief phase was complete. This approach can fit many natural and environmental disaster scenarios, but has proved to be inadequate in the context of a complex emergency where the long time scale of events and complexity means that relief and rehabilitation needs to be considered together. The short term approach must be consistent with the long term, and there is often no neat transition from one phase to the next.

However, many donors find this difficult to cope with because emergency relief and development come from different budget lines and occasionally from different government departments altogether Jersey is fortunate in that decisions can be made relatively easily that tie together relief and development issues and allow for flexible responses.

Difficulties in Disasters

There are several practical difficulties in working in disasters:

 there is generally a shortage of adequate information;

 there is often poor coordination at the field level, causing confusion and duplication.

This is especially true with the Non-Governmental Organisation community;

 Non-Governmental Organisations can attach too much importance to disasters as a

fund-raising activity and there are often discrepancies between humanitarian needs reported by the Non-Governmental Organisations and by the affected government;

Often, efficient humanitarian assistance requires the intervention of a UN multi- agency assessment mission to provide an appropriate overview and needs analysis;

 there is a propensity among governmental donors to use the emergency as an

opportunity to off load unwanted relief goods such as out-of-date medicine, stockpiles of inappropriate goods etc. It is much more beneficial to spend money locally wherever possible as providing a duel benefit of injection of funds into the local community as well as meeting immediate needs.

Approaches

The Committee have generally responded to emergencies with the minimum of delay through requests from Non-Governmental Organisations, (either direct by the Non-Governmental Organisation or through the Disaster Emergency Committee (DEC) which provides a coordination forum for UK Non-Governmental Organisations).

The DEC is an important and timely mechanism to assist in the coordination. of some Non-Governmental Organisations in emergencies- The members of the DEC will be represented in many countries affected by disasters and the development of such a coordination mechanism is a valuable one which warrants support. It is possible that Jersey could continue to provide some emergency relief through this mechanism. However, the review group believes that Jersey should not restrict itself to funding Non-Governmental Organisations directly, There are existing mechanisms within the UN system which should also be used, particularly in response to natural and environmental emergencies.

In each developing country the UN is represented by a Humanitarian Coordinator. These officials are in direct and regular contact with the host government local and international Non-Governmental Organisations, other donors such as ECHO, World Bank. The UN Humanitarian Coordinator has the mandate to coordinate international relief efforts in country. They have 24 hour access to what was formerly known as the Department of Humanitarian Affairs Relief Coordination Branch (from I March 1998 it will be known as the "Disaster Response Branch" of the "Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs"). With the backup of the UN system, this procedure has proved itself in a number of large scale

emergencies. It is the mechanism of first response used by both countries requesting international assistance as well as donors trying to identify appropriate relief responses. The Situation Reports (SITREPS), issued for every disaster, are the prime source of international briefing material and are sent to all donor capitals and heads of UN agencies as well as being used for briefing the UN Secretary- General as appropriate. An example SITREP is included in the appendices.

Procedural Recommendations

The Review Group recommend the following arrangement as representing the most simple, rapid and reliable mechanism to ensure a reasonable and effective response:

 A cash sum, say £100-150k is made available on an annual basis to the UN

Department of Humanitarian Affairs ("DHA") Relief Co-ordination Branch in Geneva. This is the UN organisation responsible for co-ordinating the international response to humanitarian emergencies throughout the world.

 DHA can be contacted as soon as an appropriate disaster occurs and an agreed

amount can be pledged. Alternatively, instructions can be given to use fixed amounts at the Desk Officer's discretion saving more time.

 DHA takes on the responsibility of administering any relief projects subject to

conditions imposed by the donor. An administration fee of 3% of contribution is charged. In return, DHA provides accountability for the effective utilisation of the donation.

 The cash is administered in-country by the UN Resident Co-ordinator and spent on

the most appropriate locally-available emergency needs. This provides a response targeted to humanitarian need and injects funds into the local economy.

 Pledges are tracked and reports prepared to inform donors how their contribution has

been spent. There is often a time delay between a donor pledging a donation and the cash being available for spending. To compensate for this, up to 85% of a pledge will be released by DHA and reimbursed upon receipt of the pledged amount. However, DHA will only advance this money upon receipt of a suitable cash plan submitted by the UN Resident Co-ordinator.

 DHA maintains an effective tracking mechanism of all contributions made through the

organisation. This information is released regularly so that donors and recipients can identify contribution patterns. An example is attached for reference.

Benefits

This approach brings some significant advantages to the Committee:

 it takes the strain off the Committee in terms of trying to find appropriate ways to

respond to emergencies;

 cash can still be made available for Non-Governmental Organisations if required, and

could be stipulated as a condition of release via DHA;

 the UN system provides accountability for spending in accordance with humanitarian

principles; and

 aid reaches the people affected, and is only used for the projects specified.

Feedback is provided on the progress of all disasters as they occur through the UN Situation Report ("SITREP") system. As well as providing immediate information about the progress of a disaster, it also notes which governments have donated. Therefore, should Jersey participate in this system, the Island's contribution will be highlighted and sent around the world along with the other donors large and small. In this way, the Jersey contribution, although possibly small compared with large countries, is shown to be consistent with other donor activities and demonstrates the Island responding publicly on the world stage. An example SITREP is included in the appendices.

For complex emergencies, the DEC could still provide a useful mechanism where relief and development approaches are confused and direct access to the international Non-Governmental Organisation community is required. There are benefits from both systems and it is feasible for the Committee to use both approaches as needed. A combination of DHA account plus top-up through DEC as needed would seem to be a reasonable strategy.

Community Work Projects

Since 1971 the Committee has organised parties of volunteers from Jersey to undertake building or similar work in developing countries for periods of four weeks. Although no detailed records have been maintained, it is thought that around 1,000 islanders have participated in projects typically in parties of 10 to 20 in a number in countries including, amongst others, Kenya, Zambia, Albania and Zimbabwe. Volunteers incur an actual or notional earnings sacrifice of the order of £50,000, contribute an element of the cost of travel (£350 per person) and undertake some fund raising.

Participant Views

Volunteers and project leaders consulted as part of this review articulated a high level of support for work projects. At their best, work projects were considered to be beneficial both to the overseas communities and also to the volunteers that go on them.

Participants believe that work projects:

 provide much needed facilities and provide an impetus for the surrounding area to

adopt innovations and enhance quality of life;

 help volunteers understand and experience first hand, the problems in developing

countries;

 assist Jersey residents realise how fortunate they really are by giving them the

opportunity to help the people of poorer countries by the donation of their time rather than their money alone, gaining personal satisfaction;

 enable Jersey residents to work in developing countries allowing both the volunteer

and the community members to gain a view of each other's cultures and share personal experiences;

 show a physical and personal commitment from the island to developing countries;  provide the operational part of the Committee's work giving an accountable and

visible end result which forge personal ongoing links with developing countries.

Limitations of Present Approach

Nonetheless, the review group noted that most, if not all, work performed by the Jersey volunteers could be undertaken indigenously at less cost (see panel overleaf). The group was also particularly concerned that there was little available data on the perceptions of the host communities. Furthermore, the limited evidence gathered from interviews with community representatives on 1997 projects offered an ambivalent assessment of benefits. Indeed, there was some evidence to suggest that projects have not always had appropriate regard for local customs or authority structures on the one hand and that host communities did not entirely endorse projects on the other.

Clearly interventions in alien cultures are fraught with difficulties and pitfalls for the unwary. Such ventures both risk dissipation of funds on inappropriate work and can reinforce the mutual prejudices, which an effectively organised cross- cultural encounter should undermine.

A Role for Community Work Projects?

In view of drawbacks of community work projects in comparison with grant aid (from a simple pound for pound development effectiveness perspective) the review group were bound to challenge the appropriateness of this aspect of the Committee's work. We came to the view that the primary benefits of these projects lay in the potential to foster understanding of development issues in our community and personal development of participants. In addition we took note of the long established ground swell of support for this activity among participants. We therefore came to the conclusion that the present scale of Community Work

Projects could be considered a proper use of States funds which was not, in principle, incompatible with the aid mandate of the Committee provided that projects meet development criteria consistent with those for grant aid.

Guiding Principles

The review group was anxious to ensure that Community Work Projects are built on sound foundations, which will avoid the pitfalls delineated above. We therefore recommend:

 project selection be harmonised with that employed for grant aid purposes (within the

constraints of logistical requirements, language considerations and allowing for the advantages of continuity).

 all work done in the name of the Committee must come in line with codes of conduct

for relief and development workers and Non Governmental Organisations.

 due emphasis be given to both the fundamental role of the host community as owner

and sponsor of the project and the privilege of being invited to enter into that community's situation. Anything other than an ethos of partnership and mutual encounter between the two communities is, in our view, unacceptable;

 projects should only be undertaken where experienced and knowledgeable leadership

can be guaranteed;

 more attention be given to the selection, preparation and guidance of leaders,

participants and host communities to both ensure that an appropriate encounter experience takes place and to prevent exigencies of the work undermining the primary focus of the exercise.

These principles are elaborated and supplemented by proposals for procedures below:

Aims of the Work Projects  Project Criteria

Agreed working aims of the work parties should be established

To date the aims of work projects have not been clearly defined. The aims need to be agreed, clear, and workable and be encompassed in the overall vision of the Committee. All aspects of the work parties should be directed towards these aims. Considered aims of the review group

 Providing assistance in the form of sustainable community development by working

with local communities

 Assist with capacity building.

 Providing educational and personal development of both volunteers and beneficiaries.

This can be achieved through education, health, water, sanitation, agriculture and sustainable livelihoods projects.

Selection of Projects

Planning

The Committee need to increase forward planning of work projects to, at least, a year in advance to enhance the effectiveness of the projects.

The Committee should consider adopting sustainable development plans for an area that they will remain committed to for 3-5 years (flexible), with a programme approach providing a package, not just a non-functioning shell. For example, building a school with no desks or teachers or maintenance resources is not sustainable development. There should be stated criteria of when to withdraw from an area or project. The respondents felt that that each project should be considered on its own merits. Projects must have a real tangible effect on reducing poverty, and be cost effective.

Criteria for work projects should be agreed in line with the guidelines for grant allocation. The Committee should consider the potential of bringing the work parties in with the grants allocation by, for example, using experienced International Non Governmental Organisations on the ground to help identify work projects and working in similar areas to where grant funded projects are. This possibility would of course need to be explored with the agencies.

Basic criteria

 That the immediate needs of the people are met. A definition of "need" must be

agreed. The Human Development Index could be used (UNDP).

 Projects should be undertaken with a sensitivity to and consistency with the

communities own development priorities and agendas.

 Geographical spread was not seen as important by the respondents as long as it was

logistically possible.

 The implication of committing support to a project or area should be investigated fully

at the outset, with a set time and measured outcomes.

 Projects requiring long term help externally of the community should not be

considered.

 A policy should be drawn up of when to withdraw support.

 Religion should not be criteria for selection of projects.  

 Teams must respect local community views and traditions.  

 Partnership Ethos: The local community must maintain ownership of the project.

Community participation was seen as a major part of the projects and essential to their success. However from the review it is difficult to establish whether this has been initiated effectively. Training should be developed for leaders and volunteers in sustainable development and community participation. Ground rules of what is expected of the community need to be set out prior to funding commitment. Ideally there should be someone in the field who understands both the aims and objectives and practicalities of work parties to prepare the local community, as often they have difficulty in understanding the purpose of the venture. Amongst other issues, the

community may see the groups as taking jobs away from the locals and this must be dealt with very delicately prior to the group's arrival.

Overseas co-ordination and planning

An overseas contact / co-ordinator is essential for preparation, implementation, and liaison, with local people and follow up. This person must be prepared to spend time orientating the volunteers and offering links with the community. This person should be able to manage the project and future developments.

 Retainers for local contacts should be considered.

 More recognition should be given to local contacts. Local expertise should be used as

much as possible for identifying and planning projects

 Established credible links should be supported.

 Guidelines should be developed for the hiring and payment of local labour.

 Support should be given for a set project or period of time and a policy should be

developed for when to with draw support.

Criteria to meet teams needs and safety

 Political stability

 Projects should be community based, with enough resources for the team without

overstraining local facilities and resources including:

availability of basic accommodation, comparable to local conditions

reliable transport, water and sanitation facilities,

health facilities that are accessible by available transport, and the ability to evacuate any casualties

the availability of fresh local produce.

Fund raising

The aims of fund raising were seen by the respondents as two fold

 to have funds to spend in the field to either add to the project, or other local worth

while causes, which can be decided by the leader and the group.

 to develop team cohesiveness and motivation.

Team Selection

Leader selection

The group recognise that there is a problem in finding suitable leaders who are available to run projects. A register of suitable leaders needs to be developed. An appropriate panel should select leaders. The panel needs to include experienced development workers and at least two Committee members. In addition to proven leadership skills, they should have an understanding of culture and field issues. Selection of leaders should be undertaken well in advance of the project approximately 9 month to a year and should include:

 Previous overseas or work group experience

 Proven leadership and communication skills

 Empathy especially under stressful conditions

 The ability to relax and relate to a group of adults

 Ability to delegate

 Physical fitness, which should be proven and confirmed by a medical, completed by

own GP, and a certain standard set.

 Technical and medical personnel should be suitably qualified.

 Medical staff should have been in decision making roles prior to the trip, they should

have been qualified at least 2 years, have had some accident and emergency or first aid skills and some travel health experience if possible.

Leader training should be developed. An up to date leaders handbook should be produced which includes:

 Country specific security guidelines

 Casualty evacuation procedures

 Preparation check lists

 Contact numbers

 Guidelines on working with local communities/people

 Information on aid, development and useful references and local contacts  Training information for the volunteers

 Country specific information

 Insurance information

A set format for leaders to report back would assist with learning and development of the work of the work projects. This would assist new leaders, and help with planning for future projects, as at present it is difficult to gain this type of information in a readily digestible form. The following panel provides suggested headings for a report:

Volunteer selection

An agreed interview format should be set, with agreed questions and a set interview panel of 4-5 people. A selection weekend was suggested this would be a more thorough assessment and could include team and physical exercises and an interview. Selection of volunteers should be done at least six months prior to the project and should include:

 Good level of physical and mental fitness - confirmed by a medical completed by own

GP, and a certain standard set.

 Mixed ages and mixed skills are essential

 Motivation, commitment and enthusiasm

 A team player

 Adaptable and uncomplaining

 Parents of young children should be discouraged

Project team selection should include

 At least 75% of new people

 Those who are training with the possibility of working overseas should be

encouraged.

 The number of times people are accepted on projects should be limited unless they

have specific skills

 An upper age limit should be set at 55-60? (cf. VSO who take volunteers up to 70

years old if they are fit, however work parties are usually physical)  

 Consideration should be given to how much the Portuguese and other minority

communities within the island get involved in overseas aid this may be an area that needs to be encouraged.

Group Size

The optimal size of the groups is dependent on the project, hosts and logistics. However it was felt that 15 was a good number. With a lower limit at 10 and an upper of 18 if the team have to cook and clean for themselves. Too large a group can cause cliques, which can undermine group cohesion and leader authority.

Skill Requirement of the Team

The policy of sending unskilled volunteers should continue. The issue of sending unskilled people can be debated. It is an issue that can be seen as a negative aspect of work groups and questions their effectiveness. The respondents were unanimous that unskilled people should go on projects. All volunteers have something to contribute to the group, the local people or the project itself. If the aims of work projects are agreed as partly educational then the case of all skilled staff is not an issue. The work projects are rarely solely reliant on having the skills from Jersey. The project is usually started and finished by the locally skilled people. The educational interaction is two-way between the local people and the Jersey teams. Having too many skilled people who are not flexible and versatile, or who are not gainfully employed can cause frustration. However, some work projects could take smaller groups of skilled people to under take specific tasks. This would probably be more appropriate and cost effective and should be considered. The project will determine the group selection and the skill mix and may vary.

Many respondents felt that male/ female ratio should not be an issue in selection. In reality more women apply for the projects. Despite this, groups are usually around 30:70 female to male.

Preparation of the Teams

This should include the following:

 Overview of Overseas Aid, and the work and structure of the Committee

 Facts on the country, history, customs, money

 What is expected of the volunteers, including ground rules and behaviour, the work

involved, nature of living conditions

 Skills training including basic building skills and team building

 Contact with past projects and volunteers hearing about their experiences

 Lots of meetings really to get to know each other to help the team gel

 Education on political and development issues including 3rd world debt dependency

 Exploring issues of working and living together as a team co-operation and problem

solving exercises and testing how people may react under psychological pressure and physical fitness

 Physical fitness

 Education for the teams on health risks and preventative healthcare including first aid.

These areas are already included in the preparation of the volunteers. However, regular feedback and evaluations will ensure the correct information is given.

Volunteer Contribution

Consideration needs to be given to increasing the volunteer financial contribution. Work projects are not cost effective in direct aid terms. Sending a work team can add a considerable amount to a project. The cost of sending each volunteer in real terms is approximately £1,000, which could go directly towards development aid. The group therefore felt that it would not be unreasonable to require a larger contribution from volunteers, perhaps covering all travel costs as is typically required on personal development ventures such as Operation Raleigh (although some discretion could be accommodated in appropriate circumstances).

Despite this argument the majority of the respondents (80%) said that the contribution was about right. Only one respondent felt the contribution was too much and one felt that it should be doubled. If the contribution was increased the money from this could be used for direct aid or to help fund a full time work project co-ordinator. A major concern of raising the contribution is that some people may be excluded for financial reasons. This issue may be resolved through business sponsorship and work placements. These could be developed if the work projects were promoted as beneficial both professionally and for personal development.

Administrative Support

The employment of an administrator has been very successful. However, to help both the administrator and the leaders it maybe useful to have some guidelines of support available and clear roles and responsibilities. (Generally, volunteers considered that the project leader should do most of the work project administration and contacting the hosts).

Further administrative assistance maybe required such as:

 Setting up interviews and responding to applicants.

 Secretarial support, photocopying (Greffe) Fax/email and postal communication with

hosts

 Travel arrangements and (early) flight booking (direct if possible)  Informing teams of injection dates (medical co-ordinator)

 Arranging traveller's cheques (Greffe),

 Induction day and arranging meetings if required

 In the field minimal support is required.

Feedback

On return from the field there needs to be on going evaluation and feedback which is constructive for both the leaders and volunteers to the Committee. This will develop institutional learning and develop on going support for the work groups.

 Consideration should be given to formal de-briefing on return from the field

 Evaluation forms for the volunteers should be developed

 Format to be developed for Leaders reports and information should be accessible for

future teams.

Returned Volunteers

The respondents were asked if leaders and team members should contribute something to the island on return. Two thirds of the respondents felt that this was appropriate. This is already encouraged but the focus peaks and troughs and often looses momentum. Ways need to be developed to maintain the interest of returned volunteers. The following are some suggestions

 Setting up of a twice-yearly newsletter to all previous volunteers and social events

may help to maintain interest (which could be on a subscription basis to defray costs)

 Volunteers can assisting in training and preparing volunteers and publicity

 Facilitate the establishment of a local overseas group

 Development education to local schools and the general public

 The Committee could encourage and forge links with other world development groups

such as Oxfam, Tools for self-reliance, Amnesty to mention just a few.

 Regular guest speakers or development talks  Possibly yearly fund raising events

Co-ordination

At present work projects run parallel to the grant section. The selection, planning and organisation of work groups lacks formal structure which reduces scope for institutional learning. Roles and responsibilities are not clearly defined. Volunteers, leaders, Sub-Committee members and the President all carry out aspects of the work. All are dedicated but most have full time jobs and family commitments. Currently various people, including the President are carrying out co-ordinator tasks, there is no one point of contact.

If projects are to continue and increase their effectiveness, the Committee must continue to harness all the wealth of experience in overseas aid in the Island. Questionnaire respondents regularly indicated a desire to be involved and genuinely want to help. However, in our view, a catalyst is required to channel and co-ordinate all these energies, in a coherent and effective manner. We therefore recommend that the Committee employ a full time officer. In respect of Community Work Projects the responsibilities of this post could include:

 Setting of the agreed criteria for work projects

 Identification of new projects

 Leaders training and briefing packs, (especially if leaders are new)

 Security guidelines

 Casualty evacuation procedures

 Briefing and communication with local co-ordinators

 occasionally leading groups, which might help the problem of identifying leaders  Establishing a register of potential leaders

 Exploring the possibilities to develop a sixth-form work group projects (post A levels)  Arranging occasional social events to raise issues and to maintain interest

 Assistance with fund raising, e.g.: setting up of one or two large events each year  Possibility of chairing or co-ordinating the Sub Committee (the role of the Sub

Committee need to be clearly defined).

The skills which this post would require naturally extend to other functions of the Committee ( considered further in the other sections of this report):

 Policy and strategy advice and background research

 Advocacy and campaign work

 Establishing twinning of local schools and Youth groups with overseas partners and

supporting established ones.

 Co-ordination with other local groups

If the Committee is unable to commit to a full time office the above issues should be addressed and taken forward by the Committee and Sub Committee, with appropriate allocation of responsibilities.

Other Initiatives

Finally, the review group note that whilst Committee funds individuals taking up posts through VSO or similar it has generally been reluctant to consider requests for funding from individuals or groups in the island who are pursuing development related initiatives. Whilst we recognise that some caution is essential to avoid opening a floodgate to ill-conceived or otherwise inappropriate ventures we believe that benefits and difficulties closely parallel the Community Work Project scenario. From this perspective we believe that the supervisory function alluded to above should also embrace these situations, within appropriate policy guidelines. Such an extension would support local individuals and endorse their enthusiasm and concern whilst steering efforts toward sound and informed practices (where necessary) and promoting greater awareness of development fundamentals among those most sympathetic to the issues.

Organisational Structure

The Committee has, since inception, adopted a very cautious administrative policy which sought to make maximum use of the voluntary resources in discharging its duties. This policy sits well with the honorary ethos which features so strongly in our community and has been instrumental in channelling the maximum possible funding directly into development work. The achievements of the past 27 years are a testimony to the dedication of the many people whose voluntary efforts have underpinned the work of the Committee.

We have developed the process model presented on the facing page to illustrate the tasks which we have identified within the Committee's remit. Whilst we have not had opportunity to undertake an analysis of the distribution of effort among these tasks the broad contours can be construed from our interviews:

Our interpretation of the tasks undertaken by the individuals shown on the process model suggests that:

 the tasks of developing policy and strategy justify more attention. This will of course

assume even greater significance if the budget is increased.

 additional effort should be expended on areas which are not "operational" including

advocacy within the States and with the public and educational work at all levels. This investment would enhance understanding of, and support for, the work of Committee and combat current pressure to curtail the Committee's activities;

 more attention could valuably be directed to support and guidance of voluntary

initiatives outside the Committee's Community Work Project arena;

 leadership, supervision and coaching of leaders and participants on Community Work

Projects merits more attention and guidance;

 Community Work Projects expend the efforts of many people even though the

rationale is more loosely development based than other areas and the proportion of funding allocated to this component is relatively modest;

 despite the foregoing, we acknowledge that within the present grant are procedure,

there is scope to increase grants without a proportional increase in administrative overhead through the simple device of increasing individual grant amounts.

In our view, the Committee must however reconsider the resources it devotes to these issues and either:

 restrict itself to more modest and streamlined procedures (for example by contracting

out the administration of grant aid and curtailing Community Project Work) or

 acquire the services of suitably skilled individuals or organisations to fulfil the principal

requirements we have identified here.

We are acutely conscious of the occasional headline stories of inefficiencies and waste among development agencies. Such adverse publicity, whilst completely at variance with the actual record of this Committee may unfairly taint the public image of Overseas Aid by association. Whilst we therefore understand that the Committee may be reluctant to increase expenditure on management and administration matters we suggest that this may be counter productive and indeed

masks the necessary management and administrative effort which is undertaken. This is most clearly visible in respect of grant aid where the legitimate administrative costs of agencies (through whom most funds are administered) are borne by other donors to the Committee's benefit. However the dangers are perhaps most pertinent in respect of the Community Work Projects, policy / strategy and promotional areas enumerated above. We have no simple solutions and recognise that human resource scarcity is a pervasive problem in the Island. Nonetheless:

 we suspect that there are individuals available in the Island who could undertake

some of these tasks on a remunerated basis;

 more use could be made of the expertise of development agencies; and

 some scope exists to the ease the existing workload by changes in procedure (for

example reducing significantly the number of agencies which are funded, reducing the number of community work projects)

Previous sections have particularly articulated the need for a supervisory role in respect of Community Work Projects. Such a role might naturally also encompass

 key aspects of the advocacy and educational tasks which could be achieved by a

better co-ordination and marshalling of all available resources; and

 the guidance and encouragement of initiatives alluded to above

The vital task of championing the Committee's work in the States will continue to require the vigorous attention of the Committee itself. Nonetheless, a senior individual of the nature envisaged here could do much to assist the members in this task by advising on the development of robust policies and well articulated strategies as well as providing the briefing and advisory functions which other Committee's rely upon as a matter of routine.

Is a Trust Required?

A number of parties have proposed the possibility of establishing a trust vehicle to undertake some of the Committee's functions. Our assessment of the merits and disadvantages of a trust structure are summarised in the panel below. A trust has

some operational attractions and particularly might encourage participation of non States members. However we were concerned that such a strategy might further distance States members from the complex issues of development and consequently weaken support for aid in the States. This overriding concern led us to conclude that a trust vehicle would not be desirable at this time.

Finally we note that the preliminary approaches we made to representatives of the business community indicated that the scope for raising further funds from this source are unfortunately very limited.

Method and Results

As noted in the main body of the report the Review Group approached a cross section of aid agencies with whom the Committee works to obtain the views of these stakeholders. The group are aware that interpretation of responses must recognise the interest respondents have in the outcome and have taken this into account in formulating its views. This appendix provides a full account of responses which the group have interpreted in the main body of the report.

Agencies were selected to include representatives of various sizes and to include knowledge of the Jersey context (through "Hands around the World" directed by Dr David Steiner whose long association with the work of the Overseas Aid Committee is well known).

The full text of the agency questionnaire developed by the review group is reproduced in the shaded panel below.

Summary of Responses  Prersopbeacbtlsy tnhoisthathsebCeeonmhmeiltptefuel'.s fIotcisu snoist laalrwgaeylys oena scya ptoit aslepcruorjee cfutsnadns dfoinr bsuoimldein gs or

vehiclesbroadeningwill inevitably attract a greater number of proposals (Christian Does your organisation have a mission statement which might fulfil some  Outreach)

of these requirements and which could be used as a source of ideas for

the formulation of a mission statement appropriate to the Overseas Aid  Dmiussatsbteer areblliee ft oisstehee faarrebaeinyownhdi cthhi sth(eHpaunbdlsicAisromunods tt hgee nWeroorulds) and [the Committee] Committee? If not, do you have any other proposals which could be

considered?  It is useful for a donor to provide some focushowever the willingness to be flexibleis beneficialwider issues such as sustainability and poverty alleviation be

 A number of submissions were received which could be selectively drawn upon in  set as overall requirements within a flexible framework (Homeless International) formulating a mission statement high level policies and strategy. These are available

Specific focus can clarify to the donating public how money will be used.

for the Committee but, to contain the size of this report, are not reproduced here.

Butcan freeze out projectshard to define in practice (Mission Aviation Fellowship)  Focusing on poverty alleviation through sustainable development is the most effective

In your view, should a specific focus (for example on poverty alleviation,  method of helping people in developing countries to tackle cyclical problems such as disaster prevention/preparedness, emergency grants, sustainable  environmental degradation, conflict and endemic poverty. However this should not development etc.) be set?  preclude humanitarian assistance where needed, particularly when assistance can

 Focus should not limit rangebut reflect current development thinking on best  better prepare communities for future disasters and emergency situations. (Oxfam)

practice and remain broad and flexible enough to allow new and innovative  We do not necessarily see it as desirableto include a specific focus. (Sight Savers approaches (Action Aid)  International)

 Poverty alleviation can only be achieved through a combination of activities, e.g.  Investment in "basic human needs", - primary health, basic education, adequate

disaster preparedness plays an important role and so does sustainable development,  nutrition, clean water and sanitation - are the only forms of "sustainable development"

health education and educationa focus should not excludeability to take a lead in  and are the best investment in the long-term reduction of poverty and the avoidance

funding new initiatives and innovative projects (British Red Cross)  of man made disasters. There must be a capacity always, however, to respond to  Find it helpful when a donor is prepared to fund a wide rangespecial focuses can  humanitarian disasters. (UNICEF)

lead to some less "popular" development work being excluded (CAFOD)

 All the areas [are] essential for the strengthening of the poor. The elimination of

poverty is an ultimate aim, however it is a very long term, perhaps unrealisable. The

poorest are usually the most vulnerable to disasters and emergencies and thus

disaster prevention and preparedness and emergency aid and rehabilitation remain

importantChristian Aid's overseas priorities are food and security, women's

education and health, the environment and emergencies (Christian Aid)

Does your organisation have a statement of policies which might fulfil some of these requirements and which could be used as a source of ideas for the formulation of policies appropriate to the Overseas Aid Committee? Do you have any other proposals which could be considered?

 Document 'Giving people choices' focus on human development...focus on projects

which maximise impact of interventions through advocacy, scaling up & replicability. (Action Aid)

 British Red Cross has defined priorities. If the donor defines priorities, this restricts

scope for co-operation with some agencies. (British Red Cross)

 In midst of review, so no final document. Don't introduce geographic and thematic

focus as cuts out general projects addressing human needs. Do broaden criteria (Christian Aid)

 Could increase impact of limited funding by targeting. What to target is a huge

debate. It should not be emergency relief, as much is available and reduces amount on long-term development (Sight Savers International)

 Save the Children have thematic/sectoral priorities and a number of cross-cutting

themes for the next 4 to 5 years. They have drawn on their own experience and the principles of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child. They have a particular strategy to focus on children in the least developed countries and target the most marginalised (Save the Children)

 Use a revised Grant application, asking for knowledge of community and likely

impacts. (Cambodia Trust)

 We take UN Convention on Rights of child. A 'human rights' base might be worth

considering. We focus on Least Developed Countries and give priority to Africa. (UNICEF)

 Focus on Poverty and Conflict, needs of women, sustainable use of earth and

resources. (All expanded upon) World wide focus. Long-term partnerships (Christian Aid)

 Health concerns, Africa and SE Asia. New projects occur in countries where they

have historic links or expertise within the organisation. (Christian Outreach)

 Very challenging question. Needs in depth discussion. Think Jersey should try to

make significant difference in some field where Jersey has expertise, e.g. diary farming, eco-tourism, banking for micro-credit, in-service training and funding as JWPT do. Short term-volunteers go to skill-share and learn. Charities would welcome an ongoing commitment (Hands Around the World)

 Wary of rigid criteria. Re-focused work onto smaller no. of countries where we have

capacity for long-term relationships. Revenue funding essential to support development of sustainable organisations (Homeless International)

 By not restricting scope, Oxfam can offer help where most needed and in most

appropriate way. Invest in people to work themselves out of poverty. On balance, a strict focus not desirable. Even with narrow focus Comic Relief gets 5 times more projects than they can support ((Oxfam))

Accepting that criteria will depend on policies selected, what are your views on the strengths and weaknesses of present criteria? Do you have any proposals for improvements or alternative criteria (for example based on those which your organisation employs)?

Strengths of present criteria

 Straightforward, expedient procedures, much appreciated. (Action Aid), (Christian

Aid)

 Many good aspects (British Red Cross)

 No restrictions on region, like openness to Eastern Europe. (Christian Aid)

 British Govt. doesn't fund vehicles built outside UK, Jersey fills a need not covered

by all governments. (Christian Aid)

 For small projects, refreshingly simple (Christian Outreach)

 Gives a degree of flexibility which is welcome, our criteria are narrower(shelter)

(Homeless International)

 Sensible balance between too strict and too little guidance (Mission Aviation

Fellowship)

 Concise and clear, provide a great deal of certainty (Oxfam)

 Straightforward, quick decisions, little formalityJersey fills a need not covered by all

governments (Save the Children)

Weaknesses

 The criteria do not include consultation with the people expected to benefit.

(Christian Aid)

 The most disadvantaged in community, including women and disabled, should benefit

(Christian Aid)

 There should be no religious or ethnic bias (Christian Aid)

 Where relevant environmental effects should be included. (Christian Aid)

 Aim to be sustainable in the longer term (Christian Aid)

 Reporting requirements too loose for projects close to £50,000 (Christian Outreach)  Criteria are inflexible. Abolish them and let charities have carte blanche for

challenging ideas (Hands Around the World)

 Salary for a foreign national is sometimes such a crucial element that it should not

have to be excluded. (Mission Aviation Fellowship)

 They exclude salaries, training etc, co-funding and longer-term projects (Oxfam)  Excluding running costs makes no sense where they are directly linked to the whole

project (Sight Savers International)

 Exclude salaries, training, monitoring and evaluation costs - though recognise that

this would lead to a rise in applications for already limited funds (Save the Children)  Unless criteria amended to enable poor people to have greater control, projects will

tend to create dependency and be non-sustainable (Cambodia Trust)

Alternatives Part funding

 Part funding of projects would open up new opportunities for the Committee, also

increases leverage for (Action Aid) as the project has an official seal of approval. (Action Aid)

 UK and European Commission both fund up to 50%, to encourage diversity in

funding. Reporting procedures can reflect exactly where each donor's funds have been spent (Action Aid)

 Allows greater flexibility to us in selecting appropriate projects. (Action Aid)  Gives greater security for project if one agency reduces funding (Christian Aid)

 Very successful projects attract interest from many donors, so the Committee are

missing out (Christian Aid)

 UK and EU monitoring is stricter than Jersey thus better monitoring with co-funding

(Christian Aid)

 Happy to join with larger partners, who are working along the same lines (Christian

Aid)

 10 page flowchart for assessing co-funded projects + 2 pages of guidelines provided

(Christian Aid)

 More flexible approach an advantage (Christian Outreach)

 Many of our projects 50% funded by DfID, so are unavailable for funding by the

Committee (Oxfam)

 Strongly recommend co-funding. If just supply a vehicle, are co-funding anyway with

lots of other donors to the charity, who pay for the running costs!! Should be no problems with accountability (Sight Savers International)

 Co-funding desirable, provided there are clear boundaries (UNICEF)

£50,000 limit

 should raise ceiling on some occasions to fund excellent projects (Action Aid)

 Some projects are over £200,000 and have much greater impact on the communities

(Christian Aid)

 Limit is helpful as it allows a wider variety of projects to be funded (Christian

Outreach)

 Sensible when public finances under strain, but exceptions should be allowed

(UNICEF)

Limiting to water, health and education

 Limiting to water, health and education means that don't take into account

consultation with the poor (Action Aid)

 Governments expect agency to gain maximum experience in human development

(Action Aid)

 Support projects which build on local capacity and initiative (British Red Cross) Unwillingness to fund salaries

 Good projects need salaries to design, assess etc. Investment in human

development means increasing proportion on salaries etc. Co-funding can share these costs with others (Action Aid)

 Agencies or local partners should be able to take over at end of initial funding period

(British Red Cross)

 Running costs essential to many projects. By funding only capital projects only

dealing with part of the picture. (Christian Aid)

 Funding a new vehicle, immediately incurs running costs (Christian Outreach)  Development is about people, health clinic building without a trained nurse is much

less effective (Oxfam)

 The non-tangible parts of a project are harder to fund-raise. By funding salaries, the

Committee can 1. communicate real nature of development work 2. Leave more buildings to be funded, which tend to be more popular (Oxfam)

 Needs of developing countries increasingly in area of transfer of knowledge, salary of

trainer a valuable investment (UNICEF)

Exclusion of long term projects

 2 - 3 years (British Red Cross)

 We work with partners on a long term basis (Christian Aid)

 Charities/agencies would welcome a long term commitment (Hands Around the

World)

 Development work is long-term and the needs change and reduce over several years

(Oxfam)

 Multi-year commitments(up to 3 years), increase 'sustainability' (UNICEF)

 In favour of 'goal-setting', looking for opportunities to expand opportunity, enabling it

to 'go to scale' (UNICEF)

Advocacy work

 We fund partners whose work centres on advocacy both in north and south to

challenge global system (Christian Aid)

Ranking projects

 the Committee can do so from their past experience (Christian Aid)

 Already done according to our internal Appraisal, monitoring and evaluation system.

(several pages enclosed) It would need field visits for the Committee to do it for themselves (Christian Aid)

 Attach some weight to previous experience (Christian Outreach)  Costs per beneficiary (Christian Outreach)

 Some funding for innovative or 'risky' projects, to gain experience (Christian

Outreach)

 How far are beneficiary community involved and esp. women (Oxfam)  Why not look at Guernsey's criteria? (Christian Aid)

In your view, could this process be simplified or otherwise improved? What alternatives are available to the Committee to provide assurance that grants have been effective?

 We operate very rigorous monitoring procedures and hope our reports provide

assurance that grants have been effective. (Action Aid)

 Satisfactory, but work in developing countries takes time, so 1 year, better than 6

months for final reports. Alternative includes random checks (British Red Cross)  Current system relatively easy to administer, ensures fair degree of accountability.

(Christian Aid)

 Simple and accessible, short report after a year may help ensure the Committee

monitors progress in medium to longer term (Christian Outreach)

 Reasonable, but the Committee must trust charities to make decisions involving risk.

'Failure' of a project should not necessarily lead to blame being laid at door of well- meaning charity (Hands Around the World)

 Rigid monitoring guidelines are inappropriate for many development projects . Stifle

development of more innovative qualitative indicators which could give much more insight into the impact of projects. (Homeless International)

 Trustees see at first hand more of the projects, though possibly unrealistic cost-wise

(Mission Aviation Fellowship)

 Very efficient, even if Honorary Executive Officer were paid (Oxfam)

 Current system cost-effective and sufficient for the Committee and agency. For more

detail could fund evaluations by independent team, though expensive. (Sight Savers International)

 Responsibility and confidence placed in Non-Governmental Organisations by the

Committee of critical importance.

 Current system works well Save the Children could share more of their internal

evaluations, but don't want to increase already large workload (Save the Children)

 Needs independent assessment from time to time. (Cambodia Trust)  Generally satisfactory (UNICEF)

Would it be practical for the Committee to make an overall assessment of the effectiveness of an agency (e.g. considering its alignment with the Committee's mission and polices together with examination of evidence of its efficiency and accountability) and make unspecified or loosely specified lump sum grants on this basis?

 A block grant would allow long-term funding, not annual reports and allow more time

to monitor impact (Action Aid)

 Un-earmarked funds allow flexibility. Agency could use the Committee criteria and

report back at year end (British Red Cross)

 Difficult for the Committee to make fair and thorough assessments of a large number

of agencies, given its limited resources. (Christian Aid)

 EC block grant determined in advance and paid in June each year. Select projects

from previous October to following November during which grants must have been transferred, and send combined proposal / report on each project to the Commission. (Christian Aid)

 We would be enthusiastic if (Christian Outreach) was included among the agencies!

Generally we have been outside block grant system so prefer the Committee's individual project approach (Christian Outreach)

 Lighten burden on the Committee at the expense of more innovative projects and

agencies. Good for the agencies selected (Homeless International)

 Give, say, 75% to, say, 5 agencies. Ask agencies for report in detail on 2 or 3 for

communication purposes, short reports/accounts for rest. Would reduce applications Committee receives. Oxfam has very successful Block Grant arrangement with British Government. (Oxfam)

 Save the Children have already been reviewed by DfID and certified for receiving joint

funding block grants. This gives them greater stability for long term funding (Save the Children)

 Block grant system useful for agencies, cheaper administration, better forward

planning. the Committee need clear guidelines, and need to reassess agencies policies regularly. (Sight Savers International)

 Movement to block grant system a retrograde step as it would remove the

Committee's independence (Cambodia Trust)

 Interesting suggestion, perhaps appropriate for agencies with which there has been a

long association and trust. Most Governments support UNICEF with mixture of 'general resources' support and 'ear-marked funds'. (UNICEF)

If this procedure is retained, can this process be made more effective or efficient for the Committee or the agency?

 As London staff don't know every detail of projects, helpful to know in advance of any

queries the Committee want to raise, before London meeting. (Action Aid)

 Very satisfactory (British Red Cross)

 Improved format for applications. One page proposal for each project, with specific

headings for each issue (consultation with local people, effect on women etc.). A second page for the budget. Telephone calls may be cheaper and more effective way to clarify issues than annual face to face meetings. (Christian Aid)

 Definite benefit to have regular face to face contact with the Committee. (Christian

Aid)

 Present procedure unique and attractive. Warmly welcome opportunity to meet decision makers. Also opportunity for practitioners to influence thinking and approach of people deciding how funds are dispersed. (Christian Outreach)

 Arising from Q.2, if Jersey has a commitment to a particular area/region then

agencies come to Jersey to present ideas. the Committee members visit project, greater commitment of States members to work of the Committee. (Hands Around the World)

 Essential to keep funders up to date with our work. Useful to have some formal or

informal feedback on proposals. Useful for business planning if more than one round per year. (Homeless International)

 Project format a little limiting in its length, but good discipline in itself (Mission

Aviation Fellowship)

 Annual opportunity to meet the Committee extremely helpful. No other way to

process applications from over 30 agencies in a short time. (Oxfam)

 Present procedures work well and are a very good discipline for non-governmental

organisations (Save the Children)

 Make meetings more focused. Detailed presentation on couple of projects, so the

Committee get better understanding of work of development agencies and wider context in which they work (Sight Savers International)

 Procedures could be improved but precise way depends on more fundamental

decisions (Cambodia Trust)

 Value face-to-face meetings. 6-liners a good discipline and create even playing-field.

(UNICEF)

Do you have any other proposals or comments which should be considered?

 Clarify position re administration charges for agencies. Most have to cover costs and

agreement on acceptable level a step in right direction. Evaluation and monitoring are costs but enable us to learn from each programme. Many innovative and vital projects would not have proceeded without support of the Committee. (British Red Cross)

 Some agencies provide short training courses in development related issues. Can

provide information. if the Committee were interested (Christian Aid)

 Good summary makes 3 points: Lump sum to reduce administration time, Funding

larger, longer term, including salaries and running costs gives more money to poorer people. Advocacy work and development education very important. (Christian Aid)

 Helpful to know if projects turned down only for limited funds or any other reason

(Christian Outreach)

 Jersey would benefit from international reputation as a major benefactor. Involvement

of local population in work of the Committee is essential component. Welcome opportunity to work with Committee in future. (Hands Around the World)

 Useful if administration costs eligible for full or part funding (Homeless International)

 Our experience of efficiency and fairness (Mission Aviation Fellowship)

 Review provides opportunity for the Committee to broaden funding policy, to reflect

more realistically nature of development work and to communicate its value to the Jersey public. Might also help strengthen public support for the Committee's work to increase aid budget. (Oxfam)

 Suggest the Committee organise development workshops in Jersey. Chance to

learn where money goes and be more involved in the process. (Sight Savers International)

 There would be added value in a representative sample of projects being assessed

by a development specialist. (Cambodia Trust)

The Orientation Day

Volunteer Feedback  4  On a scale of 1-3 (1 not enough, 2 about right, 3 too much) how much information

was given regarding:  

This appendix sets out the text of the questionnaires developed by the review group to gather feedback from Community Work Project participants and leaders. Completed questionnaires (which provided ample space for a narrative response to each question) were received from

 14 volunteers participating in 1997 projects (from a sample of 25, a 56% response)  13 participants of 1996 projects (from a sample of 20, a 65% response)

 17 project leaders (from a sample of 31, a 53% response)

(Responses have been written up and are available for the Committee but are not reproduced here in the interests of containing the size of the report).

1997 Volunteer Questionnaire

In order for the team leaders to evaluate the project we would appreciate it if you could fill in this form. This is divided into three sections: -

 Preparation for the work project.

 The actual project.

 Reflective evaluation of the experience and work projects.

Preparation for the Work Project

The Interview

1  How many people were you interviewed by? Was this too few / about right / too

many?

2  Was the information that you were given at the interview not enough / about right /

too much

3  Please comment on any aspect of the interview that you consider important.

 African Awareness  Third World Debt  Insurance

 Health information  Scenarios

 First Aid

Is there any other information that you feel should have been covered in the orientation day?

5  Was the list of equipment required adequate?

5a  What other items could / should have been included?

Adequacy Of Information Given Prior to the Project

6  About the project

7  About the country

8  Do you feel that more practical training could have been given; re building skills

etc.

9  Was the amount of meetings prior to departure not enough / about right / too many

Fundraising

10. Were you happy to help with the fund raising?
11. Do you feel the methods of fund raising were appropriate?
12. Do you feel the amount of time spent on fund raising was not enough / about right / too much

The Work Project

Please comment under the following headings; add any additional comments if you wish:  The planning of the projects

 The leadership of the project  The community involvement  Hours of work

 The group

 The food

 Accommodation

 Any other issues arising

Reflective Evaluation of the Experience and Work Projects

Firstly consider the reasons why you initially wanted to go on an overseas project.

1.  After the completion of the project have your attitudes towards work projects changed? If yes, in what way?

2 Do you feel that Jersey Overseas Aid should undertake work projects?

3 Do you feel that the work project was beneficial to the Local community?

4 What type of projects do you feel that Jersey Overseas Aid should support?

5 Do you feel that there are other types of aid/development that Jersey Overseas

should consider supporting?

6.  Was the number of skilled people in the team adequate?

7 Do you feel that Jersey Overseas Aid should send unskilled people to undertake

work projects?

8. Do you feel that you have benefited from the work project?
9. What do you think are the benefits to the volunteers?
10. What do you think the local community felt about the project?

12.  Was this different to what you expected? If yes, in what why was it different? 13 Do you feel the volunteers who have been on work projects should contribute

something back to Jersey on their return from the project?

14 What do feel that volunteers could contribute from their experiences on return to

Jersey?

15. Do you feel that the contribution of £300 towards this project was too little /about right / too much?
16. Would you consider going on another work project?

Please comment freely on any other issues that you consider important

After the Experience Reflective Practice

Prior to going away you were asked to consider what were the four most important material and non-material things to you.

Were the things that the local people saw as important, different from your own? If yes in what ways?

Was there anything that surprised you?

Prior to the project you were given a list of different topics. Please note down under the same headings anything that interested or surprised you from your experiences.

 Availability of western goods

 Housing

 Trade/work

 Social life for the local people

 Family roles (men women children)  Transport

 Communication

 Health

 Education

 Third world debt

 Racism

 Colonialism

 Democracy

 Aid, Development and Relief

Please feel free to comment on any aspects of your experience or the project that you  any  criteria  that  you  consider  should  be  included  for  selection  e.g.  medical feel appropriate.  fitness/skills etc.

Leader Questionnaire

At present there is a review being undertaken into the policies and procedures of the Jersey  Overseas  Aid  Committee.  Part  of  the  review  aims  to  examine  the  role  and effectiveness of work projects and their benefits to local populations and the volunteers involved . It is important to gain the opinions of experience of people who have been involved in past work projects. This questionnaire is to gain information from people who have  been  involved  with  previous  overseas  aid  projects.  The  review  group  would appreciate if you could spend a short time to complete this questionnaire. If you have been on more than one project please complete questionnaire on your most recent experience.

Please circle answers appropriately and please feel free to comment on any issues that you consider important. Please continue on separate sheets if necessary.

All information will be kept confidential.

1. Which county was your work project in?
2. Do you feel that Jersey Overseas Aid should undertake work projects? If yes what do you consider are the aims of Jersey Overseas Aid work projects?
3. Do you feel that there are other types of aid/development that Jersey Overseas Aid should consider supporting?
4. What  do  you  feel  the criteria for a work project should include? (eg type of project/accommodation available/water, sanitation and health facilities/community involvement and commitment/transport/availability of tools and materials/ religious affiliations).
5. What  type  of  geographical  spread  do  you  feel  that  the  work  projects  should include?
6. Do you consider there should be a stated time of commitment to a particular work project over a period of time e.g. 5 year plan
7. Please comment on the interview/selection procedure for the volunteers? Is there

8. Do you feel that there should be a criteria for the selection of leaders/medical personnel?
9. How many months prior to departure of the work projects should the volunteers be selected?
10. What administrative support do you consider would be of use to the leaders?
11. What do you consider is a suitable number for the work groups?
12. Do you feel that Jersey Overseas aid should send unskilled people to undertake work project?
13. What do you consider the ratio of skilled/unskilled people should be within the group?
14. What do you consider the ratio of male/female should be within the group?
15. Should the number of times people go on projects be limited
16. What do you feel is important to include in the preparation for the work project?
17. What topics do you feel should be covered in the Orientation day?
18. What  do  you  consider  is  the  purpose  of  fund  raising  and  do  you  feel  it  is appropriate to fund raise prior to the departure of the group?
19. Please comment on what you personally gained from the project?
20. Do you feel that your work project was beneficial to the local community?
21. Do  you  feel  the  leaders/volunteers  who  have  been  on  work  projects  should contribute something back to Jersey on their return from the project?
22. Do you feel the cash contribution of £350 you made towards the project was: -
23. Were there any problems or difficulties with the group or the project.
24. Are there any suggestions that you could offer to future work projects?
25. Would you go again?