Comments on: Life in the Aid World: Caught Red-Handed, No Consequences

By: Adam Jackson

Adam Jackson — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 21:46:29 +0000

Devastating indeed. A far worse example is the CPA in Baghdad. Congress found that over $20bn in vacuum packed blocks had been sent out in the last weeks of occupation, and was never accounted for just as a taster.

But it’s spreading freedom and democracy, right?

By: Todd Andrews

Todd Andrews — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:42:24 +0000

It is disappointing to hear that the UNDP and UNOPS in Afghanistan proved to be an unreliable implementer for these infrastructure projects. However, as a development partner throughout most of the developing world and as the development arm of the world’s only international organization with truly-global membership, the suggestion that USAID should sever all ties with the UNDP in ridiculous.

I am not sure what other governments take as their rule of thumb regarding the misappropriation and misuse of appropriations. But the GAO generally expects 10% of U.S. funds to be lost for any program. I am not sure what the lesson is supposed to be here….that the UNDP is corrupt and unreliable; that a single grant instrument went wrong for USAID; or that the media has failed to realize that $10 million in Afghanistan programming might signal a broader problem. It might be that this story is reason for broader concern. But there is nothing in it that suggests a systemic problem.

By: Jeff Barnes

Jeff Barnes — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 12:59:39 +0000

I agree with the previous post about the reality of working in such environments, but if you take lousy environments and combine it with a lot of pressure to spend large sums of money quickly, large scale fraud is the result. In addition to the lost funds, it creates an environment in which aid funds are seen as easy money to be stolen and squandered however one can.

By: Steve Hutcheson

Steve Hutcheson — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:25:41 +0000

From a financial perspective, I think we had a fairly good control process over contracting, particularly if we were implementing directly. Where we were funding the government as it was with NABDP, there was less control since it was a government operation and government run program where they did the contracting and monitoring although we were imposing guidance and oversight. Stuff happens. In any program in these environments, it is foolish to think you will get 100% compliance. You can’t get that in the US, who thinks they can get it in a developing country. When you point out a few poor examples in all the hundreds of various programs completed, you do these organizations and yourself an injustice by not being fair and impartial. Organizations like USAID and EU as do most other donors althought ehy would like 100% compliance routinely expect that a success rate of 80 to 85% is a good outcome.

p.s. I also worked with Homira for a period.

By: Inayet Hadi

Inayet Hadi — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:14:34 +0000

This is nothing new, when I wrote a research paper on this subject back in 2006 there was a lot of empirical and statistical evidence of massive corruption, embezzlement, fraud in Afghanistan both by Afghans and the internationals who came as vultures.

Most foreigners were working in Africa, and after 911 most of them decided to come to … Read MoreAfghanistan. What good has the international aid community done in Africa? very little, and now those same individuals who f*cked up Africa are now in Afghanistan wasting resources and committing fraud.

By: Homira Nassery

Homira Nassery — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:07:28 +0000

Actually, USAID is not the only big donor to use UNDP or UNOPS as implementing partners or third-party monitors in fragile states. So do multi-lateral development Banks. If anything, USAID had far better monitoring and evaluation requirements than most other donors even if the numbers weren’t always as….accurate as they could have been. During the time I worked for UNDP in Kabul, I did not see one project completion report or evaluation (one was done on my project, NABDP, but the results were not shared with us), and since UNDP paid and managed the consultants who did it, I doubted the veracity of the report. In some worlds, that’s a conflict of interest. BUT…what incensed me the MOST was to see UNODC staff members smoking hash at parties while advocating eradication of the poppy fields, which were the only source of livelihoods for many tenant farmers – without providing an alternative crop to substitute for the poppy. I need to stop now. Too many bad memories coming back.