evidence based policy-making: the ilo loses out March 2, 2011
Posted by Bradley in : transparency , add a commentAccording to Andrew Mitchell, the ILO is either “performing poorly” or has not demonstrated its “relevance to Britain’s development objectives”:
the review found that four agencies performed poorly or failed to demonstrate relevance to Britain’s development objectives. The review therefore concluded that it is no longer acceptable for taxpayers’ money from my Department to continue to fund them centrally. I can therefore tell the House today that the British Government will withdraw their membership of the United Nations Industrial Development Organisation, and that DFID will stop voluntary core funding to UN-Habitat, the International Labour Organisation and the UN International Strategy for Disaster Reduction. That will allow more than £50 million of taxpayers’ money to be redirected immediately to better performing agencies. We are working closely with other countries to build a coalition for ambitious reform and improvement of all multilateral agencies.
Denis McShane criticises the decision in the New Statesman. But how can he complain, after all, the decision is an example of evidence-based policy-making:
These reviews have been thorough, rigorous, evidence-based and scrutinised by independent development experts.
Looking at the Multilateral Aid Review, UNESCO, which is not being defunded, scored even lower on the value for money index and on the contribution to UK objectives than did the ILO. But, despite this, UNESCO will continue to receive funding whereas the ILO will not. The UK will demand that UNESCO improve its performance.
Here’s the bottom line on the ILO from the report:
The ILO is making progress on gender issues and there is some evidence of good partnership behaviour. It has limited impact on UK and international poverty objectives and needs to reform its field structure to improve delivery. It also needs to improve its results reporting, transparency and cost effectiveness.
And on UNESCO:
UNESCO has high quality expertise in many areas important for development and produces useful reports and data for policy making in education. It has made some progress reducing administration costs. It needs to continue improving cost consciousness, and make a sustained effort on management for results, streamlining its strategic focus and on transparency.
So a 200 plus page report concludes that one agency which will continue to receive funds performs less well and responds less well to UK development priorities than another, which is to be defunded, and this is an example of transparent and evidence-based policy-making?
conflict between transparency and rights to protection of personal data November 10, 2010
Posted by Bradley in : transparency , add a commentTransparency is a Good Thing, but the EU’s Court of Justice has held in Volker und Markus Schecke GbR (Cases C-92/09 and C-93/09) that the publication of details of the recipients of agricultural aid, while promoting transparency, conflicts with the recipients’ rights to protection of their personal data. The Court stated that by aiming to increase the transparency of the use of funds in the context of the CAP, the relevant regulations did pursue an objective of general interest recognized by the European Union, however the EU institutions did not satisfy the requirements of proportionality because they did not balance transparency with aid recipients’ rights to protection of their personal data:
Regard being had to the fact that derogations and limitations in relation to the protection of personal data must apply only in so far as is strictly necessary.. and that it is possible to envisage measures which affect less adversely that fundamental right of natural persons and which still contribute effectively to the objectives of the European Union rules in question, it must be held that, by requiring the publication of the names of all natural persons who were beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid and of the exact amounts received by those persons, the Council and the Commission exceeded the limits which compliance with the principle of proportionality imposes.
Legal persons don’t have the same sort of rights, so publication of information about their receipt of aid is acceptable. Corporations don’t have the same sort of rights to private life that natural persons do. And presumably this would apply even where the legal person had one owner. Another factor to bear in mind when deciding whether or not to incorporate. The Court says legal persons are in any case subject to “a more onerous obligation in respect of the publication of data relating to them.”
Because many disclosures have been made based on an understanding that the regulations providing disclosure were valid, the Court limits the ability of those subject to past disclosure to bring claims:
In view of the large number of publications which have taken place in the Member States on the basis of rules which were regarded as being valid, it must be held that the invalidity of the provisions mentioned in paragraph 92 of the present judgment does not allow any action to be brought to challenge the effects of the publication of the lists of beneficiaries of EAGF and EAFRD aid carried out by the national authorities on the basis of those provisions during the period prior to the date on which the present judgment is delivered.