Friday, October 22, 2010

The Watch Dog that shamed its own founder: HRW an anti Ethiopia and Israeli lobby funded by Saudi Arabia?

Global Strategic Enterprises, Inc for Peace and Prosperity-
Our Passion is to reach our individual and collective potential-Always!

The Watch Dog that shamed its founder with its outrageous and fabricated blackmailing of Africa

Dear Patriotic Global Citizens, friends of African Union and Greater Ethiopia Without Borders!

Re:  It is time to make HRW accountable!

Making the Watchdogs accountable at the International Criminal Court of Justice for blackmailing Africans and Israel is a task for anew generation of Global Patriotic Network.

It is time to put to task those who collaborate with known terrorists and act their PR machine

It is time to make HRW account for its crime against humanity and its blatant blackmailing of a noble people.

The hypocrisy has to stop and we need to demand accountability.

HRW and its crisis, from the pen of its founder*is worth reading and it is attached below.  An organization that has gone amok with prejudice, blackmailing and out right criminal activities against the Ethiopian people and Israelis.

What a shame we can continue to entertain such criminals and do not bring them to ICC (International Criminal Court of Blackmailing), sooner than later.

HRW that shamed its own founder with its criminal blackmailing activities against the people of Africa and Israel need to see their day in court to account for their crime against the noble and courageous people of Ethiopia, Africa and Israel.

It is pay back time and time to account for HRW terrorist activities, blackmailing a people and a nation of more than one billion standing.

Blackmailing the future, security and hope of a people with erroneous treacherous continuous defamation, psyops, propaganda  is the worst terror of them all.  We need patriotic promotion and pre-emption for the truth by challenging the evil hate and terror mongers!

Here is the evidence One, Two. Three and look forward to your perception and perspectives

Global Strategic Enterprises 4 Peace and Prosperity;
Global Patriotic Network

Our Passion is to reach our individual & collective potential 4 excellence & success!-Always!
Evidence One

20 October 2010
Addis Ababa, October 20, 2010 (Addis Ababa) - The Ethiopian government rejected the allegations made by Human Rights Watch saying the government politicizes the use of development aid in any shape or form or that it has misused any of the development aid so generously provided by the international community.

According to a statement the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sent to ENA on Wednesday, the allegations made by Human Rights Watch simply do not reflect reality.

The statement said in January this year, the Development Assistance Group, a 26 aid agency consortium in Ethiopia, investigated similar allegations.

Its report found that safeguards for donor programs were largely working well, that the programs were achieving results and the monitoring mechanisms were sufficient, the statement said.

Ethiopia is currently achieving considerable success in development. It has reached four of the Millennium Development Goals and is on track for two more.

The government has been and remains entirely committed to transparency in its dealings with the international community and with aid donors on the basis of mutual trust and responsibility, and of accountability and transparency.

The statement said it is impossible to believe from its latest report that these are principles to which Human Rights Watch is prepared to adhere to in any genuine manner.

It is, therefore, hardly surprising that Human Rights Watch should try to threaten the provision of development aid to Ethiopia. Indeed, this would appear to be an attempt by Human Rights Watch gratuitously to blackmail the international community as part of its ongoing vendetta against the government of Ethiopia, the statement said...(Mofa)
Evidence Two:

HRW Biased Report

Here below is a comment  from one of our reader(Lela Mar) on HRW. What do you know  about HRW and why they continue to defame the Ethiopian government? Share your thoughts and have your say!
As usual HRW is releasing unsubstantiated and unverified information as “Research Report.” There is a bias in HRW, that is anti-Ethiopia and anti-Israel, mainly dictated by who is funding it. The following quotes from, indicates HRW “analysts” and directors are funded by Saudi Arabia, and the likes, who have their own interest seeing a dismantled and weak Ethiopia, as well as Israel.

“These biases, which are particular to the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division, have intensified at HRW. In May 2009, Whitson went to Saudi Arabia to raise funds, selling the message that HRW’s role is central in countering “pro-Israel pressure groups.”  Whitson also emphasized HRW’s anti-Israel reporting on the Gaza war, which provided the foundation for the one-sided Goldstone report, as the basis for donations from Saudi funders. “
HRW also uses Jawar Mohammed, a well known ONLF(?) PR person as its sources in its report.  In fact, on an interview on Al-Jezera, Leslie Lefkow, who supposed to be the “Horn Of Africa” specialist, refers to Jawar Mohammed, as her “colleague”, indicating there exist a close working relationship between an ONLF(?) PR and HRW. 

So it is no surprise to all of us, even when founder of HRW, Robert Bernstein, published an op-ed article in the New York Times,Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Middle East, which denounced the biases and failures of his own organization. 

Although, Bernstein points the failure of HRW, is specifically about Isreal, his OP-ED clearly points about how HRW focuses on false allegations against Israel, while de-emphasizing daily human rights violations in Iran, Libya, Saudi Arabia and other authoritarian regimes.

Evidence Three


Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Mideast

AS the founder of Human Rights Watch, its active chairman for 20 years and now founding chairman emeritus, I must do something that I never anticipated: I must publicly join the group’s critics. Human Rights Watch had as its original mission to pry open closed societies, advocate basic freedoms and support dissenters. But recently it has been issuing reports on the Israeli-Arab conflict that are helping those who wish to turn Israel into a pariah state.

Kelly Blair
At Human Rights Watch, we always recognized that open, democratic societies have faults and commit abuses. But we saw that they have the ability to correct them — through vigorous public debate, an adversarial press and many other mechanisms that encourage reform.

That is why we sought to draw a sharp line between the democratic and nondemocratic worlds, in an effort to create clarity in human rights. We wanted to prevent the Soviet Union and its followers from playing a moral equivalence game with the West and to encourage liberalization by drawing attention to dissidents like Andrei Sakharov, Natan Sharansky and those in the Soviet gulag — and the millions in China’s laogai, or labor camps.

When I stepped aside in 1998, Human Rights Watch was active in 70 countries, most of them closed societies. Now the organization, with increasing frequency, casts aside its important distinction between open and closed societies.

Nowhere is this more evident than in its work in the Middle East. The region is populated by authoritarian regimes with appalling human rights records. Yet in recent years Human Rights Watch has written far more condemnations of Israel for violations of international law than of any other country in the region.

Israel, with a population of 7.4 million, is home to at least 80 human rights organizations, a vibrant free press, a democratically elected government, a judiciary that frequently rules against the government, a politically active academia, multiple political parties and, judging by the amount of news coverage, probably more journalists per capita than any other country in the world — many of whom are there expressly to cover the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Meanwhile, the Arab and Iranian regimes rule over some 350 million people, and most remain brutal, closed and autocratic, permitting little or no internal dissent. The plight of their citizens who would most benefit from the kind of attention a large and well-financed international human rights organization can provide is being ignored as Human Rights Watch’s Middle East division prepares report after report on Israel.

Human Rights Watch has lost critical perspective on a conflict in which Israel has been repeatedly attacked by Hamas and Hezbollah, organizations that go after Israeli citizens and use their own people as human shields. These groups are supported by the government of Iran, which has openly declared its intention not just to destroy Israel but to murder Jews everywhere. This incitement to genocide is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide.

Leaders of Human Rights Watch know that Hamas and Hezbollah chose to wage war from densely populated areas, deliberately transforming neighborhoods into battlefields. They know that more and better arms are flowing into both Gaza and Lebanon and are poised to strike again. And they know that this militancy continues to deprive Palestinians of any chance for the peaceful and productive life they deserve. Yet Israel, the repeated victim of aggression, faces the brunt of Human Rights Watch’s criticism.

The organization is expressly concerned mainly with how wars are fought, not with motivations. To be sure, even victims of aggression are bound by the laws of war and must do their utmost to minimize civilian casualties. Nevertheless, there is a difference between wrongs committed in self-defense and those perpetrated intentionally.

But how does Human Rights Watch know that these laws have been violated? In Gaza and elsewhere where there is no access to the battlefield or to the military and political leaders who make strategic decisions, it is extremely difficult to make definitive judgments about war crimes. Reporting often relies on witnesses whose stories cannot be verified and who may testify for political advantage or because they fear retaliation from their own rulers.

Significantly, Col. Richard Kemp, the former commander of British forces in Afghanistan and an expert on warfare, has said that the Israel Defense Forces in Gaza “did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.”
Only by returning to its founding mission and the spirit of humility that animated it can Human Rights Watch resurrect itself as a moral force in the Middle East and throughout the world. If it fails to do that, its credibility will be seriously undermined and its important role in the world significantly diminished.

*Robert L. Bernstein, the former president and chief executive of Random House, was the chairman of Human Rights Watch from 1978 to 1998.

omepage »  Resources  » Press ReleasesAddThis

NGO Monitor Calls on New HRW Chairman to Revamp Organization

Research Institution Cites Need for “Moral leadership”

JERUSALEM – As part of continued research and analysis on the claims and advocacy activities of Human Rights Watch (HRW), Jerusalem-based research institution NGO Monitor calls on incoming board chairman James Hoge to take immediate steps to restore the organization’s focus on universal human rights.  To move forward in restoring “HRW’s moral influence,” Hoge must take decisive action regarding biased staff members who exploit human rights rhetoric.
Mr. Hoge has joined an organization whose credibility was torn apart in an op-ed by HRW founder Robert Bernstein in the New York Times, “Rights Watchdog, Lost in the Middle East,” in which he denounced the biases and failures of his own organization. Bernstein highlighted NGO Monitor’s finding of obsessive focus by HRW on false allegations against Israel, while de-emphasizing daily human rights violations in Iran, Libya and other authoritarian regimes. Bernstein noted that instead of using its growing resources to press for human rights under these regimes, his organization has focused on turning “Israel into a pariah state.”  In 2010, reports in The New Republic andSunday Times exposed more of HRW’s failures, and further reduced its moral reputation and influence.
“If Mr. Hoge is going to have a serious impact as head of HRW’s board, he will need to repair its moral reputation,” says Prof. Gerald Steinberg, president of NGO Monitor.  “HRW has the resources and capabilities to be the moral compass for societies throughout the world.  Unfortunately, the organization has been hijacked by senior staff members, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Division. They have replaced universal human rights principles with a narrow ideological bias and an obsession with Israel, while ignoring other conflicts and real human rights abuses throughout the world.”
NGO Monitor has chronicled HRW’s false claims and disproportionate focus on Israel. NGO Monitor’s monograph, Experts or Ideologues: Systematic Analysis of Human Rights Watch, described the consistent anti-Israel agenda within the organization, as shown in detailed analyses of the publications in the MENA division from 2002 to 2009. This report showed that MENA division director Sarah Leah Whitson and her deputy, Joe Stork, as well as other officials, allow their backgrounds in anti-Israel advocacy to distort their human rights and international law work.
These destructive and unethical biases have intensified at HRW in recent years. In May 2009, Whitson went to Saudi Arabia to raise funds, selling the odious message that HRW’s role is central in countering “pro-Israel pressure groups.”  Whitson also emphasized HRW’s anti-Israel reporting on the Gaza war, which provided the foundation for the one-sided Goldstone report, as the basis for donations from Saudi funders. Later that year, HRW’s “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco was dismissed after it was revealed that he was a collector of Nazi memorabilia. However, a gag order was imposed on Garlasco, and HRW blocked efforts to investigate the credibility of his numerous reports condemning Israel.
“We fully expect Mr. Hoge to initiate a credible and independent examination of the organization’s past reports on Israel, and issue retractions where warranted,” Steinberg continues. “HRW said they would review every single report compiled by Mr. Garlasco after he was dismissed – we are still waiting for that process to begin.  Additionally, Mr Hoge will need to review staffing issues, including the role of top officials, and take actions to end support for the anti-Israel ideology that has permeated the organization.”
Steinberg added that the recent $100 million “challenge grant” from George Soros to HRW presents new challenges for the organization regarding its anti-Israel biases. “Despite the implications of the Soros funding, we hope that Mr. Hoge will take the actions necessary to restore the centrality of universal human rights in HRW’s agenda.”

Evidence No 3:

Letter to James Hoge, Restoring Human Rights Watch's Moral Leadership

James F. Hoge, Jr.

Chair of the Board
Human Rights Watch (HRW)
50 Fifth Avenue, 34th floor
New York, NY 10118-3299
October 12, 2010
Re: Restoring Human Rights Watch’s Moral Leadership
Dear Mr. Hoge,
On entering the position of chair of the board of Human Rights Watch (HRW), we note the challenges you face in restoring HRW’s moral integrity in promoting universal human rights.  These challenges were clearly stated by founder Robert Bernstein in hisNew York Times article, in which he condemned the organization for abandoning its moral foundations and helping to turn Israel into “a pariah state.”
In the past decade, NGO Monitor has analyzed HRW’s Middle East agenda in detail, revealing the disproportionate focus on Israel, double standards, and false allegations, in the organization’s research. The blatant ideological bias of HRW’s Middle East staff is of major significance in this area, as also demonstrated in media reports.
HRW’s immoral exploitation of human rights values was underscored in May 2009, when Middle East and North Africa (MENA) division head Sarah Leah Whitson led a fundraising visit to Saudi Arabia. Instead of promoting real human rights values, Whitson pressed the odious message that HRW’s role is central in countering “pro-Israel pressure groups.”  Whitson also emphasized HRW’s anti-Israel activities regarding the Gaza war, which provided the foundation for the Goldstone report, as the basis for donations from Saudi funders. Later that year, HRW’s “senior military analyst” Marc Garlasco was dismissed after it was revealed that he was a collector of Nazi memorabilia. Garlasco, whose military expertise has been widely questioned, was forced to sign a gag order by HRW as part of his severance package.
The failures of the MENA division are also reflected in the disproportionate resources devoted to criticizing Israel at the expense of chronic human rights abuses in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Libya, and other countries, which receive minimal, pro forma attention from HRW. Additionally, the support voiced by HRW officials for boycotts and lawfare cases against Israel further demean and politicize human rights norms.
As Robert Bernstein wrote, HRW needs to act quickly and firmly to restore its moral compass and claim to promote universal human rights values. We urge you to make the necessary changes in order to meet these objectives. 
Prof. Gerald Steinberg
President, NGO Monitor

Evidence No 4:

Homepage »  Resources  »  NGO Monitor ReportsAddThis

Experts or Ideologues: Systematic Analysis of Human Rights Watch

NGO Monitor's detailed report examines HRW's activities related to the Arab-Israeli conflict, and particularly on Israel -- including  analysis of key HRW staff members, five case studies of HRW campaigns, and quantitative analysis comparing HRW publications in the Middle East, covering the period from 2002 to 2009.

Executive Summary in English [PDF]

Table of Contents

(Click links to read excerpts from the monograph)
Part One: Experts or Ideologues: HRW Staff and Board Members
a.    The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) Division in Context
b.    Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of HRW
c.    Sarah Leah Whitson, Director of the MENA
d.    Joe Stork, Deputy Director of the MENA
e.    Darryl Li
f.    Reed Brody
g.    Lucy Mair
h.    Nadia Barhoum
i.    Peter Bouckaert
j.    Marc Garlasco
k.    Board of Directors
l.    HRW Links with Palestinian NGOs
Part Two: The Research Façade: Case Studies of Systemic Anti-Israel Bias
Part Three: Analysis of HRW’s Middle East Agenda 2004-2008 
a.    Double Standards: War Crimes, Collective Punishment, Human Shields, Abducted Soldiers
b.    Terrorism / Asymmetric Warfare
c.    Disproportionate Focus on Israel
d.    Demonization of Israel Using the Rhetoric of International Law
e.    Distortion of International Humanitarian Law
Part Four: RecommendationsAppendixes

Further analysis

(Updated November 28, 2009)

Ideologues or Experts?

HRW Fights the Gaza War

HRW and Its Critics

Saudi Arabia Funding Controversy

Responses to NGO Monitor's report, Experts or Ideologues

Ideologues or Experts?

Sarah Leah Whitson, Director of MENA

Joe Stork, Deputy Director of MENA

Marc Garlasco, Senior Military Analyst, Emergencies

Nadia Barhoum, Associate, MENA

HRW Fights the Gaza War

Statements during the Conflict

"Rain of Fire" (white phosphorous)

"Precisely Wrong" (drone allegations)

"Rockets from Gaza"

"White Flag Deaths"

HRW at the UN

HRW and Its Critics

Saudi Arabia Funding Controversy

NGO Monitor publications

Criticism of HRW

Defensive Responses from HRW

Related articles - by relevance (full list)

 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24   25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32  33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47   48   49   50   »   Last  


Here is the NGO Monitor Search on HRW for your additional information

Search results for: Human Rights Watch
Filter results by:Article Type:  

Found 833 results.

 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24  25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45  46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66  67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   »   Last 

Press Releases: NGO Monitor Statement on Turkel Commission

Press Releases: NGO Monitor Calls on New HRW Chairman to Revamp Organization

Correspondence: Letter to James Hoge, Restoring Human Rights Watch's Moral Leadership

NGO Monitor in the media: Call for Human Rights Watch to act on Israel

Press Releases: Turkel Commission to Hear Unreliable NGO Testimony

NGO Index: Open Society Institute (OSI)

NGO Monitor in the media: Insiders: Why was J Street so scared of Soros?

Monthly Digests: August 2010 Digest (Vol. 8, No. 12)

NGO Monitor in the media: Jerusalem slams EU session on Knesset NGO bill

 1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   11   12   13   14   15   16   17   18   19   20   21   22   23   24  25   26   27   28   29   30   31   32   33   34   35   36   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45  46   47   48   49   50   51   52   53   54   55   56   57   58   59   60   61   62   63   64   65   66  67   68   69   70   71   72   73   74   75   76   77   78   79   80   81   82   83   84   »   Last 

Dag News

DAG Statement - Human Rights Watch (HRW) report: Development without Freedom – How Aid Underwrites Repression in Ethiopia PDF Print E-mail
Thursday, 21 October 2010 14:50
 21 October 2010
The objective of development partners in Ethiopia is to provide assistance that supports effective development and poverty reduction and that reaches its intended beneficiaries.  Respect for human rights is central to our work and to sustainable development. And some members of the DAG include human rights issues regularly in their dialogue with Government.
The aid provided by members of the DAG in Ethiopia is transforming the lives of millions of poor people through basic services such as healthcare, education and water, and long-term food security.  Our programmes are directly helping Ethiopia to reach the Millennium Development Goals.

We take allegations of misuse of development assistance very seriously. That is why, even before the earlier HRW report, One Hundred Ways of Putting Pressure , the DAG commissioned an independent Aid Management and Utilisation Study in Ethiopia to examine the vulnerability of the programmes we support to possible misappropriation.

We do not concur with the conclusions of the recent HRW report regarding widespread, systematic abuse of development aid in Ethiopia. Our study did not generate any evidence of systematic or widespread distortion. We, nonetheless, recognize that the programmes we support are not immune to the potential for aid misuse and have therefore included safeguard measures to address these risks. These measures include a range of rigorous checks such as regular financial audits, independent evaluations, independently-commissioned surveys and field monitoring visits to make sure our aid achieves the intended development results and its benefits reach those who need them.

The DAG Aid Management and Utilization Study concluded that there are generally good accountability mechanisms and safeguards in place that provide checks on possible distortions. The study recommended, however, that safeguards could be further strengthened to include a greater focus on, for example, transparency and independent monitoring. 

Donors in Ethiopia are working jointly to strengthen programme-specific systems, in line with the study recommendations. And we will take forward a second stage of the DAG study to review further the effectiveness of accountability measures and safeguards on the ground and to cover other important donor-financed programmes. We believe that implementation of such measures will further reduce the potential for the type of misuses with which the HRW report was concerned.

List of DAG members
African Development Bank (AfDB)
Austrian Embassy Development Cooperation
Belgium Embassy
Denmark Embassy
European Commission
Finland Embassy
French Embassy
German Embassy - German Development Cooperation
Indian Embassy
Irish Aid
Italian Cooperation
Japan Embassy
Netherlands Embassy
Norwegian Embassy
Spain Embassy
Turkish International Cooperation Agency
World Bank

Last Updated on Thursday, 21 October 2010 15:21
Consultative Meeting on the Government's Five Year Plan PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 29 September 2010 16:49

UN Conference Center, Addis Ababa - The Government of Ethiopia held a two-day consultative meeting (29-30 September 2010) with DAG members and other development partners on its draft five-year Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP). The GTP will cover the period 2010/11-2014/15  and replaces the government's five-year Plan for Accelerated and Sustained Development to End Poverty (PASDEP) that was launched in 2005.

The consultative meeting was officially opened by H.E. Minister Sufian Ahmed from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (unofficial transcript). Opening statements were also delivered by the DAG Co-Chair Mr. Howard Taylor and by Mr. Eugene Owusu on behalf of the UN Country Team (UNCT).

Breakout sessions held on the first day focused on: Financing, Growth and Economic Development; Social Sector Development; Capacity Building and Good Governance; and Opportunities, Challenges and Partnerships to deliver the GTP. (summary of key issues)
 Photo credit: Bezawork BelayhunAcknowledging the ambitious nature of the GTP, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi noted that should there be a financing gap, priority would be given to reaching the MDGs.

He also stressed that not only was the GTP more ambitious than the PASDEP, but that it would require more continuous engagement over than years as the plan is implemented.

(Right to Left: Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Minister Sufian Ahmed on their way to the GTP conference) 


Last Updated on Monday, 04 October 2010 13:54
World Humanitarian Day Honors Generations of Humanitarian Workers PDF Print E-mail
Thursday, 19 August 2010 09:19
The Second annual commemoration of the World Humanitarian Day was officially celebrated in Africa Hall in the presence of guests from the government, humanitarian organisations, the African Union and the UN.

The commemoration follows a decision passed by the UN General Assembly in 2008 to mark the World Humanitarian Day on 19 August in order to "Contribute to increasing public awareness about humanitarian work and the importance of international cooperation, and to commemorate all humanitarian personnel who have worked to promote humanitarian causes and more importantly, remember those who have lost their lives in the course of duty."
Participants observe a minute of silence for humanitarian workers who have lost their lives in the course of duty. (Front row - left to right: UN Humanitarian Coordinator Mr. Eugene Owusu, World Bank Country Director Mr. Kenichi Ohashi, Head of Development Cooperation SIDA Mr. Abdi Foum and Country Director for USAID Mr. Tom Staal)

Last Updated on Tuesday, 21 September 2010 08:03
Aid Management and Utilisation in Ethiopia: A study in response to allegations of distortion in donor-supported development programmes PDF Print E-mail

Development and aid in Ethiopia

Ethiopia has made impressive development progress in recent years. Since 2000, Ethiopia has recorded the second fastest improvement in human development in the world (UNDP Human Development Report). Economic growth has accelerated on a sustained basis from around 2003, despite the global economic crisis.

Significant progress is being made towards the Millennium Development Goals, with Ethiopia on track to meet Goal 1 (eradicate extreme poverty and hunger), Goal 2 (achieve universal primary education), Goal 6 (combat HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases) and Goal 8 (develop a global partnership for development). Good progress is also being made towards Goal 4 (reduce child mortality) and Goal 7 (ensure environmental sustainability).

External aid has played a significant role in helping to deliver this development progress and growth, saving lives and improving livelihoods. These achievements are an important measure by which donors assess the overall effectiveness of their support to Ethiopia.

Allegations of distortion in donor-supported development programmes
In January 2010, in response to allegations that some donor-supported programmes in Ethiopia were being used for political gain – with aid allocated according to political affiliation, rather than solely need – the Development Assistance Group (DAG) commissioned a study to assess the rigour of the programme systems and safeguards that are designed to ensure that aid is spent effectively.

The main allegations, reported by the Ethiopian opposition, international NGOs and the media, were that targeting of beneficiaries and recruitment of public service employees within a number of donor-supported programmes were being influenced by considerations of political affiliation; in short, that aid allocations were subject to political distortion.

The allegations referred to programmes including the Productive Safety Nets programme (PSNP), the Protection of Basic Services programme (PBS), the humanitarian Relief programme, and the combined Enhanced Outreach Strategy-Targeted Supplementary Feeding programme (EOS-TSF). Development Partners provide approximately $1.5 bn per year through these programmes, delivering essential resources in support of Ethiopia’s Government-led efforts to reduce poverty.

The DAG study: Approach and findings

Development Partners have a clear responsibility to ensure that aid is spent effectively and reaches its intended beneficiaries – and will do all that is necessary in this regard. The DAG’s approach has therefore been to examine the robustness of the systems and safeguards that are in place to prevent, detect and address distortion together with available data on how effectively aid is spent and who it reaches. Further work, which could include detailed fieldwork, will be considered as part of a potential second phase.

At the same time, given the importance of external aid in a resource scarce country like Ethiopia, the DAG was keen to make sure that programmes with a track record of development impact were not thrown off course without due cause.

The Government of Ethiopia shares the responsibility for ensuring aid spent through government programmes is spent effectively and reaches its intended beneficiaries and, moreover, has the lead responsibility to investigate specific allegations through appropriate administrative and legal channels where this is justified.

The study included a thorough review of the existing systems and safeguards for each programme, and consultation with development partners, civil society and the Government of Ethiopia. The study found that all four programmes have accountability systems in place that provide checks on distortion, including distortion for political gain, but that all four programmes should be further strengthened by giving more attention to transparency (through the generation and dissemination of information), independent monitoring, and the incentives which drive performance.

Next steps
The Government of Ethiopia has followed the progress of the DAG study with interest, and from the start has signalled its intent to work with Development Partners to act on any recommendations to improve the systems and safeguards in the programmes concerned, including investigating where appropriate. The DAG is now working with the Government to act on the recommendations for continued strengthening of safeguards, ultimately to maximise the developmental impact of all donor-supported programmes in Ethiopia.

To read the full report of the DAG study, please follow this link
Last Updated on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 09:39
DAG Retreat Reviews Purpose and Structure PDF Print E-mail
Thursday, 20 May 2010 14:05
Members of the Development Assistance Group (DAG) met for a one-day retreat on Wednesday 19 May 2010 in Addis Ababa to brainstorm on reviewing and updating the DAG purpose, focus and structure. The exercise is expected to feed into a wider independent
State Minister Mekonnen Manyazewal addressing the DAG
review to be undertaken shortly by external consultants.
Also present at the retreat to provide DAG with the Ethiopian government's perspective on the work of the group and its relationship with the government in the context of aid effectiveness agenda was State Minister Mekonnen Manyazewal. The minister was accompanied by relevant high level staff from the Ministry of Finance and Economic Development (MoFED).

Last Updated on Friday, 21 May 2010 09:59
DAG Review - Consultants needed PDF Print E-mail
Wednesday, 05 May 2010 11:01
The overall purpose of the review is to improve the DAG’s effectiveness and thereby its contribution to Ethiopia’s development. The objectives of the review are to review the DAG’s objectives, structure and functions in order to improve its efficiency and effectiveness in strengthening donor dialogue with government, improving harmonization, and increasing the effectiveness of aid delivery to Ethiopia. The ‘DAG Structure’ refers to the DAG (Heads of Agency), Ex-Com, TWGs/SWGs and Secretariat; their relationship to one another and interface with the Government of Ethiopia.

Qualified Female candidates are highly encouraged to apply. Qualified individuals should submit copies of CV, academic qualifications and testimonials not later than 23 May 2010.

See attachment for more detail.

Last Updated on Wednesday, 05 May 2010 11:07
Drafting A Menu of Engagement for 2010 and Beyond
PDF Print E-mail
Friday, 29 January 2010 05:34
DAG Heads of Agency (HoA) have agreed on key areas of focus in the coming years as Ethiopia drafts and implements its second Poverty Reduction Strategy, the Plan for Accelerated and Sustain-able Development for the Eradication of Poverty (PASDEP). PAS-DEP II is expected to be in place by the start of summer 2009.

No comments:

Post a Comment