Jo Jung-hoon: "Poor ODA like Quang Binh Province in Vietnam makes it difficult to defend budget increases" [K Aid Tracker]

by Ku Chaeeun

by Jeon Jinyoung

by Song Seungseop

Published 07 Nov.2023 16:57(KST)

Updated 14 Nov.2023 20:21(KST)

open/close

7th Budget Special Committee Points Out Vietnam Quang Binh Province ODA
Jo Jeonghun: "KPI Index Should Be Created for ODA"
Park Jin: "Will Review If Necessary"
Choi Jaehae: "Will Audit ODA Waste Factors"
Bang Giseon: "Will Consider KOICA-EDCF Synergy"
Kim Wanseop: "Humanitarian Aid Also Linked to National Interest"

On the 7th, Jo Jung-hoon, a member of the Transition Era party, said to Choi Jae-hae, the head of the Board of Audit and Inspection, during the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, "You also audited the solar power project in Quang Binh Province, Vietnam, and I understand there were deficiencies." He added that when such ODA failure cases occur, it becomes difficult to explain to lawmakers in the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts why the ODA budget is being increased to an all-time high.

Assemblyman Cho Jung-hoon of the Transition Korea party mentioned the “Vietnam Quang Binh Province Solar Power Project” (reported October 25?31) covered by this publication during the Budget and Accounts Special Committee on the 7th, pointing out, “When such (ODA) failures occur, it becomes difficult to defend why the budget is taken from technology development (R&D) and given to ODA.”

On that day at the Budget and Accounts Special Committee, Assemblyman Cho told Audit Board Chairman Choi Jae-ha, “The Vietnam Quang Binh solar project was also audited, and I understand there were deficiencies.” He added that when such ODA failure cases arise, it is difficult to explain to committee members why the ODA budget is increased to an all-time high.

He said, “I agree on the necessity of ODA projects befitting the national dignity of the Republic of Korea. However, the 2017 Audit Board report also pointed out serious fragmentation of aid and insufficient improvement efforts.” Chairman Choi responded, “We are also auditing to see if there are waste factors in ODA projects. If necessary, we will report the results as soon as they are available.”

Assemblyman Cho also addressed the issue of ODA fragmentation, the role of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, and the differing perspectives between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Ministry of Economy and Finance. He emphasized, “There are not many countries where so many agencies are involved in ODA. Various statistics show this as well.” Citing this publication’s report, Assemblyman Cho said, “The Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency carries out 60?70% of projects, and the UK accounts for 70%. Japan’s JICA holds 70% of the budget. But we have no single leader.” He then criticized, “I don’t feel the Prime Minister’s Office plays a major role between the two pillars (Ministry of Economy and Finance and Ministry of Foreign Affairs), and beyond the issue of grants versus loans, organizational fragmentation seems to cause inefficiency.”

On the 7th, Assemblyman Jo Jung-hoon stated at the Special Committee on Budget and Accounts, "It is better not to conduct ODA under 1 billion won. Administrative and travel expenses consume 30 to 40 percent. Small amounts need to be consolidated." In response, Foreign Minister Park Jin said, "I believe there is a need not to conduct ODA under 1 billion won."

Assemblyman Cho also stated, “It is better not to conduct ODA projects under 1 billion won. Administrative and travel expenses consume 30?40%. Small amounts need consolidation.” In response, Foreign Minister Park Jin said, “I think there is a need not to conduct ODA under 1 billion won,” adding, “The Ministry of Foreign Affairs chairs the Free Development Cooperation Strategy Meeting. We prevent duplication and do not approve inappropriate projects. We will continue to use funds frugally and ensure effectiveness where needed.”

Assemblyman Cho also mentioned that Korea ranks third from the bottom among DAC member countries in GNI/ODA ratio. He said, “On a broad scale, we need to spend in line with the government’s national dignity. Being third from last means there is still a long way to go, and the public may perceive it as just giving away money. This issue must be resolved.” He added, “I think we need to create a discourse on how ODA actually benefits national interests,” and stressed the need to raise awareness that Korea has significant ODA achievements. He then asked Minister Park whether there is a willingness to consolidate ODA during the execution process, although it might not be possible in 2024.

Minister Park replied, “We are in the process of resolving fragmentation to rationalize ODA. It is meaningful and effective to discover and provide substantial assistance to hidden, valuable projects that the recipient country truly needs. Also, we need to consider the ripple effects on the domestic economy.” Assemblyman Cho mentioned that there should be Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for ODA, to which Minister Park responded, “If necessary, we will review and implement them.”

On the 7th, Jo Jung-hoon, a member of the Transition Era party, asked at the Budget and Accounts Special Committee, "The Ministry of Economy and Finance focuses on national interest, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasizes humanitarian aid. How can these conflicting discourses be unified?" In response, Kim Wan-seop, the 2nd Vice Minister of the Ministry of Economy and Finance, explained, "They must be unified. (The integration of EDCF and KOICA) should be possible, and from a discourse perspective, humanitarian aid must be connected to national interest, so it is the same story. Increasing international R&D and ODA ultimately plays a role in enhancing the nation's dignity through humanitarian aid, but it also benefits the economy and jobs."

He also pointed out the problem of differing perspectives on ODA between the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Assemblyman Cho asked, “The Ministry of Economy and Finance focuses on national interests, while the Ministry of Foreign Affairs emphasizes humanitarian aid. This is an old conflict of discourse. How can they be unified?” Deputy Minister Kim Wan-seop of the Ministry of Economy and Finance explained, “They must be unified. (The integration of EDCF and KOICA) should be possible, and conceptually, humanitarian aid must be linked to national interests, so it is the same story. Increasing international R&D and ODA ultimately raises the nation’s dignity through humanitarian aid, but also benefits the economy and jobs.”

Assemblyman Cho diagnosed, “EDCF and KOICA funds should create synergy, but it is very difficult due to the turf battles between the Ministry of Economy and Finance and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Creating successful cases this way will generate jobs and give young people confidence to advance overseas.” He asked Director Bang Ki-seon of the Office for Government Policy Coordination, “Is there no intention to create synergy between EDCF and KOICA funds during your term?” Director Bang replied, “We will consider it seriously. Even small projects can achieve the effect of large projects if packaged together.”