Comments

Thanks Scott!

Thank you Terence, very well said! Strategy is about what we will prioritise as well as what will not be done. This is a ‘do everything for everyone’ policy without additional funding. DFAT is spreading itself and the aid program too thinly.

Wondering if there's any update on this.

Hi Alyssa, Thanks so much for clarifying, this is super helpful! I have heard such agreements are mostly negotiated on an ad-hoc basis behind closed doors. Thanks also for sharing the article by Mr Laveil -- I read his excellent piece "Marape’s quest to ‘take back’ PNG’s resources" earlier this year and this one is equally brilliant. Sadly, when it comes to resource and minerals exploitation it seems that not much has changed since the 1950s... https://www.jstor.org/stable/40969537

How can we stop this unethical barbaric issue that is affecting the lives of our people in this beautiful nation of ours? Hence, it a political issue or a cultural issue or is it something to do with the changing of times and the reality of post-modernism influence? Questions will be asked over and over but how can we find a solution to save the next generation from becoming victims of this fighting's and killings? I would rather suggest some principles and practices that can help us consider the right approach towards addressing this issue. PRINCIPLES OF PEACE AND GOOD ORDER: 1- Build inward relationship and try to understand people from different context. 2-Understanding the ethical value that governs each society. 3-Create a good network of communication with the people. 4-Identify ringleaders and build relationships. 5-Be part of the people and strategize transformative activities inside out. 6-A long term vision for change needs SMART objectives. 7-Suspend judgment and create space for accepting immoral behaviors when confronted in real situations. PRACTICES 1- Live a life that will demonstrate the essence of character quality. 2- Do not speak negatively about a situation but try to find the right approach to address the issue. 3- Work collaboratively with other stakeholders to address this issues. 4- Suspend taking sides but practically demonstrate the core value of formulating consensus. 5- Be part of the community in everyway as possible so that we can influence the people we live and stay together with.

Hi MC, I believe project development agreements refer to agreements between GoPNG and resource companies on how resource projects should be managed, including matters such as royalty payments, tax concessions etc. For more information you can read this article by Maholopa Laveil: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2022/06/10/extracting-more-from-papua-new-guineas-resource-sector/

A very pragmatic analysis indicating that the FFP will lose the general election in 2022.

Thank you for posting this insightful speech. Would someone be able to clarify what the following "Project Development Agreement" Mr Yabom mentions is referring to? "One point that I want to stress is, with the Project Development Agreement in place, the surplus trade balance arising mainly from the LNG exports has yet to translate into consistent foreign currency inflows."

“Our aid focus has been way too much directed at propping up systems we bequeathed to a fledgling nation in 1975: systems that all to often have been found to be inappropriate for the environment into which they were thrust.” Yes, though inappropriate in any environment. No country has ever succeeded with a single chamber of parliament consisting of single-member electoral districts. It didn’t work in New Zealand, didn’t work in Northern Ireland, didn’t work in west Africa. It flouts the separation of powers rule: the executive controls the legislature. We see it in all the Australian lower houses. Without the curb of an upper house, the politicians have open slather. PNG, Solomons, and Vanuatu are competing to be the first country in the world to make the single chamber single-member structure work. Ridiculous.

Hello Bobby Anderson. “Neither donors nor multilateral institutions wish to engage Solomon Islands authorities around the issue of logging.” Why is that? Wouldn’t the donors want to know that their money is not just going to clean up the environmental mess made by private logging companies? Is this too much detail for them—or what? Why don’t the multilateral institutions get frustrated at being used to repair damage by Chinese companies? They are not bought off as local landowners are, so are they too comfortable in their steady careers as international do-gooders—or what? Do you have any suggestions?

Hello Stephen, While any indicator has its strengths and weaknesses, poverty rates typically account for non-market sources of income, including food grown for own consumption. Many are caloric, and the idea that hunger and poverty is not an issue in PNG is not at all borne out in the data. Recall this lively post and comment a while back: https://devpolicy.org/png-the-hungry-country-20210520/ Best,

Hello Stephen It seems to me that the most frequently used term is "poverty reduction." And in my view that platitude is problematic. If we take out nearest neighbour as an example, we see that despite nearly five decades of Australian assistance since independence, in practical terms this objective has slipped further backward for the majority of the population. “Poverty reduction” has a definite neo colonist edge to it and the promotion of economic growth and resource exploitation has exacerbated a what has always been a delicate situation. For many in a country like Papua New Guinea the notion of poverty is misplaced. When you live on your own land and grow or catch your own food, poverty is not the issue. Empowerment and participation in decision making and nation building is. Our aid focus has been way too much directed at propping up systems we bequeathed to a fledgling nation in 1975: systems that all to often have been found to be inappropriate for the environment into which they were thrust. If we wish to be helpful good neighbours, I believe, we need to drop the claptrap objectives that serve no purpose and focus on empowering people on their own terms to create the lives they wish for themselves. Lives that potentially include access to appropriate economic empowerment, health and education services as defined and envisioned by them - not us.