Comments

Thanks for breaking down the budget numbers and the foreign aid initiatives to a more intelligible level. "Under Labor (aid as a proportion of ONI) is projected to fall to 0.19%. That still leaves us in the deplorable “0.2% club” of miserly donors". In the face of the internal and external pressures upon the national budget, Australia needs to raise more taxes, not reduce them, if it is to become a responsible international citizen.

Hello Stephen, it's a great question! Progress has been made, and you can find out more about one PNG organisation that is working to raise awareness, prevent and respond to family and sexual violence, Femili PNG (https://femilipng.org/). Ume Wainetti was a founding Board member of Femili PNG, which has grown significantly since this blog post was written. Femili PNG provides survivor focused case management services in Port Moresby, Lae and Goroka. There are other community organistions, faith based organistions and NGO's working in that space too; along with some positive work being undertaken by the PNG Government (http://www.ngbvs.gov.pg/gbvstrategy). You can also find out more about my team at Friends of Femili PNG, an Australian not for profit. We work alongside our colleagues at Femili PNG (https://friends.femilipng.org/).

Jonah, good point, PNG should open up rice market

Thanks Adam Especially for mentioning perceptions of aid effectiveness. Which could - or should - be regularly reported in the Annual Performance Report required under the PGPA Act. Where you then have to follow-up on the Annual Report. DFAT also asserts: "Evaluations play an important role within the development performance framework to support a high quality development assistance program". https://www.dfat.gov.au/development/performance-assessment/development-evaluation. But then makes it extremely difficult to check its own evaluations, by what seems nearly to be random indexing, but is by the first letter of the first name of the Report: https://www.dfat.gov.au/development/performance-assessment/development-evaluation/program-evaluations#p Without even regularly mentioning the year in the title. For the currency and regularity of conducting those evaluations.

DFAT strategic directions What drives shifts in the strategic goals for development assistance is a complex issue that, partially, depends on personal assessments of motives and incentives. One might argue, for example, that the rise of “aid for trade” is a defensive strategy employed by development agencies to protect their budgets from politicians. That is not to “blame” politicians, who are elected representatives balancing priorities connected, however loosely, to the preferences of voters. In these more tense global times therefore, spending on defences increases and development assistance in seen, and justified, more as a tool of “soft power” than it is as a way to eradicate absolute poverty or for other countries to share the individual freedoms that we enjoy. Consequently, and understandably, the volume and content of development assistance is the result of incorporating various different reasons for spending Australian tax payers money overseas. Feeding into the debate about how and how much to spend on development assistance are perceptions about its effectiveness. Given whatever goals, what are the returns on the investment? This question can never be answered with precision, which is frustrating, and doubly so because the private sector operates with one clear absolute key performance indicator: profit. There is no equivalent for development assistance, which leads to Sisyphean angst to justify expenditures.

I have not read Gordon Peake’s book, Confessions of an adviser, but I find his observations reported by Professor Howes very instructive. Peake’s comments about Bougainville resonate loud and clear. In my view, they could just as validly be applied to any province in Papua New Guinea or the Solomon Islands. If that is a fair call, and I would argue it is, then what does that tell us about the stated aim of Australia’s new aid program? I think Peake is correct when he ascribes the disconnect between PNG nation building activities and those responsible for implementation to the influence of clans. Papua New Guinea has been described as a country comprising more than 6,000 clan groups, 836 languages and 22 provinces. The missing emphasis is the fact that more than ninety percent of PNG land and much of its productive waters is under the traditional ownership of clan groups that have maintained their independent way of life for centuries. Traditional land ownership is power. While land is often described as communal, in reality decisions affecting the allocation and use of land is in the hands of a relatively few traditionally powerful families and sub clan groups who might be described as head custodians. At least eighty-five percent of the population of nine or more million people lives on land that is governed by tradition practices and for the foreseeable future the majority of the population will remain dependent upon their clan’s land to build a house, grow food, raise their children and make a little money. The use of customary land is not free. Everyone who receives permission to build and grow their food on a portion is bound to acknowledge the head custodian or custodial line by way of feast giving and other actions of reciprocity on a regular basis. For most rural and many urban dwellers, meeting traditional obligations to maintain access to garden land, fresh water, fishing areas with ongoing tenure for your family and descendants is the central theme driving their lives. Public servants who work in urban settings are more likely to be preoccupied with these matters than official business that lands on their desk. In practice, this places them under unrelenting pressure to do whatever is needed to meet traditional obligations and demands. Within this environment the business of government, which usually relates to people and clans the public servant is not related to, often takes a back seat. Peake also reports that the Bougainville government was broke. The same could be said for the provincial administrations of the other twenty-one provinces. Administrations that are responsible for delivering education, health, law and order and infrastructure services. Given this reality the machinery of government at all levels has little or no bearing on the lives of rural people. They remain largely self-sufficient on their land under the traditional practices of their forebears. So where does this leave our understanding of government, governance and services delivered for all in the best interests of the common good? In truth, our vision of a high performing public service staffed by people who deliver value for money outcomes and services to the majority of the people without prejudice, fear or favour for the benefit of all, is laughable. This is a creation of our making and like the cane toad may be considered an inappropriate introduction into the environment. It is not surprising that Peake reports it “was difficult to find someone (of like mind) to work with” and “there wasn’t any interest in facilitating effective government.” I would ask the question, “effective” within who’s world view? That some programs such as water and sanitation projects, seemed to fare better in terms of impact and effectiveness should come as no surprise. The benefits are delivered at community level. And, as Peake concludes, if independence is unlikely to make a material difference to the lives of Bougainvilleans, why 98% voted for it is also unsurprising. When protecting the land and resources of your ancestors for yourself and your descendants guides one’s life, the tragic consequences that ensued courtesy of a foreign owned mine in association with a government across the Solomon Sea whose authority you do not recognise, cutting ties with the latter is a sine qua non. So where does this leave Australia’s stated aim to focus aid policy on building effective accountable states that can sustain their own development? I do not pretend to know the answer but riding roughshod over traditional societies is not one of them. There needs to be a proper channel for truth to speak to power and for traditional systems of governance to be recognised. There is an urgent need for the “people” to be made true partners in nation building: a two-way street that incorporates the contribution of each of the more than 6,000 clans towards solutions on their land rather than the Waigani centric, top down, one size fits all model that has demonstrably failed the majority of the population for the past fifty years. I trust the powers that be in Canberra will listen a great deal more earnestly to what the end users, the stakeholders, customers and beneficiaries of their plans before launching into another generational round of activities that can so easily result in more harm than good.

Upending country power dynamics has the whiff of regime change about it which, as Dercon says, is unlikely to achieve country ownership at the government level.

I’ve spoken to Bougainville politicians and bureaucrats, who often blame PNG government of failing to transfer the powers agreed in the Peace Agreement (and PNG Constitution). Gordon Peake suggests the Bougainville government wasn’t interested in the drawdown either. Is it a case where neither government is not interested in transferring powers? Transfer of power is a very important matter to some Bougainville elites. In fact they will argue that the 97.7% (not 98.4%) vote for independence is a result of PNG government’s failure to transfer powers and/or rebuild the infrastructures destroyed during the crisis during the 15 years following the peace agreement. However, when you speak to the grassroots, they’ll say their government is corrupt, and mismanages grants given by the national government. Why Bougainville voted for independence varies depending on who you ask. Whilst ‘some’ politicians blame it on national government’s failure to transfer of powers, veterans of the conflict would say the they’d vote for independence regardless. The support for independence is still strong. But may be too early though. From internal revenue to infrastructure and bureaucracy, it’s just not sufficient to sustain an independent Bougainville.

Do we have an up date on how much progress, or lack of has been made since Ms Wainetti posted this article? It would be instructive to learn about what has happened in the decade since.

Thankyou very much for the hard working of increasing awareness

I've sent a response to your email, suggesting some folk who have much more expertise than myself on property rights in the New Guinea Islands. Get back to me by email (mike.bourke[at]anu.edu.au) if you do not receive this mail. Mike

Hi Mike, This is a great read and a great resource. I appreciate the effort that went into collecting the kind of data you have in your spreadsheet. I would like to ask though: what are land ownership and property rights like in Bougainville? I have an interest in how economic incentives from owning productive agricultural land influences early development. I am new to this site so happy to directed to an existing resource/blog. Cheers.