Comments

Thanks Ross for this highly informative eulogy for Sir Mek. Ross and Mek, as this eulogy demonstrates, were close both professionally and as friends. Ross was a member of the International Advisory Group that assisted Mek during Sir Mek's term as the PM. Mek was amongst a select few who spoke at the dinner for Ross at the Great Hall in Parliament House when Ross retired from the ANU. Mek then shared some of their stories of the past which brought much (loud) laughter and applause in the Hall, but even more importantly it spoke of their long and deep friendship. Good to know that Ross was there for his friend at the end of his momentous journey.

Thank you, Ross for the challenge that to remember Sir Mekere is to continue his vision of building and reforming the country.

I’ve seen many former students, who participated in the protests in 2001 against Mekere’s reforms whilst at university (esp UPNG), who talk about how wrong they were on social media in the last two weeks. And how the reforms actually saved PNG. I was in primary school in 2001, and all I heard from my uncle who owned a radio was NBC reporting on the shooting. Had a negative view of Mekere until I went to university and started reading about the reforms. The opposition (or Luddites) misled the people, including students, for political gain. Mekere showed that reforms can be done in two years. Reforms in PNG must continue from where Mekere left.

On 22 July 2020 the ICSID Secretary-General registered an application by Barrick (Niugini) Ltd for a conciliation (a cooperative, non-adversarial dispute resolution process) with Papua New Guinea under the ICSID Conciliation rules. The registration referred to a contract between Barrick and Papua New Guinea. Papua New Guinea has been a contracting State to the ICSID Convention since 19 Nov 1978. On 18 December 2020 the ICSID web-site advised that Mr Sundaresh Menon had accepted Barrick’s appointment of him as a conciliator. Mr Menon is the Chief Justice of Singapore. Prior to becoming Chief Justice in 2012 Mr Menon was the Singapore Attorney-General. Mr Menon has represented Singapore at UNCITRAL working groups and is known for his support for dispute resolution by arbitration, mediation and the ADR method. He is also known for conducting Bible study classes at his church. On 23 December 2020 Barrick filed a request for the Chairman of the ICSID Administrative Council to appoint the conciliators not yet appointed by Papua New Guinea. ICSID Conciliation Rules stipulate that “the Chairman shall, at the request of either party and after consulting both parties as far as possible, appoint the conciliator or conciliators not yet appointed”(Rule 4(1)). Less than 2% of ICSID cases have registered for a conciliation hearing. Conciliation hearings are confidential to the parties and remain so after the completion of the process unless the parties agree to publication. Conciliators’ reports to the Secretary-General are not published. ICSID published case records simply state whether the parties made an agreement or failed to do so. There is no record of a State party failing to appear before an ICSID Tribunal. Mr Menon may be the sole conciliator if both Barrick and PNG agree. Otherwise PNG may nominate a conciliator and/or accept the conciliator/s proposed by the ICSID Chairman. Should PNG not respond and not appear at the convened tribunal hearings the appointed conciliators will report this failure to the ICSID Secretary-General. Failure to respond and appear may cause PNG to breach its international law obligations. It is a common interest of State signatories to the ICSID Convention that having joined with ICSID the ICSID jurisdiction is irrevocable. Failure to respond may lead to many of the ICSID signatory States adopting counter-measures against PNG. The first ICSID conciliation case was 'Tesoro v Trinidad & Tobago'. In 1985 the sole arbitrator/conciliator prefaced his findings with a statement that he “conceive[d] that his task in these proceedings is to examine the contentions raised by the parties, to clarify the issues, and to endeavour to evaluate their respective merits and the likelihood of their being accepted, or rejected, in Arbitration or Court proceedings, in the hope that such evaluation may assist the parties in reaching an agreed settlement” (Nurick and Schably). Vailala

Good morning Dragos - here is some information on the support and activities of the PHAMA program. Please feel free to check out the website for more info: www.phamaplus.com.au https://phamaplus.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PHAMA_Impact_Report_e-copy-final.pdf

I have recently visited this site and find the document super interesting. For an ordinary individual who cannot be able to reach out to such educational tools to build them in their economic growth, this is a wonderful page. Great job team and keep up the good work of serving our people who needs such intellectual minds.

Thank you Honourable Minister. There have been many views on both sides of the debate regarding PACER Plus. I agree there is a strong possibility that the Pacific Island Countries will achieve the benefits and economic opportunities that they anticipate through the PACER Plus Agreement. There are, without a doubt, high expectations and optimism amongst the Pacific Island Countries that have ratified the agreement that PACER Plus will deliver. In that context, we should recognise and acknowledge that our Pacific governments would not have signed and ratified the agreement if they didn’t think it would provide the opportunities to develop and improve their economies, improve the standards of living and gain access to better education and health services. As an Australian-Pacific islander, I am excited about the prospects and opportunities through the agreement, which we won’t realise unless we give it a try and fine-tune based on monitoring and applying lessons learned! Under PACER Plus, creating an enabling environment that facilitates market access and trade for the Pacific island producers and manufacturers will be central to economic development in the Pacific Island Countries. Understanding and addressing the regulatory aspects of those markets are important to maintain access to those markets. These are core business functions of the PHAMA Plus program (www.phamaplus.com.au), an initiative of the Australian and New Zealand governments that has been implemented by DT Global since 2011 and has continued to provide technical advice and capacity building support to the private sector in Fiji, PNG, Solomon Islands, Samoa, Tonga, and Vanuatu and now including the Small Island States through PACER Plus to address the Sanitary and Phytosanitary aspects of market access. Some successes of the program are documented in an Impact report (please refer to the Impact report on the PHAMA Plus website). As a result of COVID19, there is a renewed level of interest in Agriculture for the Pacific Islands. For example, the high demand and associated price of kava is attracting the youth and family members who have lost their jobs back into Agriculture. Importantly, it's not all about the money and these activities have to be balanced with the approach to achieve sustainable agriculture, managing climate change risks, addressing food security and food nutrition, environment degradation, etc. To achieve this, the PHAMA Plus program is working with stakeholders from both the public and private sectors to develop nature-based solutions such as the use of multi-cropping and agroforestry systems to develop ecological system resilience to adapt to the impacts of climate change and improve soil health. Where these activities relate to market access and trade, the program is leveraging private sector investment to attain HACCP certification to meet food safety and market requirements. One topic I am hopeful that the PACER Plus Agreement will allow us to discuss and negotiate improved requirements for is the export of kava to the Australian market. The domestic markets in kava producing countries represent a large part of the kava sector, and in recent years we have observed the continued increase of kava exports to lucrative overseas markets. However, this has not included the Australian market where kava is regarded as a Prohibited Import under the Customs Regulations. Under the Australian government ‘Pacific Step’ policy, reducing restrictions on kava exports from the Pacific through the 2 kava pilots are being presented as symbolic gestures of goodwill. However Australia needs to have a fair and transparent approach to enhancing the regional trade of kava, in alignment with the principles and values of the Step Up and as part of the Pacific family. A separate article will discuss and highlight the challenges and opportunities relating to the kava sector and the market opportunities in Australia. Ia manuia le tausaga fou - wishing you a blessed and happy new year!

Nice to recruit direct

Despite PNG's economic boom led by extrative industries, almost 40 percent of the country's population lives in poverty. The Government has not taken sufficient steps to address gender inequality, violence, corruption, or excessive use of force by Police. We need help with our living expenses.

I was a student who selected to ITI-port moresby campus.therefore,I'm applying for loan for 2021

It is good to read the alternative entry points to engage different sectors of 'communities' outside of the traditional "community". It is a good blog article addressing important issues and it raises many discussion points. 1) Mapping entry points are needed to be accompanied by impact pathways of how those entry points lead to real adaptation at different levels of communities. This includes mapping how are you going to evaluate the success of adaptation actions that resulted from the use of specific or combination of entry points. Sometimes, the same entry points can pass on misinformation or there are lots of "information traps" between the entry points and decision making for impacts. 2) The entry points can be used to transfer many components such as technology, information, skills but it is crucial to understand how each of these "things" transferred through can fit into the decision-making process for adaptation? 3) Yes context is very important, and I am interested to know how can these entry-points outside of the traditional community contribute to improved decision making for adaptation at the traditional community level. Given that everyone is expected to return to their own village/community and apply the information, technology, skills, how do these entry points linked to the decision context at the household level, traditional community and traditional/modern governance processes - where different knowledge types, values, rules and powers interact? It is not community versus non-community but I think it is more of how the non-community engagement approach could link to traditional/non-traditional community processes and decision making to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of adaptations. Relying on the good governance to simply pick up and support the flow of information, knowledge, technologies through the entry points is oversimplifying and overgeneralizing the complex processes involved in making decisions on adaptation at different decision stops. 4) These might be alternative entry points for an adaptation project (funded) but how can they become normal entry points for everyday "Self-made risk reduction decisions"? I think we (adaptation practitioners in Pacific Islands) should go further beyond communities in the sense to focus on "household adaptation approaches and processes". We have been focusing on community approaches because of the traditional model of community engagement and mobilization. I think in this fast-evolving time, focusing on the traditional community is not enough as most of our people are moving to urban areas and informal settlements - beyond the well established traditional community engagement methodologies and approach. So we need to shift the basic unit of our adaptation actions and measurements - household. It is also the basic unit for measuring livelihood, poverty and many other SDGs. If we measure entry points and adaptations at community and household levels then we are not leaving anyone behind. Adaptation, risk reduction and livelihood decisions should be everybody's responsibility. Thanks again for bringing this important point for discussion.

I would be interested in finding out more details on the export side, as mentioned above within The Pacific Horticultural and Agricultural Market Access Program (PHAMA Plus). Thanks.