Comments

Thanks Casper, Good to hear from you. That's a very interesting comment about supporters being prioritised in charters. Thank you for sharing it. I hope all's well with you. Terence

Thanks Michael, Great comment. I agree - I hope CDF/DSIP funding isn't used politically. As you say it will be very interesting to see how the international community's response unfolds. Thanks for letting me know about the expats on yachts. I hope all's good. Terence

While the CDF is being used in Solomon Islands, I do agree with Terence that Clientelism is being practised still, as evidenced by charters being made for close supporters only and not for all constituents.

This is a good piece Terence. It’s good to see Solomon Islands using CDFs to move people (hopefully there’s no infected persons). In PNG, provincial governments were asked to develop plans on how to prevent/contain COVID-19. MPs are already allocating funds from CDFs to equip their provinces. During the drought some MPs politicized their CDFs in certain parts of PNG, giving funds to their supporters/voters. Hope that is not repeated. https://devpolicy.org/politicising-drought-relief-in-papua-new-guinea-20160118/ Apart from the risk posed by COVID-19, and poor health infrastructure, is the concerns over management of limited resources to fight COVID. PNG has requested K800 million from multilateral organizations. There may be greater accountability with these funds, with personnel from WHO, WB, ADB, IMF working together with the government. It may also set a template on how to work together in times of crisis. Crisis response in PNG has always been accompanied by accusations of poor mismanagement of limited resources. On a lighter note, it’s been fun reading about few expatriates sneaking into PNG on yachts for safety 😊.

Thank you James C, I really appreciate the links and the comments. You raise a great point with the conflict risk too. Thanks again. Terence

Thanks James B, great comment. Classic theory on state formation has it that countries sometimes improve governance, and move away from clientelism, when faced by external threats. Covid-19 seems like quite an external threat. And all around the Pacific we are seeing leaders take difficult decisions with a view to national welfare. That said, as you say, part of the response in Solomons seems to be use of CDF's. I think we both agree this may actually be useful in many ways. But it doesn't seem like a move away from clientelism. Then there's fairly recent example of PNG in the drought, which isn't encouraging. But, who knows, this is unprecedented, and unpredictable. Thanks again for a great comment.

An excellent article. Thanks Terence. PNG's borders are perhaps some of the more immediately concerning areas, especially that with Indonesia. PNG's National newspaper is doing some good reporting there: https://www.thenational.com.pg/security-at-borders%E2%80%89stepped-up%E2%80%89official/ and most recently https://www.thenational.com.pg/9-quarantined-after-crossing-border/. There are potential concerns for the disease itself, and using your formulation, economic and conflict risks there.

Thanks for this, a really interesting idea. One thing that I have been thinking about is what havoc this will wreak if it gets to vulnerable groups in refugee camps/informal settlements and other marginalised spaces. As developed countries are struggling to contain the disease, what hope do those in already fragile settings have? What strategies are being used to prepare, or respond? I noted COVID19 cases in Turkey for example are increasing rapidly, with a high population of refugees vulnerability would also be high. Another thing that I’ve been considering is rights violations in the policing of lockdowns/isolations, particularly in countries with poor records of human rights, and where those living in poverty or in marginalised populations are already facing rights violations. As well as the huge impact on the informal sector and the wider economy. There’s also the risks of increased domestic violence in countries where this is already a significant issue (including developed countries like Australia). Would be really interested to hear how people are working on these issues, or what approaches could be taken. I think the human toll of this will unfortunately extend well beyond those who die or are incapacitated by the illness itself.

Terence thanks for a thoughtful piece, as ever. While the immediate concern of everyone with an interest in the Pacific will of course be with the direct human impact, and how that can best be minimised, could I suggest a fifth lens through which we might consider the longer-term impact of coronavirus in the Pacific, that is its impact on governance? Clearly, it's early days yet but we are seeing some ways in which responses to the pandemic are driving innovation (https://www.rnz.co.nz/international/pacific-news/412992/vanuatu-livestreams-official-vote-count). This may be a temporary fix but it's possible that the pandemic response might turbocharge the development of e-government in some parts of the Pacific. On the other side of the ledger, concerns have been expressed (https://www.abc.net.au/radio-australia/programs/pacificbeat/pac-countries-lockdown-but-censorship-concerns-in-vanuatu/12095518) about the scope of Vanuatu's State of Emergency and in particular its impact on media freedom. In Solomon Islands you rightly note the role played by constituency development funds as a form of social safety net, however rough and ready. Solomon Islands media have reported that the government there has recently released funds to MPs to assist with the repatriation of Solomon Islanders from Honiara to their respective home provinces. There is precedent for this sort of ad hoc allocation in previous natural disasters in Solomon Islands. Bearing in mind that it's still very early days, so far the response to COVID-19 in Solomons would appear to have further entrenched the role of Members of Parliament as channels for the direct delivery of services to citizens.

VIRTUAL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION AUDITS INDONESIA The Improving Project Delivery (IPD) activity is a DFAT funded initiative managed by DT Global under the Indonesia Australia Partnership for Infrastructure (Kemitraan Indonesia Australia untuk Infrastruktur – KIAT) between the Governments of Australia and Indonesia. Design and construction audits are a key part of the project. With our team leader now in Australia, under direction from him the IPD team contacted our local counterparts to discuss their willingness to trial holding design audit meetings virtually. A pending design audit closing meeting was due to be held with officials in the North Sumatra province. Various approaches were considered, and it was agreed to proceed with Skype. The design audit closing meeting was held on Friday, 20 March 2020. It was attended by the IPD Design Audit team (based in Jakarta and working from home), along with the government staff and national project staff based in Medan and KIAT representatives based in Jakarta. Full video conferencing was available between all participants, as well as document sharing. The connections were stable throughout: freezing and dropping out were not problems. The design audit was successfully completed by the end of the day. An interesting innovation that came out of the meeting was an agreed pause for all Indonesian participants to take a break from the meeting to attend to prayer at the appropriate time at the various locations. Our initial piloting has now expanded to convene a session for Japayura last Friday, 27 March 2020, with each session involving up to 20 participants. Indonesia has 22 Balai (main Directorate General of Highways offices located away from Jakarta) serving all 34 provinces. Current indications are we will be able to serve each Balai that is included in the list of agreed projects. Shared by Vince Crosdale, Team Leader / Senior Highway and Bridge Specialist, on behalf of the IPD Team

Quick comment footnotes: I benefited from several people's advice in writing this. Thank you! After submitting the post, I was sent <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/30/papua-new-guinea-is-not-prepared-4000-nurses-to-strike-over-covid-19-readiness" rel="nofollow ugc">this</a> article from the Guardian about the shortage of PPE in PNG; it is very worrying. The blog represents my estimate of likely issues. I've erred on the side of pessimism in the past (my take on the Global Financial Crisis in the region was also bleak). Given this, here's my take on the best case scenario: the virus is kept out, meaning countries are spared the medical issues. Economic problems are inevitable, but perhaps they might be cushioned by a quickly recovered China, and village social safety nets/subsistence agriculture. Maybe a vaccine comes sooner rather than later. Even then, there will be a need for external assistance: tourism will be down for a long time, and not everyone has access to those safety nets. That's the best case scenario, not the most likely.

Our health system in PNG is weak and fragile. Deploy more health professionals, do more awareness on GLOBAL PANDEMIC situation COVID-19 basically on preventive measures since we do not have quarantine and isolation centres in PNG to cater for the infected ones and suspect cases.