Comments

Lenize, thank you for your comments. It seems that we are talking about different types of sustainability. The context that I use is sustainability of the longer term viability of infrastructure delivery. It is the failure to ensure this (among other things) that leads to poorly spent aid funds. I like Pacific Islanders very much and their friendly, easy going lifestyle but while many aspects of the Pacific way of life have merit it should be kept in mind that aid is not forced upon these nations. It is willingly accepted. My emphasis is on infrastructure development which is not merely a tool to impose our 'better way of life' it is a means of delivering infrastructure which is safer and aimed at improving health, welfare, education and economic benefits. I saw first-hand schools that had collapsed in the 2005 earthquake in North Sumatra, killing up to 200 children. We re-built schools that were designed to resist earthquake loading. We built clinics and roads to get people to and from these facilities and to centres of trade. Cultural awareness in this type of work is paramount. It is not a matter of arrogantly assuming our way of life is better. The lives and welfare of these peoples are as valuable and as important as ours. They deserve infrastructure that will ensure their continued safety and well being. We need to find a way to deliver this more effectively.

Thanks Carolyn for this very much your practical work into the aid program across the globe. I have also worked in the aid program for the last 15 years but mainly in PNG; with GFATM, ILO, WB, EU and DFAT and particularly in the health and education sectors. I have a great deal of understanding in different services delivery models and across conflicting priorities all under the disguise of aid programs. While working with DFAT on the aid program over the last 5 years, I have a different understanding to the way the Australian Aid is delivered, especially in the Pacific. The policy view in Canberra currently is “Pacific step up”, thus increasing the development aid to the Pacific. This is more of a counteractive approach to the influence of China in the Pacific. Your point on “aid should go to where it is more effective” is a valid point. With my experience, I would add the term “selective engagement” to particular development program than spreading the aid across the different sectors. With my view on selective engagement, unlike Australian Aid, other aid programs are sector specific and fully committed on the particular sector to address a specific problem or development gap effectively. For Australian Aid, it spread across and encompass almost all the development sectors in a country or region. It may seen as appropriate for public diplomacy purpose but in terms of effective development, impact is less or thinly spread across the sectors. Selective engagement would be a better model of development, particularly for bilateral aid program.

I’m interested in your comments about the supposed “disengagement” of Pacific staff. I’ve never seen any serious research on this question, to unpack multiple possible causes (eg cultural obligations for workers that take precedence over workplace obligations; lack of instruction in local languages; lack of relationship building by consultants etc etc). Over many years, I’ve come to believe that many Pacific officials are just sick and tired of short term consultants arriving with pre-packaged “solutions” that might work well in a large country in Africa or South East Asia, but are completely unrealistic for a small island developing state. Add in a dash of cultural arrogance, and the easiest way to respond is to wait for the consultant to finish their contract and go away. The late Epeli Hao’ofa satirised this decades ago in Tales of the Tikongs, which should be required reading for anyone purporting to lead a team in the Pacific. Too many OECD consultants arrive seeing the challenge as a “Pacific” problem rather than a global problem that Pacific Islanders are responding to.

After reading this article by someone with so much experience in the field I am surprised at the tone of this article. The Pacific are Australia's direct neighbours and aside from political tugs of war with infrastructure, the Pacific live much more sustainably than anyone of us arrogant estern, developed nations people. The new civilised is to live as they do in a affluentsubsistence, self sufficient capacity with little to no carbon footprint. We are so superior thinking of them as clients because we give them money that is often politically motivated. But the fact of the matter is we arrogantly assume our way of life is better...not in terms of climate change it is not nor all the health issues when they begin eating western food. Maybe if we look at aid in supporting the local culture and their vision for developing that fits within their values and inherent strengths. Rather than their culture fitting our aid programmes. That would be money better spent. One day when our Western economy fails they will be ok. We will not. We will rely on traditional knowledge for the challenges that face us as a humanity. Issues of Climate Change and sustainability in rehabilitating the damage we have already inflicted on the earth and its people. Those at the cold face of this consumer driven western societies are the ones facing the effects of climate change already. The Pacific is extremely vulnerable in this regard and deserves us to continue to provide aid for our lack of climate change action and policy. They are reaping the destructive effects and will continue to in their daily reliance on the weather and the environment to survive.

Hi Carolyn, thankyou for this thought provoking article. I work in development in the Pacific, currently in Fiji. Could you please advise what metrics you would use to define VFM and how would you say the Pacitic compares by these metrics to say Agrica, as I understand you have also had experience there. It would be good to hear your comparison.

Thanks for your important question Steve. Since my background is in infrastructure I will restrict my comments to that aid sector. In my opinion there is little government/donor willpower to insist on accountability from recipient governments. Time and again I (and colleagues) have not been able to get even basic tasks done by local government staff (such as taking measurements on a construction site) nor to have them turn up for meetings, despite numerous requests. Additionally, donor government and embassy staff in country often have difficulty understanding the work that engineers do. I have seen instances where consultants with no tertiary background in engineering have been hired to oversee infrastructure works, for example. There is also often very little rigorous follow-up of projects and programs by the donor and equally little emphasis on maintenance programs. This results in infrastructure that sits and decays. These factors, and many more, lead to inefficiencies that create a dependence on aid rather than a local enhanced capacity to plan and deliver vital infrastructure unassisted. See also my previous comments.

Many thanks Lynne. You have made a good point bringing up the risks in an overemphasis in innovation in infrastructure rather than the delivery and community engagement. While innovation in infrastructure in the concept and design phase can lead to positive improvements in value for money and practicality, the whole process of delivery and community engagement and considerations of sustainability are vitally important. I have limited work experience in PNG but have lived and worked in the Pacific, Indonesia and African countries, where there is a village structure, for many years. I imagine that the approach we used in these other localities could easily be translated to PNG. One good example of innovative infrastructure that I have worked on was the Child Friendly Schools built by UNICEF following the 2004/5 tsunami and earthquake in Indonesia. These schools had a practical but innovative design concept that suited the climate and conditions and were built relatively cheaply to high engineering design standards. There were strict contractor oversight measure in place to ensure good quality construction and school and village communities were engaged and given comprehensive but realistic maintenance manuals to help ensure sustainability. In such locations (and this particularly includes the Pacific) this is an effective way to achieve buy-in of the community and to prolong the life of the asset. In my view one of the abiding priorities when delivering infrastructure to emerging economies is capacity building of local government staff and contractors. Too often, the aim is to build some item of infrastructure and consider this as an end product. If capacity of locals is not developed as part of this process then I would consider that the aid funding has not delivered value for money. In every locality I have worked in local contractors have needed to enhance their skills considerably in areas such as quality control, contract management, project management, financial administration, procurement, etc. If they don’t move forward with these skills they will never be able to compete with international contractors and will miss out on ever more lucrative contracts. As a consequence an important economic opportunity is lost, not merely for the contractors but for the local economy. Government employees who oversee infrastructure planning and delivery also need to have these same skills so that they can effectively oversee large projects and programs of work. It is also vital to have international engineers involved in any infrastructure program to ensure that good engineering design is incorporated and that quality requirements are strictly controlled. As an example of the need for high quality engineering throughout the life of an infrastructure project it is a sobering exercise to look at the construction of a school: once that school is built most of the construction faults will not be apparent until it fails in the next earthquake.

Agreed, but this does beg the questions why, what could be better assistance at whatever level of aid and, after some 40 plus years of this so-called “Pacific Paradox”, how could recipients and international agencies learn to do better?

Thank you for the information. Very insightful.

Very interesting read and insights, Carolyn. I recently learnt that the DFAT Innovations Fund in PNG was managed by the DFAT Infrastructure team. What is the risk in your view that this leads to an overemphasis on innovation in infrastructure (the physical assets) rather than innovations in delivery and community engagement, from my experience a formidable (larger?) challenge in PNG. Be very interested in your thoughts. Congratulations on a great article. Kind regards - Lynne Shori

Interesting read. I’m curious what sector the increased aid in the Pacific will go to. Australia is withdrawing aid that support women, girls, governance, capacity building etc. in Pakistan & Indonesia to increase its aid in the Pacific. Will the increased aid fund the same priorities it funded in these two countries? Or will it be directed towards infrastructure in the Pacific because that’s where the Chinese are investing?

This is a great post. It is quite helpful to us. As we all know that <b><a href="https://wildeinc.org/" rel="nofollow ugc"> women empowerment </a></b><b> has ushered all the way since its inception, this blog is relatable to that. Thank you.</b>