Comments

I would be very grateful, to be involved in the discussions around TB control and other activities. I am a TB Survivor, TB challenger and TB destroyer with knowledge and experience.

Hi Terence, The CDF history in the Solomon Islands is as old as the country attaining self rule. Prior to that, service delivery was through traditional mechanisms or vested with sector departments. By 2006, the paradigm shifted to a model that elected representatives know better to their constituents and so it was adopted with the establishment of Ministry of Rural Development in 2007. Other Pacific nations were probably ahead by then, for instance PNG with the Slash Fund, and so over time it became apparently that getting assistance is tied to voting in your favored candidate. The existence of vulnerable groups much in need of government services in health and education are still isolated. The SISAC is currently supported by European funding to "improve social accountability in Solomon Islands" and quite optimistic to have establish the foundation for the pacific region through this project. SISAC is a coalition of 10 national CSOs have started with institutional strengthening. It is exploring during its duration to reach rural communities and will do so through partnership with state institutions/ministries. It is taking up the challenge as a national CSO comprising registered civil society groups and non-government organisations to promote social accountability in Solomon Islands. It will cover the CDF, Health, Education and Youth for a start, focusing of budget transparency and accountability. It is up to the challenge, but counting on the nationally sourced expertise and learning from across the globe. Thanks for this information Simon

Hi Sue, Yes there are elements which favor CDFs to stay in the Solomon Islands or other pacific nations, and apparently the foremost is help that is available with voting. While many more vulnerable groups exist, government programs are designed in isolation, so the intervention is a mismatch to the need. The Solomon Islands Social Accountability Coalition (SISAC) is currently supported by European funding to "improve social accountability in Solomon Islands" and quite optimistic to have establish the foundation for the Pacific region through this project.

Hi Bill, Thank you -- that's a fascinating comment. Like you, I imagine that knowledge about spending is much greater in Malaita Outer Islands than it is in Central Honiara, simply because there are fewer people for knowledge to flow through. Thinking quickly off the top of my head -- it could explain the effect. Also, because CDFs are the same amount, regardless of constituency size, in smaller constituencies maybe it's simply easier for MPs to spend well on everyone (if they're inclined to spend well). Thanks again Terence

Hi Sue, Thank you for your interesting comment. Like you I'm a fan of social accountability approaches where they work. It would be fascinating to trial something of this nature in Solomons. My only reason for thinking this wouldn't work is that successful MPs seem already to be very accountable (at least in my experience) but only to their supporters. The challenge would be to broaden the sphere of accountability to everyone in the electorate. I'd like to think it could be done. It would certainly be a good area for impact evaluations. Thanks again for your comment. Terence

Thanks for your analysis, Terence. It seems that a core issue is low transparency and accountability by MPs regarding use of CDFs for the common good and wellbeing of the constituency. Perhaps in smaller constituencies it is harder for incumbents to disguise biases in spending, whereas in average/larger constituencies this is more possible?

Really interesting to hear of this evaluation and your analysis. CDFs in the Pacific are unfortunately probably here to stay and as I understand among the largest in the world. From many years working in PNG, I am convinced that supporting community monitoring of the CDFs through social accountability can contribute to improving CDF accountability and transparency. As a global social accountability adviser and previously a DFAT program adviser, I have been promoting proven social accountability approaches to DFAT in the Pacific since 2008. World Vision are currently working on this with Oxfam in Solomons at the moment. But our experience from Africa (Kenya in particular) suggests that social accountability focussed on informing communities about the CDFs and facilitating greater access to lobbying MPs on their use or usually misuse can lead to greater accountability in use of the funds. I am not sure where PGF are at these days, but I have been lobbying to them for many years to consider existing approaches we have successfully promoted in Madang PNG and got greater service responsiveness. CARE also use these approaches though not so much in the Pacific until recent times as I understand, but we have a global partnership to leverage our joint impact on this work. World Vision has the greatest global social accountability footprint with more than 600 programs in more than 48 countries and studies from Oxford, Columbia, John Hopkins (including RCTs) to validate the impact of this work. This is now supported by a 2016 DFID macro evaluation which showed this work 'almost always' impacted service delivery, and a new 3IE systematic review in May this year also validating effect on service delivery. The jury is still out on demonstrating impact on longer causal chains to development outcomes, but in the Pacific any improvement in service delivery is desperately needed.

H Joe, Thanks for your comment. This type of information is, as you say, very important, but the database focuses on election results, meaning it isn't quite it's area. If you (or anyone else who is interested) want to learn about election costs you can get some information from the 2018 evaluation of Australian electoral assistance: https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Documents/evaluation-of-australias-electoral-assistance-to-png-2015-17.pdf Also, this earlier evaluation has some excellent cost information: https://dfat.gov.au/about-us/publications/Pages/independent-evaluation-of-australian-electoral-assistance-in-papua-new-guinea-2000-2012.aspx Finally, the PNGEC's post 2017 report on the elections also has very in depth and useful information, although I do not know if a final version of the report has been published. Thanks again for your comment. Terence

I just checked into this PNG electoral commissions database. I believe you also must have assessed the cost factor for the overall elections since 2002. Meaning, that if you have any, the cost of elections specified. Each respective election years can be also included in the database. That would help the Government to make key financial decisions on future election preparations.

Thanks Kylie for this piece - a thoughtful discussion point. The simple question the new PNG PM should ask is this - Why did the initial uprising start in Bougainville? What was the reason Sam Kouna and Francis Ona started the uprising in the late 1980s? The uprising started when most of us were still in primary school, even PM Marape was in high school at that time. People like Somare, Momis and Paul Lapun were at the peak of their careers when the uprising started; an uprising that later turned into a crisis. Now we are educated enough to understand the Bougainville issue, most of us believe the original reason was not for independence or greater autonomy, it was actually a fight against Rio Tinto, the developer of the Bougainville Copper mine for its unfair dealings with the local resource landowners. In the 1960s and 1970s, Bougainville did stand up for segregation from the rest of PNG, but never started an actual war with the PNG authority. The leaders of today in Bougainville, except Momis, did not understand the original reason for the 1980s uprising started by Sam Kouna and Francis Ona. The leaders of today in Bougainville are concerned with the huge casualties faced and the valuable property destroyed during the crisis by PNG's own Defence Force. The PNG government used its own army to cause mass destruction to the island. That is why the Bougainvilleans today reject the rest of PNG and want to stand on their own. Instead, the PNG government should have mediated between Rio Tinto and the landowners and resolved the crisis in the 1980s. In Waigani, instead of critically looking at the reasons of the crisis, the government quickly proposed greater autonomy and a referendum on independence as options to win the hearts and minds of the Bougainvilleans. What about Rio Tinto? Though, the mining giant left the island, the scar of destruction and casualties caused still vividly mesmerised the next generation of Bougainville. Without addressing the original reason, we cannot find a lasting solution to the island. If the call for greater autonomy or self-govern is granted to the Island; what could most likely trigger is opening floodgates for more autonomy in the Islands and Highlands of PNG, not just Bougainville. The new PM ought to critically assess the Bougainville issue. His message of “take back PNG” includes integrating Bougainville island into one united PNG. He will be remembered for taking that bold stand. PM JM could make unpopular and unconventional decisions like the US President to be harsh and upset other neighbours in the interim but worthwhile for the future of PNG.

But what they all agreed to was a non-binding referendum.

What we have been trying to do since the whiteman and now Asian came to this region called "Pacific or Oceania" is that we (Melanesian, Micronesian, Polynesian and Aborigines Australian) always try to see our ourselves through the definitions and images projected from the mind of the whiteman and Asian. Please see that we are the colonial definitions. We don't have our own definitions about who we are, what we are, where we come from and where we are going. In fact, we are actually the "victim of definition" itself. Be careful, do not define Oceania through the ideas of whiteman.