Comments

Great piece. However should be transformative - not informative - in this section: "All countries, with no caveats, must agree to take decisive and informative action to reduce global emissions".

Forgot to leave the URL for the ADB report: Search Results Web results https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/430171/tourism-growth-pacific.pdf %2Fwww.adb.org%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublication%2F430171%2Ftourism-growth-pacific.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3E8d9UsM6kDuTp50s9_R8d

James, Great summary of the key issues and opportunities for tourism in Kiribati. While the purchase of the Embraer planes will be helpful, developing sustainable tourism there will require, as you have rightfully emphasized, a broader approach to address the multiple issues involved. My associate, Dain Simpson, and I were contracted by the Asian Development Bank in 2016-17 to conduct a strategic tourism diagnostic of six Pacific island nations. Alas, Kiribati was not one of them, although it was when we conducted a 12 country study for the International Finance Corporation. A summary of our ADB work was published as an "Issues in Pacific Development" report in June 2018, much of which is directly relevant for Kiribati. It would be great to see tourism develop further for Kiribati. Best wishes, Scott Wayne

Hi Simon, are you working with SISAC? Be interested to take this conversation offline. I am suzanne_cant@wvi.org. Cheers Sue

Hi Simon, Thank you very much for the information -- it's really interesting to know about. Terence

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.