Comments

Whatever happened to the Pacific Regional Infrastructure Facility (PRIF)? As the name suggests, this was the mechanism used by Australia, Japan and the ADB for infrastructure projects in the islands, before it was overshadowed by China's AIIB. Where is the analysis of PRIF and the pluses and minuses of projects it has funded in past years? How will PRIF relate to the new Asia-Pacific mechanism (merger, takeover, co-ordination?)? Why a new mechanism - is it simply to persuade Washington that the America's JANZUS partners are acting on China??

Thank you very much Prof Stephen Howes for this interesting, informative blog post. Thank you also to Sarah Pearson, Chief Innovation Officer, DFAT, for providing a detailed response. I was really interested to read both the blog post and the responses. I hope this discussion will help to generate positive outcomes for the people in our region who need them the most. Amanda 🙂 Dr Amanda Watson Lecturer Australian National University

It seems evident from the African experience - and Dr. Gillwald's comments - that this policy will have little effect on crime or security, but *will* make it easier to monitor (and possibly suppress) online dissent. It's hard to see how this benefits citizens. Even worse - although a delay has been granted for rural areas, it's almost certain that one effect will be to make connectivity and access more difficult for those who live in remote locations. This would effectively erase one of the most important benefits of telecommunications for PNG.

Thanks Stephen for an interesting blog post. The term innovation, at least as used in the world of aid, is popular because it sounds like something exciting that the private sector does. To the extent that the private sector does innovate in ways that are welfare enhancing, this works, at least to some extent, because market mechanisms provide quite good feedback. (That is, if the new widget is useful people will buy it; if it isn't they won't). The trouble with aid is, of course, that equivalent feedback loops are missing. There is a potential alternative though that could help with the work the iXc: high quality impact evaluations. These should be pre-registered and built into the design phase of iXc projects. Public reporting should be mandatory. Evaluations needn't be RCT's; just the best possible method for gauging the impact of the project at hand. The evaluations would be quite costly, but that would be a small price to pay for the learning that ought to be part and parcel of this type of work. Terence

Hi Amanda, Very well presented on SIM Card deactivation process going on here in Papua New Guinea. From my perspective I still see a need for Telecomunication Companies and NICTA to do more awareness to the rural population in the remote parts of this country so that the people are well informed and aware of it.

Relying on landowner allegations as reported by journalists and the allegations of bloggers and some anthropologists who may have an interest in muddying the waters can lead to confusion. It’s necessary to form a clear picture of the different legal regimes applicable to Infrastructure Development Grants (IDGs) and Business Development Grants (BDGs). That the State has the power to make grants is unquestioned. The petroleum project grants are given effect in the various MOAs/MOUs that are signed with landowners and their representatives. The legal basis on which these grants are made is covered by Oil&Gas Act S173. Ss173 (1)-(4) refers to IDGs which are made to Provincial Governments and Local-level Government. These grants are subject to the approval of the Expenditure Implementation Committee. It is the State’s intention that these grants be taken up by landowner companies under the public contract system. Since the right to win a contract tender is linked to MOA/MOU identified landowners there has been litigation between landowner groups/companies as to the contract participation rights conferred on identified (or not yet identified) project area landowners by an MOU/MOA. For discussion of some the issues that may be involved please see- Walapali v Parindali [2007] PGNC 54; N3172 (16 January 2007)(http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2007/54.html). For Business Development Grants (sometimes referred to as ‘seed money’) O&G Act S173(5) provides - (5) The State may, in addition to grants made to affected Local-level Governments or affected Provincial Governments under this section, make grants to project area landowners or customary owners of land in a petroleum project area. A fetter is placed on the State’s discretion under O&G Act S174 which limits the total net benefits granted by the State to Provincial Governments, Local-level Governments and landowners to not more than 20% of the total net benefit to the State from any project. For BDG (‘seed money’) a relevant case is Hiwa Tuguba Joint Venture Ltd v Vele [2016] PGNC 415; N6782 (21 December 2016) (http://www.paclii.org/pg/cases/PGNC/2016/415.html). This case acknowledges O&G Act S173(5) and the relevancy of the MOU - Hides PDL1 Landowner License Based Benefits Sharing Agreement. Justice Hartshorn found that the legal basis for the contested payment of a BDG was an NEC decision. NEC decision NG 53/2012 provides that one entity, Hides PDL1 Holdings Limited, is the entity that is to receive K29.28 million in BDGs for Hides PDL1. Justice Hartshorn dismissed the plaintiff’s claim that the Department of Commerce Trade and Industry had a decisive role in the grant of a BDG. [T]he NEC decision NG53/2012 is clear in that it directs the Department of Treasury and Department of Finance to allocate the BDGs. Any obligation that the Department of Commerce Trade and Industry may have had in administering the BDGs on behalf of the State had been discharged or superseded by the NEC decision. The Secretary of the Department of Commerce, Trade and Industry did not have the authority to bind the State. Further guidance as to the status of an NEC decision is provided by The Constitution - S86(2) ... the Head of State shall act only with, and in accordance with, the advice of the National Executive Council, (4) The question, what (if any) advice was given to the Head of State, or by whom, is non-justiciable. Hides PDL 1 Holdings Limited has now morphed into the Hides Gas Development Company (HGDC). The HGDC lists 13 area-based landowner companies (including Angore Corporation) as shareholders. Much further information can be gained from the company web-site. An important function of the HGDC shareholders is to provide area-based labor hire services for HGDC LNG Project field service and development contracts, including Infrastructure Development Grant contracts funded by the developer under the tax credit scheme. Is the BDG scheme generally a success? It seems there has been a good measure of success, bearing in mind that small business development schemes are never 100% successful, even in Australia. The rise of the HGDC may be seen as a successful outcome of a process of trust-building between the project developer and the project host community and the consequential creation of trust relationships between diverse landowner groups. These things are foundational for the development of effective local and provincial politics and the creation of local development initiatives. The rise of the HGDC also illustrates a sometimes overlooked fact that tradition-based societies may often use their traditions as an inspirational basis for rapid modernisation. The O’Neill government has strongly supported the role of provincial and local initatives for service delivery and local development. Many Southern Highlanders and Hela people are strongly committed to grasping the opportunities presented by the LNG Project to initiate local development and reduce poverty. The blog post authors mention the ‘Hela way of menacing’. Is this a form of ‘racial profiling’? Or, should I regard the whole blog post as an example of the ‘Aussie way of menacing’? Vailala

Thanks Stephen for your review and for sharing your thinking with us. Great to have your support and input – iXc has been an experiment, an innovation itself, so we’d expect not to get it all right, and learning from external opinions is valuable – so thanks again. As DFAT’s new Chief Innovation Officer though I obviously have to make a few comments. iXc has been operational for just over 3 years now with an early focus on trialling new approaches, seeking new ideas, attracting others to invest in our region and finding new partners. We’ve done a great job of that: • supported 106 innovative programs sourced from around the world through global challenges, applied in 32 countries in the Indo-Pacific; • delivered 3 internal Ideas Challenges, generating over 500 DFAT staff ideas, of which over 100 proceeded to implementation; • attracted investment usually focussed on other geographic regions to the Indo-Pacific (e.g. partnership in the Global Innovation Fund has directed 67 per cent of their investments into the Indo-Pacific region, and overall leveraged over USD150M of follow on funding); • Worked closely with private sector partners such as Google and Atlassian; • In July, one of the technology innovations we have supported, Tupaia, won the Digital and Data award in the 2018 IPAA Innovation awards and was identified as a “game-changer” for how Australian aid is delivered. This has been a very broad approach, and you are right, diversity of experimentation has made managing this challenging. But, in the early days of such an entity, in startup phase, when you don’t know where the demand or supply will lie, it is a good idea to experiment broadly and see where the uptake is. The beauty of the Open Innovation approach we have used (through Challenges) is that you don’t need to be an expert in all fields – the ‘global crowd’ and our collaborating partners are. As you state, we are focussing in on a few areas in our recently launched DFAT Innovation Strategy. We are also looking at how we scale some of the early stage ideas we have supported – we have experimented with how to access ideas, now we need to build our capability regarding scaling the ones worth scaling. Lots for us to develop, such as decision methods for which ones would benefit from further support, and who to support them as DFAT will not necessarily be best placed to do that. With regard to your comment on communicating more about our projects and journey, this is something we are addressing in the new DFAT Innovation Strategy – it’s a key pillar and I personally am highly engaged in this. Check out one of my speeches from this year where I start to talk about our journey (which you can find here https://psn.webcastcloud.com.au/Mediasite/Play/2b056ac888e54e68bc5079e3aae1a3681d and on our iXc resources page – recognising I’d been in the role only a few weeks so still had lots to learn) - I am lined up for more of these. We are also working on podcasts and short videos so that interested parties can get bite size info. Another of our four new pillars is evaluation and learning – we have an external entity evaluating our programs (initiated earlier this year), and have M&E incorporated into our individual projects. We are about to set up a Champions network and hope that this will be a channel to share lessons learnt across DFAT. We are also an active member of the International Development Innovation Alliance (IDIA), where we share lessons learnt with like-minded donors (such as USAID, DIFID and Gates Foundation). We have also engaged in the usual DFAT internal processes of Aid evaluation such as AQC. And finally, I think we will probably disagree on our definitions of innovation – a much debated word. As you suggest, iXc has been focussing on new technological solutions to development problems and greater engagement with the private sector. Some of the ideas we have supported are not radical innovations, but in the context of their application they may as well be; and in terms of partnering with the private sector have been highly valuable, drawing new investment into our region. Innovation encompasses much more than technology solutions. It also encompasses doing our work differently, and the piece that excites me most, helping people in the Indo-Pacific to innovate themselves. We have started working with entrepreneurs, investors and governments to help grow the necessary innovation infrastructure to allow people to solve their own challenges, build their own economies. Check out this video of entrepreneurs who are changing the shape of their world (you can find the link here https://ixc.dfat.gov.au/projects/scaling-frontier-innovation/). So change is happening, building on our valuable early experience. We are treading this path with others - USAID for instance has been on a similar journey and we are learning with them. We expect our early experimentation to take a while to reap benefits – that’s experienced globally, inside government and industry innovation entities and labs. The important thing is to keep doing – innovation is a verb – to pursue it consistently and collaboratively with agility and for long enough to reap the benefits.

Hi Amanda, Simcard registration yields dividends, however, it has associated with challenges. Uganda embarked on Sim card registration nearly five years ago but the exercise was delayed until the government introduced national identity cards in 2014 for clear identification of customers. Apart from managing security – which was the major objective of the exercise – telecom firms are now better positioned to offer numerous services including micro-credit to customers without asking for collateral because they know their customers well. The Uganda Communications Commission(UCC) and telecom firms are now able to trace individuals who commit crimes using their mobile phones. With Simcard registration, SIM card boxing or grey traffic which involves incoming international calls into the country without paying excise duties to the government, has reduced as fraudsters now fear that they can easily be netted. UCC has engaged the operators and advised them to buy Fraud Management and Revenue Assurance Software which both MTN and Airtel have done to be able to dismantle SIM card boxing,” he said. “The other players are expected to do the same. The introduction of social media and mobile money tax in Uganda has however, downplayed the realization of Simcard registration dividends.

https://www.communications.gov.au/have-your-say/review-australian-broadcasting-services-asia-pacific There is a push for some submitters to start DRM transmissions because of its clear sound, text, images (from the RA website) and emergency warning facilities. Also the frequency switch at sunrise and at sunset can be automated in receivers. Submissions close on 07:00 this Friday UTC. 17:00 AEST

Thank you, Miranda and Fiona, for a really useful couple of posts on the cultural complexities of running workshops when dealing with competing world views. Your observations and analysis are extremely valuable and I shall be adapting your ideas to my work.

Beware PNG Police at APEC, they may even arrest Donald Trump for faking his identity if the money looks legal tender!

Hi Chris, Thanks for your comment. I think you're likely correct and that the claims about poverty and hunger come from Hickel. I'm familiar with his research and more general claims. The critiques he makes of the MDGs (and the broader argument that some seem to have been retrofitted for success) sound plausible. But then again so do William Easterly's claims that the MDGs were constructed in a such a way as to make improvements in many African countries seem like failure: https://www.brookings.edu/research/how-the-millennium-development-goals-are-unfair-to-africa/ Global goals are imperfect at best. More importantly, in most of the areas of human development captured by the goals, progress was made in most parts of the world. This is true regardless of flaws in poverty lines chosen or yardsticks of progress, or whatever. In the case of poverty and hunger, data indicate real improvements. You can check this out yourself from the links in my blog post. One final point: Hickel often makes his arguments in terms of absolute numbers. (i.e. the absolute number of poor in the world). But given the world's population is growing, speaking in terms of percentages (% in poverty) makes a lot more sense if you want to track development progress. Terence