Comments

Of course you're right, Jay, that small states would be unlikely to get a bite of the GCF under any allocation arrangements that privileged tonnes of emissions avoided or numbers of people protected from climate-related harms, and therefore gave no weight to sovereignty. If an implementing agency (like the ADB!) were to find a clever way of sweeping them all under a single regional adaptation bid, and could get the costs low enough, maybe. Mitigation funding would certainly be beyond reach. But I don't think that's such a terrible thing given that the GCF houses and will always house only a minority of the available funds. I think too much angst has been devoted to the question of how small states might access big funds. Perhaps it's better to simplify life for the big funds, and let them try to give substance to the claim that their investments are transformative, while making separate and more local or regional arrangements for small island states.

Have a positive attitude and mind set towards the development of PNG. If we want to change our nation, the change must begin in our mind before actions are implemented. God bless PNG.

Thanks for the very informative article. One question: how do you think Pacific countries would fare if the GCF does not adopt some kind of 'inter-country equity'? My own view is that it would seem that their "numbers" - in mitigation (C02 reductions) or adaption (total # people saved) - would never really amount to an attractive proposal to the GCF. And that would discriminate against Pacific countries, who have very real and urgent climate issues to address. Your thoughts appreciated!

The suitability or otherwise of Wonder Woman is only part of the issue. International celebrity ambassadors were novel once, but not any more. Barely a day goes by without some famous person in logo cap and t-shirt weeping into their cornflakes about the cause they have just embraced. Although they are billed as having international reach, many are barely known outside the western world. Regional and national celebrities may provide a more authentic voice for their cause. <a href="http://www.unicef.org/people/people_ambassadors.html" rel="nofollow">Here's a long list</a> from UNICEF of their ambassadors in various places. <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/jun/26/celebrity-ambassadors-charities-debate" rel="nofollow">This article from 2011</a> looks at the wider debate about ambassadors. While <a href="https://www.unjiu.org/en/reports-notes/archive/JIU_NOTE_2006_1_English.pdf" rel="nofollow">this 2006 UN report</a> [pdf] makes recommendations about the future of use of goodwill ambassadors -- it is unclear what suggestions, if any, were acted on.

Ashlee, Camilla It is so good you wrote this yet what a shame it ever needed to be written! While I observe your comment in other media as this being a "rant" I think otherwise...it is an articulate expression of your frustration (on behalf of others, the many) of the idiocy of an organisation that should know better. Maybe there is a method in their madness as you observe that raising the vibration on conversations is good - but I agree that of all the ways in which this important global issue could be prioritised, this seems polar from the better options. I also comment, with some embarrassment, that as a male my voice was slow to condemn - no excuse, just slow. Thank you for not being silent. M

This is an amazing movement being seen in Papua New Guinea, agreeing upon everyone less in this discussion. I'm currently doing a campaign about technology, mostly upon mobile phones and presenting unknown and unseen experiences and talents that can only be shown outside of the digital space. I also will raise some concerns upon the future with this movement of bringing social media into PNG, as PNG can offer a range of hidden talents that aren't shown to a range of countries until they have experienced the culture. The new addition of social media being a part of PNG will increase connectivity, but will it further extend the usage being seen upon younger generations in the near future? And will they still be able to reconnect with traditions? For further information on my campaign, I will leave them below. Thank you. https://www.facebook.com/stopmadtech/ https://twitter.com/LMTM2016 https://letsmakethemove.wordpress.com/

Hi Jordi, I am PNGn but from another part of the country. I have just completed a three year assignment in kokopo. You are in for the best, kokopo is the best town in PNG, it has most of what we would consider as basic services and among if not the safest. It is a beautiful par of the world and your only main challenge would be the earth tremours and occaisonally earth quakes. Most or all the expats that visit kokopo always want to return so I will not be surprised that you will too. I can provide many other details but I should leave the rest for you to pleasntly surprise ypurself.

Hi Monique, Thank you for your comment. My rough estimate on the basis of the data I have is that about 10% (maybe as many as 15%) of voting age Australians donate to aid NGOs in any given year. The number would be higher, obviously, if we took a longer period, say once every 3 years. If you want detailed info on Australian government aid spending please see the Devpolicy <a href="https://devpolicy.org/aidtracker/" target="_blank">Australian Aid Tracker</a>. Also, ACFID have a great map of where their members (most Australian aid NGOs) work. I can't find it at present (in haste as I'm travelling) but it is on <a href="https://acfid.asn.au/" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">their website</a> somewhere. Thanks again for your comment. Terence

Hello everyone; My name's Jordi I'm Spanish and I'm going to be relocated to PNG in January 2017. My employer is sending me to Kokopo. I've been living in China for the last 20 years so I am not new in the expat life but I would like to know what is it like in Kokopo and if some of you guys can give me some tips on do's and don'ts. Thanks

This process might perhaps be better described as polarisation than fragmentation The larger agencies have tended to merge (presumably to foster growth and reduce overheads) while smaller agencies are being established and closed all the time. Much of the innovation in NGOs tends to come from smaller agencies because they can often respond more quickly to changing needs and priorities and pick up on new approaches. Larger NGOs inevitably become more bureaucratic, whether they wish to or not. Being taken over is not necessarily a sign of failure. Brand names are important. A reputation is hard earned and translates into revenue, but the support base will often follow the organisation into a new format. In the corporate world there are many examples of both plural and consolidated brands. VW Group, for instance, trades under several brand names (VW, Audi, Skoda, SEAT), while BMW and Daimler Benz have a single brand. Many small NGOs reach the limits of what they can do with the resources available to them and can benefit from being absorbed into a larger entity with greater resources. In addition, many smaller entities are driven by the one or two people who established them and often cannot survive the demise or retirement of these key people. In my corporate experience (I was for more than a decade a market analyst and corporate strategist) there are some mergers (the Brown Boveri-ASEA merger to form ABB is an example), but they are actually rare. Most mergers are in fact takeovers and if this is not the case the internal disputes over power, administrative systems and culture can soon bring the new entity down.

Thanks for your comments Elizabeth. There's a lot to be said about the points you raise, and it would be great to see them explored further. Would you be interested in contributing some of your experiences/thoughts? We're always looking for contributors to the blog. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss further, offline: grant.walton@anu.edu.au ANU and UPNG have been doing further research on service delivery and corruption in PNG and will be writing about our findings in the coming months. Some of what we'll be writing on touch on the important issues you raise, but it would be great to hear from those with other experiences. Best, Grant

As a planning student in W.A who is currently undertaking a unit in International Development as an elective, I must say: to read about a quantifiable study that assesses international aid in Australia and Australia’s perception to aid, I found this article quite refreshing, albeit disappointing. Whilst I understand that Australia is still in a position that requires significant work on the home soil (and whilst I do not hold myself out to be an expert in Australian economics or finance), surely we as a nation can afford to better the development of others, especially those who are substantially worse off than we?! I also read Terence’s blog posted in 2015: <a href="https://devpolicy.org/what-do-australians-think-about-foreign-aid-20150903/">What do Australians think about foreign aid?</a> This was particularly eye-opening. To discover that the Australian federal government donates less than 1% of the federal budget was particularly boggling. I also have to question people’s willingness to dig into their own back pockets. With 75% of Australian’s supporting the government’s decision to provide foreign aid (<a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2652559" rel="nofollow">Burkot & Wood 2015</a>), would they themselves actually donate? I doubt it. I expect only a small proportion of that 75% would be willing to open their own purses. Whilst I think providing Australia’s with the necessary information as to how much money is spent via Australian and British governments is a must, perhaps more information is required. I know that I would like to know where exactly the money is going, how many people it is likely to help, who it will help, that it will be for long term development purposes that will ultimately help the country stand on its own feet in the years to come, rather than just short term ‘fixes’.