Comments

Really a great post, thanks

It would be good if more significant/substantial partners reviewed us say Vietnam and/or Indonesia but then there’s the risk of being afraid of biting the hand that feeds. The other option is to have major players who don’t have an interest such as India or South Africa.

An important step forward to see Thailand included as an observer in the DAC peer review process. The Pacific Islands Forum adopted a similar peer review model between 2014-2017, with inclusive peer review teams featuring development partners, PIF members, and a regional CSO. Australia and New Zealand were the only two partners at the time who were peer reviewed under this model. Though short-lived, it offered valuable lessons on locally adapted, inclusive peer review on the effectiveness of development partner ODA in the Pacific, from a broader lens of actors and partners.

Good evening Sebastian, I was managing another new AusAID project that ran concurrently with the Land Titling Project. The team leader of this project became a good friend. I could contact her to see if she would share her reports. Would this contact be of interest? I also know the First Secretary (Aid) from this period very well. He has spent many years working in the Pacific. Again, he might be a useful contact. Regards, Bill

Hi Bill, thank you for taking interest in our piece and making the connection between our work and the urban land management plan from the 1990s. It’s always important to contextualise our work, which includes earlier efforts to navigate these complex issues. Are you talking about the Vanuatu Land Use Planning Project? If so, we are aware of this but have yet to track down a copy. If you have one, please share it if you can! Were you involved in this work in the 90s? It would be great to understand more about how the land use planning from that era might inform the current situation for current customary tenants. Would love to hear your thoughts either here or over email: sebastian.antoine[at]unimelb.edu.au

Thanks Theo, It's a good point: as well as evaluations, time needs to be made available to to design a project carefully, or at the very least, to make it adaptable if things aren't working. As you say, the superficial political incentives don't seem great. Although, given the PNG's proximity and instability, you'd think a politician not suffering from severe short-termism might want to take action.

Thanks Terence. If you are evaluating a project that has been designed poorly and is fundamentally flawed from the outset - hedged into the impossible four year implementation cycle and crafted by inexperienced consultants - the evaluation is going to follow suit. There are few political incentives within the DFAT apparatus and Australian government to actually invest in long-term change in PNG, or elsewhere for that matter. Not much of a chance for a handover and a Facebook post when you’re involved in the long process of research and consultation to actually design a program with some chance of impact.

Thank you, Stephen and thank you for the example, which is a good example of the challenges of development work.

If your comment is that "the conversation" means consulting with, and listening more to, the average person in PNG, I agree entirely.

Thank you Bryant.

Thanks Maho, It's great to hear that you've been involved in some good evaluations. More broadly with regards to Australian aid evaluations in PNG, some evaluations are great, but I think it fair to say that the quality of the average evaluation would be improved with more planning, time and rigour. I agree with you that it's not Australia's job to "fix" PNG, and that PNG's development trajectory will, for the most part, be influenced foremost by its own domestic political economy. However, Australia should still make its aid as effective as possible. If it does that it can play a meaningful role in assisting PNG with development challenges. Thanks again for the comment.

Hi Louise, I'm about to devour the comprehensive report and data sets you've provided and truly appreciate this (usually thankless) review and republication job. The task itself may be sufficient reward, but thankyou. My late father was in anthropology and sociology around the same era as this work. I myself am familiar with a 40-year time lag for research outputs from when I had to put a literature review together for pig production in PNG, and basically restarted what still appears to be a one-man R&D effort to date. Twenty years later the feed technology my colleagues and I worked on has some utility but a fair way to go for participating in effective pig and poultry value chains. As freelance researcher now in the R&D arena I'm at liberty to ask more questions, although asking the right questions remains a challenge as always. Food deficit in a country of apparent abundance is certainly a phenomenon worth questioning, although my experience is mostly personal observations in the urban setting and more intimate understanding from rural household surveys. Certainly the food deficit is not just about production in the agricultural sector, but also socioeconomic for livelihood options and social networks, value-chain development (not simply market access!) and may be an indication that the local economy has not reached a threshold for productivity gains. My current questioning is directed at finding means to increase poultry meat and eggs supplies to both rural and urban households. I hope to gain a better understanding of the household market dynamics for food and income distribution.