Comments

I think a key question here is what does this "mean" in terms of Chinese aid investments? Why the drop in aid expenditure? Have the Chinese made such an impact where they've formerly invested their aid support and are now allowing other "development elements" to "takeover" where they've reduced aid spend? Strategically what does this mean for China as well as the global donor community?

Fish can be one of the product that will contribute well to our economy but since that people don‘t manage well how they catch it that will lead to the extinction of it.

O'Neill fought hard, not smart. This would not have gone this far if he had submitted to police request to question him on the 16th of June 2014.

Hi Robin, Thanks for the summary. Very right to highlight some great progress on a number of health indicators (most notably since about 2005 when the MDGs and supportive funding really got going). In some ways, though, I think you are a bit harsh on the MDG Reports. For relatively short reports meant to cover lots and lots of info, it is great to have all that info in one place. I would rather the transparency of annual reports than getting data once every 5 years. And I would rather imperfect baselines or indicators on issues for which it is hard to collect great data than the alternative of no data at all. Of course it is full on UN-speak and is not as blunt as it could or should be but it is a UN document! Lastly, having the regional breakdowns is great. It really does highlight which regions are making progress against each indicator and which is not. It directs the reader to examine lagging regions in more detail. It is very clear where the MDG targets are and does not need to explicitly state that many regions are not meeting targets - it is very clear from the figures presented. Overall, the MDGs have been a success (compared to development progress in the 1990s) and the transparency of the annual reports is to be applauded. Joel

Yes, the acceleration story is an interesting and positive one, and it is odd that it is not told, even briefly, in the MDG Report itself. Overall, maternal mortality is estimated to have fallen by 45 per cent relative to the 1990 baseline, which might have been hailed as a triumph if the reduction target had not been set an an unrealistically demanding 75 per cent. Over the timeframe I'm considering above, which takes 'recent' to include only the last few years, there aren't enough data points to determine whether there has been further acceleration. My remark was really about relative performance against the child survival and maternal mortality targets: annual average reductions of eight per cent and four per cent, respectively, since 2010.

Thanks Aula, indeed these events like those previously, continue to question the extent to which the fundamental principles of Separation of Powers is accepted into PNG's socio-political structure.

This is a useful summary thanks Robin. I agree that we should keep one eye on the MDGs while also preparing for the post-MDGs. A closer look at maternal mortality indicates that recent progress has been good. A <a href="http://bit.ly/1jr9vWb" rel="nofollow">recent study</a> by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation found "The global annual rate of change in the MMR was –0.3% (–1.1 to 0.6) from 1990 to 2003, and –2.7% (–3.9 to –1.5) from 2003 to 2013, with evidence of continued acceleration."

Hi Daniel, I think that's unduly negative. Obviously all elements and impacts of the scheme require evaluation, but the focus of this piece was on development impacts in sending communities. In addition, there's plenty of evidence to suggest the the RSE is a huge boost to local economies in NZ. Prior to the introduction of the scheme, the horticultural industry estimated that the shortage and poor quality of labor was annually costing NZ$180-300 million in lost output and NZ$140-230 million in <a href="http://goo.gl/VfrDkA" rel="nofollow">lost value added</a> (p. 174). Plugging that gap has undoubted value for local workers in terms of job-creation. These effects are difficult to observe precisely because they are indirect, but it's unfair to dismiss them on that basis. If you're interested in reading more on this Michael Clemens gives a good overview <a href="http://goo.gl/jt9Is0" rel="nofollow">here </a>and there's also some initial research from a New Zealand context <a href="http://goo.gl/ecwmox" rel="nofollow">here </a>(pp. 16-20). Luke.

Its a great shame you are not interested in the negative impacts this scheme has had on the regions of new Zealand where the RSE scheme is most popular. Come and talk to the workers who have had 30% + cuts to contract rates, shortened seasonal work and being displaced by RSE employees.

Firstly, the current crisis appears to give rise to another profound crises, "the State no longer has the teeth to bite". Secondly, the recent position taken by the new Attorney General in saying that the payment paid to Paraka Law is legal to a certain extent can be seen a renewal of 2011 political impasse: supremacy of Executive versus Judiciary arms of Government. ...I would have thought that the Executive Government decision in creating a duplicate of the Ombusdman Commission has back fired...

An excellent piece - thank you Wadan for continuing to talk truth to power.

This is one of the best article I have read so far on the current political crisis in PNG. Excellent analysis and logically presented outlining most of the much needed clarifications. Readers will find it very helpful. Keep it up!