Comments

Congratulations on a discussion which hits a key issue in the future of PNG. in the areas I know DSIP and its control has led to almost total collapse of the system of Ward Development Committees and Local-level Governments. The sections which should be relevant in the OLPGLLG and the LLG Administration Act have ceased to have any real meaning. The Ward Committees see little point in preparing Ward Development Plans which are never considered by a LLG which hardly ever meets. 1/19 Ward Development Committees has prepared a plan - in 2010 and which has never been considered by the LLG. The LLG has met once or twice since the August 2013 General LLG Election. the second meeting has been disputed - whether it ever happened - or it was a few Members chosen to support a budget? - no one could give copy of the budget or minutes of the meeting - or agenda. . The LLG has not appointed the required women members. The LLG President - who is related to the Provincial Governor's third wife has been in the Provincial Capital since the last meeting. A relative said that he has been given such extensive work by the Provincial Governor that he has never had time to return to the LLG area - but could not tell me what the work is. The now Provincial Governor when standing for election had brought a sledge hammer to the LLG Council Chamber - and demolished the outside walls. This was his promise to build a new Council chamber when elected - and a better and more effective Council to be a voice of the people. The LLG Council Chamber remains as before - with its fractured wall. The Open MP when standing for Election went round the villages stating that eh was going to introduce a haus man system where each village could debate its future. I visited a village which had then built a haus man - but the Open MP has never returned to the LLG area. The Open MP nominates three members of the JDPBPC. This allows him with his casting vote and the support of his nominees to outvote the LLG Presidents. the media and public are not admitted to meetings. The Open MP has held meetings of the JDPBC in Port Moresby. No one in the LLG area had any knowledge of a District Plan, approval of an LLG budget, or the content of such meetings. Bottom-up governance has for this electorate and LLG area disappeared. The LLG Councillors and the Ward Development Committee members are totally frustrated. However, they have no copies of the OLPGLLG or the LLG Administration Act - and do not know what they can do to address the situation. The Station used to have an electrical supply and piped water. These have disappeared. The LLG area used to have road access and a road system around the LLG area. this has totally disappeared. Dead tractors and road graders are scattered around the side of the previous road system.

Thank you both for the positive feedback. Tess, to answer your question - There's clearly concern among traditional donors that their ability to influence Pacific island government policy will decline as a result of Chinese assistance (and, traditional donors would view that as adversely affecting aid effectiveness - an assessment with which I agree, to some extent). Traditional donors are responding, although the changes are still fairly minor. There is greater effort on the part of traditional donors to 'bring China in' to donor coordination and aid effectiveness mechanisms. We see that at the global level at events like Busan, and in our region with efforts to include China in donor coordination roundtables at the country level, and with initiatives such as the MOU between Australia and China which has led to medical research in PNG (I believe Philippa has written about this initiative). The case of the trilateral cooperation project in Cook Islands is an excellent example of how Pacific island governments can use this willingness to engage to their advantage. Some people have argued that traditional donors are paying more attention to the Pacific as a result of increasing levels of Chinese assistance. I'm a bit more sceptical. We’ve certainly seen a lot of announcements to that effect, but they are not necessarily matched by action on the ground.

This is an excellent piece of research, congratulations. It is great to finally have an evidence base in this discussion, and your findings gel with the impressions I've received from casual discussions over a number of years.

Thanks to both of you for this post which does a great job in cutting through a lot of the innuendo that surrounds this issue. I'd be interested to know to what extent, if any, the increased effects of Chinese development assistance has influenced how traditional donors, in particular Australia, whether in terms of what they fund or how they engage with Pacific island governments.

I agree with Ludwing that the economic woes in the third world countries will not be alleviated by foreign aid but economically empowering the people.

Thanks for highlighting the importance and the potential for innovation in the aid program Danielle and Mel. I agree with your view that “The traditional aid investment cycle of design-review-deliver-monitor-evaluate can contribute to delivery inflexibility”. I would like to add that the ability to innovate on the Australian aid program is largely determined by how DFAT assesses and rewards innovation at the tender stage. It is good to see DFAT moving away from the ‘boiler-plate’ Request for Tenders (RFTs) to allow more flexibility - such as we’ve seen this week with the release of a more innovative RFT to attract organisations interested in providing services for the large program of ‘Support to Improved Local Level Service Delivery and Economic Growth in Indonesia’. DFID is very good at asking tenderers to be innovative. And they reward innovation in their assessments of bids. After a couple of years of exposure to DFID tenders in London, I came away with the feeling along the lines of: ‘DFID provides about 20 pages of a Business Case and asks tenderers to write 200 pages; DFAT provides 200 pages of a Scope of Services and asks tenderers to write 20’. Obviously, there is more scope for innovation by the implementers in the former scenario. The new DFAT RFTs, like the ‘Support to Improved Local Level Service Delivery and Economic Growth in Indonesia’, are providing a better balance, and I encourage DFAT to keep this up. Maybe we will see some of the innovations that you mention in your two articles appearing in the program at the design stage as well - like SIBs and Impact Investing.

It seems Senator Lambie is on a crusade on this. <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/aug/01/peter-dutton-crossbenchers-doctors-come-round-7-fee" rel="nofollow">From The Guardian last week</a>: "Hockey met with the Tasmanian PUP senator Jacqui Lambie, who told him the party would “hold firm” against budget savings that would hurt average Australian households. But Lambie said she had suggested during the 2.5 hour meeting that the government make even greater cuts to foreign aid. The Coalition has already budgeted foreign aid savings of $7.6bn over five years – a measure that does not require legislation."

Most of the women in Papua New Guinea do not migrate into urban peripheries such as Port Moresby. This is because of the increasing transport costs and also may be due to uneven economic wealth shared by the family members. Those women who migrate into Port Moresby and continue to live in adhoc settlements are single mothers and others may be sex workers. On the other hand, women also migrate because of wantokism or else to baby sit for some relatives working in the cities for instance in Port Moresby. Migration status for women in Papua New Guinea is culturally determined.In most cases migration is undertaken by males. Females are restricted because of their safety and other related demographic and non-demographic variables.

Tom, Margaret I enjoyed reading this post and am looking forward to reading your book, Tom. I am, however, somewhat intrigued by your closing statement. While your last answer opens to discuss private philanthropy, your very last paragraph might be easily misinterpreted; though I acknowledge what you said might be exactly you meant. You comment on a consequence of the “dismantling of AusAID” that there is a loss of long-term experience and knowledge from a “group of people with experience of development programs over a long period and the lessons to be learnt from this experience.” However, you also comment that you are not convinced such is readily available in the private sector. I am not sure by what definition you are referring to ‘private sector’ in this context. It would be a limited view, I suggest, to not acknowledge at least one dimension of the private sector, that being traditional implementing partners to the Australian aid program (who also serve many other donors) in also having people (still) with experience of development programs and lessons learnt over a long period...some have come from the former AusAID so maybe not is all lost! Maybe you were just referring to some private philanthropists. Maybe your comment was dealing with the Gates Q&A and role of government versus the private sector in leading on simple versus complex tasks, respectfully. Not all intellectual property exists in an aid agency; it never has nor should it. Better harnessing of the combined and different experiences from across the aid/development sector actors should be a priority. I, for one, am convinced of the importance of the experiences of the traditional private sector implementing partners.

While I have aired my thoughts on some of the issues with the volunteer program before on this blog, I also can't pan AYADs universally because I have seen some really talented ones, and some people who have turned their AYAD experience into the base for a career where they are making substantive contributions. Hopefully the recruitment process will still capture such people, even when they are under 30. I do see great benefits from young people engaging in the region--I was incredibly fortunate to land a job in Jakarta at the age of 23 and it was a life-shaping experience. I think a supported 'internships' type program could be valuable, where younger Australians have the opportunity to work for partners in developing countries that are adequately resourced to support and utilise them. Something like this might more adequately acknowledge that the intern is inexperienced and is reaping benefits from the experience, rather than the idea of a 'volunteer', which implies someone giving something up to help. Though perhaps these opportunities shouldn't be funded out of ODA. The New Colombo Plan looks set to offer the opportunity for internships, but at the moment it is explicitly tied to study (i.e. you have to be an undergraduate student to be eligible). It would be good to see wider opportunities for early career professionals to engage.

As a former AVID who saw a lot of AYADs in country, I would have to say that I agree with shenqow. Ultimately, the best outcomes for beneficiary countries are going to come from people with considerable professional experience, rather than poorly trained volunteers. I'd like to see the program go even higher up the skills ladder, though this could be difficult. AYAD was good for Australians, but was fairly poor for the rest of the world. We can do better. <a href="http://aidspeak.wordpress.com/2014/07/26/once-more-from-the-top/" rel="nofollow">This article</a> conveys the same ideas in much harsher language.

I have to say I do not mourn the end of AYAD. Unlike AVI and other schemes, AYAD was conceived (by former FM Downer) and operated as a supply-driven scheme aimed at creating opportunities for well-meaning and experience-seeking young Australians. Providing actually skilled people to really assist receiving countries and organisations was a secondary goal at best. Living and working in Asia and the Pacific in recent years, I saw lots of genuine and some very capable young people come out as AYADs. The AYADs almost always had a marvelous experience. But the skills and experience they provided to their "beneficiaries" was, sadly, often negligible. At times, they were in fact a burden on their resource-strapped "partners". Exposing young Australians to developing countries and issues is undoubtedly a great idea. But at a time when the aid budget is being slashed, funding working holidays for young Aussies is not an optimal spend of scarce development dollars.