Comments

Some sense in this article, good to see the concept of Public Goods applied, of which Development Assistance is part, but the problematique is still wrong, the meaning of terms like 'extreme poverty' and 'poverty reduction' is still difficult to comprehend in societies which have for centuries met their needs through subsistence production. In the Pacific (and Timor-Leste) its got to be about the relationship between the subsistence sector and cash markets and knowledge, attitudes and skills and how they can be mobilized, rather than how much money is available for a project. People forget where the Millenium Development Goals came from, all the World Conferenes held in the 1990s, since there hasn't been another set of such conferences it will be difficult to mobilise the consensus needed for another group, also, as the article points out, now different countries have widely differing intersts. It is such a pity that Pacific Studies is not taught in many Australian universities as people are graduating with no knowledge of the particularieis of these countries and many mistakes were made by Australia's lack of knowledge of its closest neighbours. Land tenure is one issue which has not satisfactorily been solved in any country in the region, or in Australia for that matter.

Once again the subject of comparative remuneration makes its unwelcome appearance. "The Australians who work in the PNG sector are generally paid more than twice as much as their local counterparts with the same qualifications, which is why their local counterparts have an incentive to migrate to Australia, where they no longer suffer this form of discrimination." Why use "discrimination"? Please compare the economies and infrastructure of the two. Infrastructure along the Eastern seaboard of Australia is not comparable to what we suffer under in PNG. Agricultural labour earns K100 per fortnight and this is more than they can earn as farmers on their own soil; such is the state of our agricultural economy. Australia can support high wages in certain sectors, resembling PNG in so far as the mining sector is out of balance with some other parts of the economy. i.e. Ford closing down because they cannot compete with other manufacturers. Should PNG pay its engineers and other professionals in the mining sector as they do Australians? The knock on effect would put the rest of us out of business. We are a small country with enormous hurdles to development. The mountains, the swamps, the horrible roads and not last and not the least is our politicians appetite for the good life. Corruption is rife in most countries; our problem is that the proportion of our population in productive work does not enable us to support a level of corruption that would be acceptable in a Western country. Our cake is just not big enough! Our politicians are the ones who are not baking it properly. Tony Flynn

Thanks for posting this Colin. Dick Bedford from AUT/ Waikato has been digging into the numbers for Solomon Islanders living in Australia. They are, it turns out, tiny, especially once you whittle them down to people of Solomon Islands sole ancestry born in Solomon islands: a total of 494 as at the 2011 census. The total number of Solomon Islands born people in Australia (including children born to Australians in SI and of mixed ethnicity) is nearly 1800, and this is increasing at around 3% a year: less than 60 newcomers total. Meanwhile, the Solomon Islands population increased at around 2.5%, or 12,500 a year. There were similar tiny increases between 2001-2006 censuses. By way of comparison, more than 4000 Solomon islanders were involuntarily repatriated in the first decade of the last century, following Australian federation. The Solomons' diaspora is tiny, and barely functioning, if we compare it to other Pacific situations. I am keen to learn more bout how they are faring in the resources sector: my suspicion is, not as well as the PNG folk. Australia, then, is not yet contributing a great deal to the labour mobility situation in that part of Melanesia, though some of us are expecting that will change, if slowly. Brain drain barely enters the picture, either: there are thousands of young people, many qualified, entering the labour market, and mere 10s leaving. One last comment: Henry above notes that there might be a future for unskilled PNG workers in aged care. Currently as I understand the 457 visa is obtainable by people with a qualification (usually a certificate) in aged care. The couple I know of are actually self funding in coming to Australia to take the certificate course, and working part time in the industry as they do, hoping for a transition via a 457 offer from their employer. It's skilled work, I would say: but again, Solomons numbers are tiny. Are they much larger from PNG?

This blog has brought great attention to the work of in-country managers (ICMs). I am old enough to remember when there was much less reliance on professionally appointed ICMs. I also manage a program that depends on them less than most contributors to this blog would see as necessary. In a very technocratic, instrumental way we Westerners seem to get stuck with particular models because they are seen as the professional response to actual or potential difficulties. Even if their effectiveness is limited, we are seen to manage the risk and cover our asses. It may well be that one of the things we need to learn from the communities in which we go to serve is that reliance on a web or network of relationships is the most effective way to support people faced with what are significant challenges. Instead of holding one person (the ICM) responsible for the welfare of volunteers and the engagement of counterpart organisations any volunteer agency with time to provide effective preparation will enable the volunteer to identify and establish many supports. In our organisation we find the best support is provided through having one person to oversee the volunteer from application to placement matching, as well as through preparation, during placement and upon return home. That one person is pretty special in that s/he has a significant appreciation of interpersonal relationships as well as a sound background in development, especially development volunteering. S/he builds a significant relationship with each volunteer and counterpart organisation in her/his charge and is responsible for assisting each volunteer to develop all other relationships, especially those with counterparts; ICMs; other volunteers; Australian community/professional support groups and overarching institutional links in country etcetera. One of the very important reasons we provide a nine-day residential orientation is to enable the development of a sound relationship between volunteers and the staff who will support them throughout the entire process. It's a professional relationship, but much more than a professional relationship, that is enabled in this time. The course also allows significant relationships to develop with other staff, and the cohort of volunteers going into the field at the time get to know and are able to support one another as well. I hear everyday at the office about one volunteer or another who is supported through this intricate web, which is enabled in the field due to the excellent network of communications we have available today, even in some of the most remote locations. Volunteer support is probably one of the most highly rated aspects of our evaluations because I think that while one person is the main contact for each volunteer, there is so much more than one person, or personality, from whom a volunteer is encouraged to seek support. Support being provided by a coordinated web of supporters also can draw on invaluable reflection and support for newer volunteers from those in the field during a second year. Ashlee's comments and others help us to stay tuned to the needs of the volunteer and the issues affecting them and their counterparts. We welcome critiques like Ashlee's as an opportunity to share the learning and hopefully improve Australia's volunteer efforts overall.

Great article Colin. This topic goes to the heart of why I believe immigration policies in general should be considered more broadly than they currently are. The 457 visa program may be primarily about the labour market and gaps in skilled migration, but it also goes directly to relationships with other nations and how people movement facilitates different objectives in the 21st century. At a recent Senate Enquiry in the 457 visa program (submissions <a href="http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/457_visas/submissions.htm" rel="nofollow">here</a>), a number of organisations raised the example that there are over 800,000 Australians working overseas. By discussing Australian immigration policy in terms of 'Aussie jobs', surely we open Australians living and working overseas up to the same treatment? This is perhaps more true for developing nations than developed nations. At a higher level, there is substantial evidence to show that highly skilled migration, of which Australia has perhaps a world-leading framework, leads to substantial economic benefits for the host nation. For example, 94 per cent of the rise in labour market participation in the last decade can be attributed to migrants (see Cully <a href="http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/economic-fiscal-impact-of-immigration.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pdf]). In addition, US and European research shows the fiscal and job creation effect. The amazing thing is that this is still an argument. Perhaps what we really should be having a public discussion about is unskilled migration. The global literature on remittances grows everyday yet Australian policy seems unable to integrate immigration into a development context. The Seasonal Worker Program is hardly a success while other forms of unskilled migration, such as aged care, will become very prominent in the future given demographic trends.

As a recently returned volunteer, much of this article strikes a chord. I don't agree with everything written, but even those things I do not agree with have been expressed by other volunteers I know, so are not isolated feelings. I have already given my feedback to Austraining and AusAID on what I believe is an overwhelmingly positive program so will not go into great detail about my thoughts for improvement. What I will state is that I agree the focus on capacity building is too great for a program expressly created for professionals with little experience themselves. Beyond this, I believe it to be a great fault of development as a whole that the skills required to transfer knowledge and skills (i.e. capacity building) are rarely, if ever, taught to professionals and certainly not to an expert level in the AYAD/AVID programs. If we don't build the capacity of volunteers to build capacities then the process amounts to little more than a wish and a prayer for positive outcomes in that realm.

Anthony - Thanks for sharing the Orima Research Survey of Returned Volunteers – October 2012. You've mentioned that Austraining is strongly committed to supporting volunteers so would you mind sharing the full results of the Orimo Research Survey of Returned Volunteers? I'd be really interested in seeing how volunteers have responded to some of the other questions contained in the survey. Also, would you be able to share with us some figures on how many volunteers end their assignment early or change organisations whilst on assignment?

The third is that mining companies, particularly domestic ones, need to invest in research and education around mining. Countries like Peru or Zambia should not need to send their young to study about mining to the UK or Australia. They should instead strive to become centres of knowledge excellence on their natural resources. http://onthinktanks.org/2013/03/27/from-non-renewable-resources-to-unlimited-knowledge/

Hi Jeff, Thank you so much for sharing your story on here in the comments. It certainly sounds as though you made significant impact through your assignment and have become a bit an ambassador for Dominica in Australia, as I dare say it is a place not many Australians would know about! As I said in the piece, I have seen many volunteers such as yourself doing really great work. Reflection and debate on how we can improve the program overall will hopefully bring about even more success stories. Thanks again for sharing, Ashlee

Thank you for your great comment Belinda -- I completely agree with you. The ICM role is a critical one in assignment success and they should be highly valued (and provided with incentives to stay on in the role to reduce the rapid staff churn that happened in TL last year, for instance). It is a difficult and demanding job and they have to wear many hats -- and as I mentioned in the piece, in some countries they have too many volunteers to handle adequately along with their other duties.

In case you are wondering what happened to some of our recent comments, I removed one at the request of its author, and then a couple of responses to that comment (since the responses make no sense without the original comment). Discussion is still welcome on this post. Stephen Howes Co-Editor, Development Policy Blog

Interesting article by Callan on mining -- The issue is a big one, and the messages are good, including the clear need for mining companies to do a much better job telling their story. Just a hunch, but given the titles and sponsors, I suspect that each of the conferences attended was brimming with donor and civil society types, and not quite so many miners. Close to five years ago, my wife launched a PR and public affairs company when we were based in Mongolia. She's since worked or is working with many of the majors and juniors in that market, including Vale, Rio and SGS. After leaving UB for Belgrade, she kept the Mongolia company and launched a Serbian sister -- also focused on mining. As a result I've gotten to see a very different side of the industry, a side which 20 years ago I couldn't have fathomed. Mining practices have improved a lot in the past 20 years. To be sure, mining has put some big holes in the ground. But with all of the pressure from varied quarters, the companies have shaped up a lot. I've been impressed by substantial investment in community outreach (which my wife has been very involved with), deep-seeded commitment to safety, and pretty consequential efforts to mitigate environmental damage. Mines are increasingly going underground which will further contain the visible impacts. How much have the companies done for development? Mongolia's pretty darn transformed. The fact that income inequality has increased isn't to be blamed on the mining companies, its much more a function of flawed policy. Many of the Mongolian tycoons were made during the waves of privatization that followed the opening in 1990 -- years before the mining boom really began in 2009. The GOM somewhat botched its effort to establish a sovereign wealth fund which could have distributed some of the mining receipts, which by the way actually have yet to start rolling in. Rio's Oyu Tolgoi copper/gold mine only began production this year. Basically, the government spent funds that hadn't yet accrued, and thereby undermined what could have been a powerful tool to share the wealth. And finally other schemes, including the distribution of shares in the putative IPO of Tavan Tolgoi sound good, but are reminiscent of the mass voucher schemes exercised liberally across central and eastern Europe in the 1990s, and which were not glowing models of wealth distribution. The issue that Serbia is grappling with, where modern mining has yet to come, is associated with value addition: Who and where will it be captured? The GOS wants to reap as much value added in-country from mining as possible. And everybody agrees they should, mining companies included. The western majors and a handful of juniors are still exploring, but could start mining in 3 - 5 years if all goes well. I've been a vocal proponent of mining in Serbia for a couple reasons, not least the minerals that will be mined could drive processing and finishing in downstream industries if Serbia commits to a long-term strategy and vision that will keep the value-added in-country. And this is possible. Rio Tinto is exploring a lithium borate deposit. Lithium, of course, is a big factor input to modern batteries and fuel cells. If Serbia plays its cards right, lithium that will be processed in-country could be converted into the power source for future electric cars that Fiat could produce in its south Serbia plant. Borates are used in fertilizer, but also in specialty ceramics and glass. Borates could also find their way into finished products, like wind turbine blades or glass for cell phones and computers. Downstream processing is where additional jobs and revenue will be generated, and where development impacts will be multiplied. Serbia is better-placed than Mongolia to build up downstream processing, but government has got to have the vision to court and attract industry and manufacturing that consumes raw and processed ores and converts them into modern, high-tech products. Serbia has the engineers and smart people to make this happen. If government can chart the course, preserve stability and create the economic climate that welcomes investment, then 15 or 20 years down the road, Serbia will be a source of knowledge-based and modern engineered products that will be on the cutting edge of alternative energy and the next wave of IT innovation.