Comments

The ascent of urban growth of 20% over the past 50 years The ascent of urban growth of 20% over the past 50 years signifies the importance of framework governing the planning and resource allocation requirement for providing required infrastructure and resources to this growing demand. Implementations such as the ‘Millennium Development Goals’ & in Papua New Guinea ‘National Urbanisation Policy (NUP)’. Counteracting inadvertent urban sprawl and upholding effective residential dwelling development is only effectively managed through policy and framework implementation. The effectiveness of this framework stems from the ability to advocate and sustain commitment to the program over the long term, which is a critical requirement in maintaining suitability and offsetting facets such as overcrowding, unplanned sprawling, in conjunction with excessive demand on services and resources.

Hi Sabina, It is great question. In my case, you are right, I couldn't avoid it -- I was literally on a boat in the middle of an expansive lake, it truly was the ultimate tourist trap! But I didn't participate by buying the rice or going in to the orphanage, I recognised it for what it was and I wasn't interested in interrupting children's 'education' to get photos etc. The tour boat guide became very angry and quite rude to me when I refused to participate in the whole charade. One of the aspects that I found surprising was that other people on the boat seemed to acknowledge that there was something fishy going on, but still participated in it -- the people operating the scam played heavily on guilt. So there needs to be a readjustment of travellers' principles so they don't feel guilty for asking questions in these situations. If we can stop people willingly seeking out these exploitative travel experiences, and also stop people from participating when they are 'trapped' into going on orphanage tours etc as I was, then we will be making the operation of unscrupulous orphanages less profitable and less desirable. But it is easier said than done. There is still a fair way to go on traveller education, which is why I highlighted the need for it to expand in the blog post. There is a lot of information online, but travellers have to actively seek it -- so there needs to be prior awareness before this is useful. There are a number of NGOs and donor agencies running tourist awareness campaigns about these issues in Cambodia specifically, which is a really good start. The Cambodian government has also been involved. Tourist-sending countries really need to step up the information campaigns before people get on the plane, however. Sites such as DFAT's Smart Traveller would be a place where this kind of information could be disseminated (I just did a quick look there and didn't see anything on it). There is a lot of scope for public information campaigns on this issue -- I think social media could be a low-cost vehicle for these. Ultimately, a behavior change communications campaign or viral social campaign by tourist-sending countries, combined with the efforts of government and NGOs in Cambodia, would be the best tourist education approach in my mind.

"Second, tourists should stop signing up for this stuff and do their research. Traveller education is key. Supporting orphanages and organisations that work to help children can be a very positive thing, but not when the children themselves are used as a prop." With regards to the above quote, *where* can tourists find this information? What do you recommend for tourists be better prepared when they're out there, with no access to information, and a tour operator takes them to one of these places? I don't see how you could have avoided it in your case?

Thanks Kylie for sharing these insights with us. It was partly in response to hearing you raise these issues in February that I started thinking about 'cultural capacity building' (could probably do with a better name) - i.e. assisting incoming companies to negotiate (or in the case of BCL renegotiate) the environment they are joining - yes they don't want to get involved in 'politics' but the reality is that they are so perhaps what can assist is methodologies and pathways to navigate bearing in mind the need to avoid causing or (sometimes more likely?) exacerbating conflict. <a href="http://asiapacific.anu.edu.au/blogs/pacificinstitute/2013/03/02/is-the-resources-boom-good-for-melanesia-report/" rel="nofollow">Here is the link</a> to the item in which I raised this earlier in the year, would be interested to know your (and others') thoughts.

Kylie Congratulations. It's great to see important findings from your PhD research so clearly captured in this blog which I hope will have a wide readership, especially compared with the numbers who have the time and inclination to read PhD dissertations. I particularly appreciate the point you make about how negotiations between mining companies, governments and communities are usually strongly focused on financial payments -- companies also focus on these in their published 'responsibility and sustainability' reports. Yet arguably more important impacts of mining operations on conflict, violence and health usually get much less serious attention. I think this is partly because, as you say, there are no easy solutions to be found. Effectively addressing these areas requires all parties (mining companies, national and local governments, landowners and communities) to cooperate and maintain that cooperation for the lifetime of the mining operation. In Melanesia, this seems like a dream (despite the admirable initiatives of a few companies) but it's worth striving for if mining is to deliver stable and more prosperous communities. Perhaps we'll hear more about this at the forthcoming Mining for Development Conference in Sydney. Margaret

Hi Jeff, Of course human rights and child rights are the key concern -- I acknowledged that in my response and my post. I think we agree that children are best raised in families rather than orphanages. I can only speak to situations I am familiar with in Southeast Asia, unfortunately my knowledge on the Ukrainian situation is limited. In Cambodia this issue is not being pushed aside by organisations such as UNICEF etc -- it is a core concern in their work and they have very much advocated children staying within their families and within their communities as far as possible. The Cambodian government has laid this principle out in policy. But when individual actors start their own care facilities without registration or approval, around these fledgling government systems, this doesn't help. The rapid growth of the orphanage tourism industry in Cambodia has only exacerbated this. The government and donor community are working on this issue, but policy change, implementation and enforcement has been slower than the growth of tourism. I think in this case, the donor community is working towards policy which better supports child rights -- but while there is demand for orphanage tourism and the potential for profit, the number of unregistered and unauthorized orphanages is increasing. Multiple approaches are needed. Ashlee

Ashlee, I comment in the context of this blog on development policy rather than the specofic situation in Cambodia, but the situation with economic orphans and parents unable to support them was much the same. As my deceased colleague related however, having argued the same case for protecting child rights and collaboration between government, NGOs and business was to discover these would be partners became a considerable obstacle. "Opening up the reality of that situation resulted in threats against me and anyone else interfering with that system. I came under direct assault by tax police, government's primary enforcement arm if anyone steps out of line. This is not a research activity where many, if any, other people dared to participate. UNICEF was willfully blind to the matter because it was just too dangerous to bother to intercede. Powerful interests remained entrenched with enforcers to make it dangerous. Jurists were correct, in my view. It was more a mafia operation than anything else, aimed at misappropriation and laundering of large money. That was perfectly congruent with how Ukraine operated before the revolution. USAID wanted nothing to do with it, nor would they fund any organizations or activists who might try. Some things could be done and some things could not be done. Helping these children was something that could not be done. So, I exposed it and made it the central focus and metric of Ukraine's microeconomic development blueprint. In that context, it was far more difficult to ignore, dismiss, or argue about." If both your government and mine are investing resources in international development, should we not be concerned when such human rights issues are pointedly brushed aside?

Hi Jeff, Thanks for sharing your views. I think it is important to always consider institutionalised care (whether family homes or other) as a last resort. Children should always be given the opportunity to stay within their extended family and community (as long as that is safe) wherever possible. In Cambodia, and in many other places, the potential to profit out of orphanage tourism means that many children in these institutions are not genuine orphans - they often have one parent alive at least, however parents send them to orphanages due to their poverty and the promises of the costs of education/food/etc for the child being covered. It is also important that any institutional care -- whether private sector funded family homes, charity run orphanages or state care -- meets standards that ensure children are being protected, cared for and educated. Operating outside of the state system doesn't mean that frameworks in place for child protection can be ignored, yet many individuals and organisations that set up orphanages illegally or outside of the government's frameworks are not meeting any kind of minimum standard, nor being monitored. Just because a country is developing and the enforcement of policies may still be weak doesn't mean that outsiders should come in and ignore those frameworks, no matter how good their intentions may be. There is a lot of scope to work together with business and the charity sectors to improve care and educational outcomes for children, but child rights must be at the centre and these initiatives must work in harmony with government frameworks at all levels. Ashlee

If it's obvious that children are being used for profit then there's an obvious question to ask. Why do charities help sustain the orphanage culture when there are so many indicators to suggest that a loving family home is a better outcome. Instead of helping the unscrupulous who exploit children, why not <a href="http://www.managementexchange.com/hack/every-child-deserves-loving-family" rel="nofollow">use business</a> to fund the placement of all children in family homes. That at least was what was suggested 6 years ago, but we were treading where nobody wanted to go.

It's also important to ask who gets the money from these tours? I was on a similar tour and paid around 20 dollars per person. Our guide told us a rich businessman owned the tour boats and the community didn't really benefit from these tour fees.

Excellent piece highlighting a number of concerns regarding the charity tourism industry. Voluntourism is an increasing problem, and most people are unaware of the negative impacts. I've seen some youth-focused sites discussing the issue - I particularly like <a href="http://matadornetwork.com/change/why-you-shouldnt-participate-in-voluntourism/" rel="nofollow">this series</a>. Perhaps a good message is that charity is for life, not just a holiday. Like all commitments, it needs to be done consciously and over the long term if it is to have an impact - not just a stop-off on an organised tour.

Thanks for posting this. <a href="http://orphanages.no/" rel="nofollow">Orphanages.no</a> has a lot of material about this issue, should anyone want to learn more about the problem of orphanage tourism in Cambodia (and many other parts of the world as well, unfortunately!).