Comments

Both examples Dan Moulton cites illustrate 'Campbell’s Law'. This states: “The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decision-making, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor”. In the case of Indonesia, I led a study of the national examinations in late 2009 (available <a href="http://inovasipendidikan.net/research/An%20Exploratory%20Study%20of%20the%20Ujian%20Nasional%20in%20Indonesia%202010.pdf" rel="nofollow">here</a> [pdf]) That study found extremely serious weakness and argued that the quality of examinations was undermined by four factors: 1, A weak foundation of professional knowledge about student assessment across the education workforce; 2, Poor professional and ethical standards with widespread, systemic and entrenched malpractice; 3, Educational and technical weaknesses in assessment design; and 4, Unacceptable educational risk from high stakes testing. Recognising that it was most unlikely that even such a poor system would be abandoned, the study made specific recommendation for reform based on four factors targeting 1: A professional, integrated and aligned national examination system; 2: An ethical education system; 3: A better quality, credible and flexible credential at the end of schooling. Strategies to lower the stakes for schools and children should yield positive benefits. Your comment about school based tests could help with this but also, unfortunately, reduce test reliability. Well-intentioned suggestions by some for more and external assessments will likely make a poor system even worse. Hence my repeated calls for caution.

This topic is most timely for Indonesia where a major controversy about the national exams is taking place. Passing rate is nearly 100% and there is always some leakage. Is there an alternative to high stakes national testing for a country like Indonesia? Would school based performance evaluation be any more valid as a determinant of passing or failing? In USA where local control of education is sacred, my state of Massachusetts introduced a high stakes state wide exam as a final determinant for graduation from high school. In the first year of the exam a principal was caught giving out answers so that her school would not look bad in the final results. It seems high stakes always is an opportunity for fraud. Would a national low-stakes exam be useful for Indonesia for determining overall performance if held on a sampling basis and the student name and school is somehow made anonymous to prevent cheating?

Are people ‘better off’ after so called development takes place? There is a common thread that seems to insidiously entwine itself around the concept people in so called developed nations seem to view the aspirations of those in so called under developed nations. To those in our ‘café latte’ societies that occasionally spare a thought and a few coins in favour of those in the ‘developing world’, it would seem impossible to consider that those who are viewed as being less fortunate could possibly be happy the way they are. Available statistics on health and education are easily translated into dramatic comparisons and emotive arguments by those who wish to fund overseas aid packages. Yet the undeniable evidence seems to point to the conclusion that many may end up being better off in the eye of the distant beholder. Are those in our consumer society actually happier than those in the villages of a developing nation? The more we accumulate in material goods, the more unhappy many become. Salary and wages are always insufficient to purchase a larger house that costs more to run or a more modern, but gas guzzling SUV. There doesn’t seem to be a happy medium whereby people can aspire to a better life through education and improved health without the ever present corollary of increased material expectations. Mining companies are created by those who have the relevant training and a passion for extracting mineral resources to make a profit. Given that most developed countries have now discovered where their own mineral resources are, the obvious place to search for new deposits is in underdeveloped countries. Yet the discovery of economically viable mineral deposits raises many questions. Primarily, the biggest question is: Who gets the benefits and who suffers any damages, permanent or temporary, to their environment? Clearly, mineral extraction in a developing country does not in any way affect the environment of those who reside in the developed country that provides the capital and know how to extract the minerals. That can often lead to an: ‘Out of sight, out of mind’ mentality. But what might happen if the mineral resources were underneath the backyard in the developed nation? In Australia currently, it’s a case of NIMBY – Not in my back yard! Touring the Mid West of the US recently, I asked a local farmer about how he felt about the numerous oil wells and gas ‘fracking’ sites around his farm. “Wal”, he reflected, “ Ah like drivin’ mah pickerp!” Given that the US believes that it is on the road to creating self sufficiency in oil and gas, what effect might that have on the philanthropic potential of mining companies in the future? Similarly, if a mining company wants to extract minerals in a developing country, will future concerns lead to a surcharge on the extracted resources to pay for the health and education of those who claim ownership of the resources? What happens if this creates a clear disparity between the haves (who are lucky enough to be sitting on the resource), and those who have not? Western concepts dictate that the state owns all resources under the ground and the state allots a fair share of the benefits to all citizens. In practice in most developing countries, this notion is usually only given lip service. Locally, those Australian farmers lucky enough to have coal under their properties may reap a financial benefit in the sale of their property to a mining company. Their neighbours will not be so lucky however and will inevitably wind up with the dust and tailings and a degraded environment with plummeting land values. The difference between Australia and a developing country is that we have (mostly) responsible governments that are able to be influenced by the majority of electors. Most developing nations do not have that opportunity. What’s the answer? If we by persuasion or legislation, force mining companies to accept what in so called developed countries is the role of government, doesn’t this merely allow the government of the developing nation the opportunity to continue to reap the accrued benefits without being held accountable by their electors? Mining companies are not set up to govern a nation or a region. If by default, they have to perform this activity, have they been effectively trained and are they then to be held accountable and if so, by whom and how? The film 'Avatar' encapsulates the problem most eloquently.

Hi Kylie I agree the framework you've developed does align with the 'cultural capacity' concept I had in mind, I like very much the areas you've delineated. Yes I'd be happy to talk further on this because I think it's a very important area and I also think that if it were possible to develop some tools or methodologies to assist corporations to develop these capacities then maybe this could be something our part of the world could share with countries elsewhere. It seems to me that there may be a potential linkage here with the work Margaret & Robin are doing about engaging business in development and it would be good to explore that also... Bye for now Tess

<a href="http://www.concertcambodia.org" rel="nofollow">ConCERT Cambodia</a> is a great source of information, both online and in person, for information about what to do and how to respond to the issues of poverty in Cambodia. There is a main office and a drop-in centre at the Sister Srey Cafe on the riverside near the Old Market in Siem Reap.

Hello Margaret and Tess, Thank you very much for engaging with my ideas. Tess, I like the term 'cultural capacity building' that you have used in your post. I developed a framework in my thesis which I called Interdependent Engagement which I think has a lot in common with the points you raise. However the strength of your post is that you do raise the issue of regulatory capacity which was a gap in my research. It was unfortunately beyond the scope of the public debate earlier this year to outline the logic and framework of Interdependent Engagement (as we only had 5minutes), but in that framework I put forward a methodology to help 'navigate' eight crucial areas where corporations need to develop this kind of 'capacity'. These being: historical injustice; the denial of customary land rights, regional inequality and contests over resource wealth; cultural, political and economic marginalisation; human rights violations; community disruption: environmental damage; and aspirations to define the future. At least, these were the core areas I identified in the Bougainville and Papuan resource conflicts. As to regulatory capacity, yes- indeed. There has to be a role for States in developing this kind of engagement. But corporations also need to widen their responsiveness to States primarily, to communities affected by resource development. But this too has risks and limitations... happy to chat further.

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