Comments

Thank you, I support this

Sorry second to the last paragraph: Lessons must be learned from the effects of logging and government must come up with solutions to these problems and where suitable and appropriate apply them to the emerging industries

I believe the logging industry in Solomon Islands is in its phasing out period with no more new logging companies and this can be seen through its declining contribution towards the country's GDP. As logging a major contributing factor to Solomon Islands Growth declines, the country is expecting the minerals and agriculture and fishing industries to pick up and replace the lost benefits from the declining logging activities. This is good really good but what is the difference between logging and mining? logging and agriculture? logging and large scale fishing? all these industries are economically characterized as primary industries mostly dealing with the extraction of natural resources. Hence they all entail environmental degradation, conflict among rural people (who is the rightful landowner), involves huge sum of money - source of corruption, disruption of marine life - harmful fishing practices, clearing of large portions of land for agriculture which in turns causes soil erosion, and so forth u name the rest. But yet we need these industries in order for our economy to grow what is the solution here? I believe the government really needs to start reviewing the logging sector and identify problems associated with it in terms of landowners, distribution of wealth, percentage of shares, environmental problems, both terrestrial and along the coastlines. Assess all the negative impacts of logging and try to learn from them and apply them to the upcoming industries such as mines and energy, agriculture maybe tourism and so forth so that when these emerging industries head the economy of the country we will not be faced with similar problems as we have in the logging. After all they all primary industries extracting natural resources of the country from the people and within customary land.

Hi Jo nice blog and good points. It also reflects a large thread of the discussion prompted by Oxfam UK Duncan Green's blog you mention above. I recommend others to read it. I do want to pursue your last comment about the need for flexible, adaptive and risky activities to address the 'deep causes of poverty' and that this necessarily requires long-term trusting relationships and limits the articulation of potential outcomes in advance. I am concerned that this presumes too easily that we should start with ready-made practitioner 'solutions' to poverty (including standard formulas for process). I understand Hulme and Banks are challenging us to put all these aside if we are to really look afresh at our strategies for transformative change and our role in it. My problem with providing this kind of process solution from the start is that it too readily limits our thinking to what we already do. For instance, perhaps the most radical and transformative solutions have nothing to do with funding activities in communities but supporting nascent social movements that challenges rules and norms of capitalism. something that could unite the people, groups, political bodies and resources across borders. It would not be an aid movement but aid / development would be one part of that movement. My point is that leverage for change may well be more effectively gained well outside the usual aid/development scope of work and by working in partnership with more powerful donor country groups or people. ie something that is more overtly a political movement with political calculations. Funding risky activities and building trusting relationships (as opposed to identifying clear and realistic outcomes) may not be incompatible with other strategies but I don't think they are necessarily the most obvious or relevant process solution for the kinds of strategies that we may need to consider in order to transform our world in way that eradicates poverty. By the way, as an aside - you might be interested in this - or may well know all about it but was new to me until recently... There is a typology that has become popular in the leadership literature which identifies three styles : 1- administrative leadership (traditional accountability and hierachical authority); 2- adaptive leadership (flexible, adaptive, tactical practitioner style); and 3 - enabling leadership (which provides the enabling conditions for connecting up administrative leadership with adaptive leadership). The argument goes that all three are important but it is the enabling leadership (ie usually in bureaucracy) which has tended to be under-developed - thus failing to connect up admin and adaptive leadership with either one prevailing (or failing) to the detriment of common aims. More attention in public service (and so i presume in aid world) needs to be paid to developing the techniques and style of enabling leadership. Leadership in this stream of the lit does not refer to heroic individuals but to collective and possible also structural agency. Might be food for thought. Keep up the good work. Cheers, Kay

Thank you for sharing this excellent review of Guthrie. I am familiar with the book. Guthrie’s basic argument does confirm some of my own thinking, based on 20 years of working in education in Indonesia. That is, that most efforts to implement change in teaching practice (i.e. implement the approach to active learning known here as 'PAKEM') fail – beyond achieving formalistic or cosmetic change. And that the reason for this is mainly cultural rather than to do with capacity, politics, economics or other oft cited reasons. The cultural reality is that most Indonesians see knowledge as a commodity – something possessed by experts – and the process of education as a handing over of knowledge from the teacher to the student. Of course, this didactic view of education was also the dominant view in the west until very recently. Essentially, the knowledge is sold. If you pay more for education you get more knowledge. In the traditional world of pesantren and most Indonesian villages, the knowledge is held by religious elders who hand it out in oral sermons or lessons. The starting point for scholarship is learning to recite the Qur’an. Within this cultural reality, PAKEM really doesn’t make much sense. Why would you encourage children to be active or joyful when the aim is to transfer knowledge to them in discrete packages so they can repeat it accurately in an exam or in the mosque? Having kids work in small teams, running around outdoors, writing creatively and so on makes little sense if this is how education is viewed. So our work as development consultants is about changing cultures, changing basic perceptions about the nature of knowledge, teaching and learning. Cultures are not static, nor are they inviolable. But employing foreign experts to change local cultures is a fraught endeavor! It can be done, and perhaps should be done, but it must be tackled with great sensitivity and realistic expectations. Cultural change takes time and may have unexpected consequences. It is worth remembering the story about how the CBSA project (Active Learning through Professional Support) was abandoned in the late eighties, reportedly after President Suharto was challenged by one his grandchildren. Apparently, or so the story goes, the old man was offended at the child’s effrontery and immediately called a halt to the education reforms which he took to be responsible for the rudeness. So there is another element: A good Indonesian citizen - and a good Indonesian school child – is one who is quiet, respectful, follows the rules. He/she is a member of a group and behaves according to the group norms. The aim of education, other than to impart knowledge, is to create good citizens, good Muslims (or Christians or whatever). And the process of learning is conceived primarily as a large group process not an individual one. Interesting issues to ponder as we charge ahead with the next project.

The reply piece I wrote below highlights a prevalence in the thinking of so called education reformers in Indonesian schools many of which are self proclaimed ones. By reformers I refer to individuals all across the board; from teachers, principals, local education administrators, district and national bureaucrats and foreign consultants included. Model berpikir 'meniru dan mengekor' alias 'copy and paste' . This seems to be rather prevalence among these reformers. Some illustration I made below in Indonesian language - my mother tongue may help those with high competence in Indonesian language. Agenda reformasi pendidikan (di Indonesia) terlalu sesak dipenuhi dengan 'copy and paste'. Program dari tempat/negara lain di 'copy' lalu di-'paste' ke sekolah sekolah di Indonesia. Boleh-boleh saja karena 'copy' and 'paste' terjadi dimana-mana termasuk di Amerika, Australia, Inggris dsb. Sayang disayang, kalau sudah di Indonesia, yang meng 'copy' tidak selalu sadar dan tahu bahwa, 'copy' tidak boleh sembarang 'copy'. Tidak boleh juga sembarang 'paste' Kalau sudah di Indonesia, 'copy dan paste' dianggap seperti sudah biasa dan wajar - semua merasa tidak ada masalah. Biasa-biasa, seperti penjual jamu: 'Ini jamu paling manjur menyembuhkan semua penyakit'. Yang menerima 'paste' juga langsung percaya bahwa jamu yang didapat pasti manjur. Dua-duanya merasa bergembira karena merasa sudah ada dan dapat jamu yang manjur. Apakah nantinya penyakitnya akan sembuh? Keduanya percaya ya, akan sembuh. Memang semua sistem pernah melakukan 'copy and paste' tetapi sistem yang baik adalah sistem yang punya pikiran. Sistem yang bisa belajar dan yang bisa: (1) menjawab mengapa dan untuk tujuan apa harus 'copy', (2) menelaah dan memilah bagian mana yang harus di 'copy', (3) mencari cara yang baik untuk mem 'paste' Sayang disayang, sistem yang ada sudah kehilangan kemampuan belajarnya. Hanya beberapa saja yang masih ada daya dan upaya untuk tetap mau belajar. Sayangnya mereka kelompok yang terpinggirkan. One thing to add to here - is that, compounding the problem is what I see as the 'complicit' role of majority of foreign experts who have been engaged in the development of education in Indonesia. I don't know all of them but I do know few of them. It is no surprise to learn that in project reports after reports albeit in Indonesia, the message repeats that 'the innovation indeed works. The questions worth asking are who wrote the reports and what agenda do they serve? While not dismissing the fact that some innovations may indeed work, to date there has not been any independent research which focus on investigating whether active learning -a child of constructivist instruction as a pedagogical innovation to change didactic teaching practices does work, and if it does in what way, and if it does not - what explanation there are. In my earlier project involvement introducing Active learning in eastern Indonesia, I have some experience to share and I would like to share my intimate knowledge as teachers adviser in the project. It is important to note that I was working in the project for over one year - a sort time to make a permanent conclusion about the whole project. Did Active learning or locally known as PAKEM work then, especially during my tenure? For me, within the short-lived involvement in the project, my comment on hindsight is as follows: In the earlier years, it did work. It worked to answer one of the so many learning issues as experienced by both teachers and students in Flores. One issue that have long posed as a psychological barrier in children learning in these schools is the 'fear' factor or known as takut dengan guru. On reflection, the way PAKEM was introduced to teachers then was decidedly gradual - from concrete to abstract. From what we, consultants could show and demonstrate to our then constraint teachers - to an introduction of discussion of abstract concepts including all the dilemmas faced by teachers when implementing a constructivist instruction from which PAKEM is a child. These dilemmas as elaborated by Windschtil ( 2002) include conceptual, pedagogical, cultural and political For what we, advisers in the project knew, few of then our consultants shared an understanding of the messages as contained in the article written by Mark Windschtil ( 2002) which emphasize that even in developed nations schools, teachers find various dilemma when implementing this innovation. The questions that I had no knowledge to answer then due to my discontinued engagement in the project include - did these Indonesian teachers get adequate help to be aware of the dilemmas they faced or even whether the dilemmas they faced were similar or different, were they able to build a good understanding of these dilemmas, were they trained to acquire good strategies to overcome the dilemma they face. All these questions are technical in nature and must at least be familiar in the ear of teacher trainers. I did not know the answer of many of these questions. What I did know then was, back to my early years in NTTPEP, without doubt, almost all of these early grades-teachers soon became expert in running PAKEM in their classes, in the sense that in their teaching: they incorporated song - harus ada lagu-lagu they use local teaching aid self-made - media belajar sendiri they incorporated games - permainan they incorporated dance - tari-tarian But PAKEM let alone constructivist pedagogy is a lot more than the above strategies of course. However, having mentioned these strategies as employed by many teachers in the project, I do not dismiss that they are not good strategies. They are indeed, at least good for these children in the rural area of Flores where intake of nutrients in children is a common health issue. These activities, apart from relaxing the normally constricted atmosphere of instruction typical of traditional teaching and learning in many Indonesian schools, are successful in getting these children engaged. Engagement is a prerequisite for any learning to take place, PAKEM is no exception. As I said though, PAKEM is a lot more than just these strategies. Sopantini

Hi Matthew, As I noted in my earlier comment, the public attention given to the Review by Leaders in their communiqué, and by the Secretary General in his recent media release, are responses in the public domain that indicate the Review report isn't being ignored. The Review was commissioned by Forum Secretariat Members, and accordingly it is a matter for the Members to decide whether to make the report from the Review publicly available (or direct the Secretariat to do so). I can't speak to their positions, so you may wish to contact the Governments involved to seek their informed views. Best, Seini

Of course WASH is an essential element of the battle against HIV/AIDS and it was great to see such positive support for it in DC this year.

Hi Colin, Thanks for the interesting article, do you see any hope in the new provincial governor, Gary Juffa speaking that he will review the SABLs awareded in Oro Province? Thanks

Stephen, I enjoyed reading these three posts which provide a clear case for aid. I particularly enjoyed the example of the Indonesian tax payers' unit. After working for 3 years (2009-2011) in the Asian Development Bank Institute's capacity building team, I am convinced of the need for capacity building in many Asian countries -- even if it is just policy dialogue which helps Asian policy makers be better informed of policy trends in their area. All countries have pro- and anti-reform groups, and it is important to foster the reform process. In his comment, Dr DG Blight refers to the loss of cooperative partnerships when Korea transitioned out of aid. This confirms my belief that Asia needs a serious policy analysis and policy dialogue organisation like the OECD. Robert Cannon makes some useful points in his comments above. There is a genuine problem in emerging Asia in that gaps between rich and poor are increasing, and corruption and capital flight are enormous, and Asia's elites seem not to care for their own poor.

Seini and Pacific Watcher Thank you both for your intriguing “insider” perspectives on the Review. I’m still unclear why the Review has not been made public though. Regardless of its quality or the decision to postpone its consideration, I would have thought public disclosure (together with a response – possibly from FoC?) would pre-empt comments that the Review is simply being ignored. On that matter, I’d be interested in finding out whether it is a simple matter of a delay, or whether a decision been made to actually keep it confidential.

Hi Mathew, It’s great that you took this opportunity to look beyond the excitement of Clinton’s visit to consider other highlights of the recent Leaders’ Forum in Rarotonga. Your post touches on two important review processes that were discussed at the Forum—one completed earlier this year (the Review of the Forum Secretariat), and one just beginning (the Pacific Plan Review). It’s also important to encourage discussion of these Reviews from an informed position, and on that basis I feel the need to comment and address a few of the inaccuracies in your article. Firstly, it is incorrect that the Review of the Forum Secretariat was largely ignored by Leaders at the Forum. There were many pressing (and competing) issues that could have been considered in Rarotonga; not all could be covered, yet the Review of the Forum Secretariat featured on the agenda of several of the meetings held. And as you noted, that Review had a special mention in the Leaders’ Communiqué, which captures the issues Leaders felt most important to comment on. Nor has the Review been largely ignored by the Forum Secretariat. Prior to the Leaders’ meeting, the report from the Review was discussed in depth by the Forum Officials’ Committee, which considered each of the recommendations in turn, and agreed with Forum Secretariat on a path forward. As the Secretary General noted in a recent media release, he has committed to “press ahead with on-going reforms of our corporate and budgets systems in-line with the recommendations of the recent organisational review”. He emphasised that “Reform and improvement of the Secretariat is ongoing business; and the Secretariat is moving ahead with many of the recommendations of its review”. The report hasn’t been swept under the mat—it is being seriously considered. I will leave it to other readers to follow the link you provided and determine if your assessment of the Review report’s content is fair. You also asserted that “There is no good reason for tying recommendations to improve the effectiveness of PIFS to a review of the Pacific Plan”. Actually, I agree with the Leaders of the region that there is a good reason for holding off on a few of the suggested changes until we know the outcome of the Pacific Plan Review. The Review will be a comprehensive evaluation of the Plan’s success thus far and an assessment of where it should lead. The Review may lead to revisions to the Plan that have implications for the strategic direction of the Forum Secretariat (perhaps even for our regional architecture as a whole). Doesn’t it make sense to have an up-to-date and robust regional strategy clear before deciding that indeed the Secretariat needs three Deputy Secretary Generals, for instance, instead of the current two (a recommendation that would have obvious costs but as yet uncertain benefits)? The good news is that we will not have long to wait until the outcomes of the Pacific Plan Review are on the table. The first stages of the Review process have already begun, and it will be completed by the time of the Leaders’ meeting next year. It is planned to be a much more consultative process than the Review of the Forum Secretariat, involving visits to all countries in the region to talk not only with officials but with a range of non-state actors and other regional agencies. And there will be an online portal to allow public submissions and enable people to follow the progress of the Review team. There are opportunities for us all to get involved in the weaving of future Pacific strategies, which in turn may determine the future patterns of our region’s institutions. http://www.forumsec.org/pages.cfm/newsroom/press-statements/2012/preparations-underway-for-pacific-plan-review.html These are exciting times for the Pacific—and not just because important dignitaries have been visiting and donor pledges have been made – but also because genuine efforts are underway, through an open and consultative process, to review the strategic underpinnings of regional cooperation. Both the past Review of the Forum Secretariat and the upcoming Pacific Plan Review will play a role in what lies ahead. Seini (Disclaimer: I am currently employed as the Pacific Plan Adviser at the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat, but am commenting here as an individual, not as a representative of other Secretariat staff or Forum members).