Comments

Thanks Jane, It turns out that we agree on much. I definitely agree that development is prone to fads, and I'm something of a SWap sceptic (although I do think that the right SWap at the right place at the right time may work well). My preferred approach for an aid agency working in any particular area would be: First do the research: find out what the binding constraints on welfare are, study what's been done in the past, and then carefully choose (from all the available options) an approach most likely to help the poor in the recipient area. I think that before the research is done everything should be on the table in terms of sectors and modalities and so on. Then run the activity carefully and monitor and evaluate it well. And then change it if it's not working. Where private sector engagement was suggested by preliminary analysis and where evidence suggests it could work, I'd be in favour of it every bit as much as I would an NGO intervention if that's what context suited. The one way that I do think the private sector is different from most other development 'tools' is in the area of donor country political economy risks. The existence of such risks doesn't mean that donors should ever engage with home country private sector agents. But - to get back to my original point - let's make sure we've thought carefully about the risks. Thanks again for your comments Terence

Hi Terence, I totally agree with you about minimising risks across the aid program. I have worked in development for 30 years, more of it in the public sector than the private sector. I have worked for governments, donors, NGOs, volunteer organisations, universities and the private sector. I have a realistic view of the risks inherient in all of these organisations and modes of delivery. I am a bit tired of the faddism and thought capture that pervades the development industry. The development community threw its self into SWAps, for example, with minimal evidence of their effectiveness in improving development outcomes. There is often a lack of balance in the development dialogue. One rarely hears discussion of the risks of using NGOs, or universities or multilaterals - and as you are surely aware, there are many. I encourage you, and indeed AusAID, to look at the evidence, of where and how the private sector can play an effective role in development. The sites I commended to you are a good start, and DFID is commissioning a review of the evidence in relation to mining and PPPs that will be instructive. I totally agree that there are a wide range of risks in engaging with the private sector - many of these are well documented and need to be managed. But as I said, the private sector is a legitimate player, with a contribution to make. So lets find the evidence and engage with the private sector accordingly. Making the link to another AusAID initiative related to the private sector - which is the mining sector. I believe that donor engagement with the mining sector and the government in the planning and feasibility stages of mining developments in poor countries in the area of social planning would be incredibly beneficial for example, both to mitigate risk and maximise social benefit.

Hello Jane, Thank you for your comment. I agree that there are risks throughout the aid programme. And presumably you agree with me that we should try and manage these risks wherever they might occur? Upon a reread of my paper, you'll note that my argument above is not that AusAID should never engage with the private sector, or that the private sector has no role to play in development work, but rather that such engagement should be undertaken, cautiously, in a way that minimises those political economy risks associated with subsidising private enterprise with through ODA. (If you'd like evidence - an example of this occurring - look at US Food Aid). My critique of the aid review (which I think is in many ways and excellent document) is that it doesn't acknowledge those risks which do exist, nor provide any insights on how to mitigate them. If you have any specific references which detail how aid agencies how engaged with private sector actors from their own country and have done so in a way that has successfully mitigated the risk interest group capture I would be very interested in reading them. Please provide. Kind regards Terence

Be cautious with the private sector because there are risks. Of course there are risks! The entire aid program is littered with risks. Forget the elephant in the room, it’s that old private sector boogeyman again! Just mention the private sector and some of the development set start twitching. However, lets not just exchange opinions, is there any evidence? 1. The IFC after an extensive study looking at the private sector in health in Africa, made a number of informed recommendations including: Including as many people as possible in risk pooling mechanisms; Channelling a portion of public and donor funds through the private sector; Enacting regulations that are more encouraging of the private sector; Improving access to capital to support private health care enterprises. (IFC “The Business of Health in Africa. Partnering with the private sector to improve people’s lives” IFC, 2008 ). 2. Maybe, take time to look at the website of the Rockefeller Foundation on their initiative “Transforming Health Systems.” Rockefeller have commissioned a number of studies on the role of the private sector in development. 3. Please then move on to the UCSF Global Health Sciences website and look at their publications on the “ Health Systems initiative,” which provide a range of papers on the value of working with the private sector in development. 4. There are countless publications exhorting the importance of the private sector in achieving the MDGs. 5. More locally, the Lowey Institute's Jenny Hayward Jones contends that private sector engagement is critical in making progress towards MDGs (Hayward-Jones 2008). I believe that the involvement of the private sector in development initiatives is not a panacea for poverty, but it is a legitimate and valuable asset in the journey towards achieving the Millennium Development Goals. So I congratulate AusAID. But don’t take my work for it – lets examine the evidence.

The lease-lease-back arrangements have been used, and more likely abused, for 'land grabs'. It is an issue that is currently under investigation by the PNG government. I am no legal expert, but if the ‘land grabs’ are proven to be indeed the case then that may be sufficient to make the leases illegitimate, both legal and otherwise.

Good numbers, good plan - great summary! The doubling of the 'South Pacific Microstates' allocation is certainly timely and welcome.

Patrick, thank you for your kind comment and article on social media and monitoring. Crowdsourcing is a natural complement to traditional project monitoring and can help to triangulate the accuracy of project/MIS data, and provide important information on outputs and quality. It's great to see that the idea of crowdsourcing feedback from beneficiaries is gaining momentum and the challenge now it to test and evaluate practical methods. One platform which is easy to set up is Ushahidi's Crowdmap, and this is what I'm experimenting with in Papua New Guinea - see http://fixmyroad.crowdmap.com. Thanks again for sharing the link to your interesting blog post and please keep in touch.

Dear Matt, I agree with the points you made on using internet and social media to monitor projects and get feedback from beneficiaries. I made a reference to your article in a blog I have just published on the UNDP web site: What role for social media in monitoring development results? http://ow.ly/5zy44 Regards.

You make an excellent point on the importance of effective aid to fragile states and I agree that understanding context and having staff capacity for analysis are important. Yet I'd argue that the Aid Review report does help to address these in several important ways: First, it makes it clear that the aid program should be driven by country programs, rather than pre-determined sector targets (recommendation 7), and this is essential for making aid more sensitive to context. Secondly, the aid review points to some ways to improve the effectiveness of aid in countries with weak governance (p47-48), and recommends improving the quality of government and strengthening civil society as a thematic focus (recommendation 9, point 3), an increased emphasis on NGOs and the private sector as a delivery mechanism (recommendation 10), and a 'whole-of-ODA' approach (recommendation 30). Thirdly, throughout the report, the aid review recommends ways to create head space: it stresses the need to geographically focus the bilateral program (recommendation 14), to select fewer sectors (recommendation 8), to increase resourcing (recommendation 32) and to streamline processes and reduce paperwork' (p29). As you highlight high quality analysis is essential, and the recommendations above are necessary to create the space for this to happen. Fourthly, the demand for high quality analysis on fragile states and better country programs could, at least in part, be driven by more transparent aid (recommendation 37) and quality evaluation (recommendations 35 and 36). These are just my interpretations of how the Aid Review's recommendations could help to improve the effectiveness of aid in fragile states. Thanks again for flagging a critical issue for the aid program, and drawing attention to international good practice, especially the DAC principles. I hope that your comments will solicit a fuller response from the Aid Review team.

Satish does not seem to have noticed the effect of PNG’s new ‘land grab’ on the proportion of land which is now held under ‘customary tenure’. It may be true that 97% of the land was customary land at the time of independence in 1975, but over the course of the last eight years, more than 5 million hectares of land has apparently been leased by its customary owners to the State, and then leased back to private companies which the customary owners supposedly approve of, normally for the maximum allowable period of 99 years. Section 11 of the Land Act clearly states that ‘an instrument of lease in the approved form, executed by or on behalf of the customary landowners, is conclusive evidence that the State has a good title to the lease and that all customary rights in the land, except those which are specifically reserved in the lease, are suspended for the period of the lease to the State’. What this means, in effect, is that the proportion of PNG’s land area under customary ownership has now declined from 97% to 86%. It is true that the Acting Prime Minister recently announced a moratorium on the operation of the ‘lease-leaseback scheme’, but this does not mean that all of the existing leases are instantly revoked. Anyone wishing to read more about the new land grab in PNG should ask Mr Google to find my recent paper entitled ‘The Political Construction of a Land Grab in Papua New Guinea’.

The Australian quarantine or the SPS requirements are real concern to the Pacific Island Countries PICs). There are significant costs to the PICs to try to match up or meet these Australian requirements in order for trade to exist in this region. Nevertheless, now that the PACER Plus is being negotiated, it is hoped that the PICs will be able to negotiate an arrangement that is favourable to them.

HI Satish, interesting article; I enjoyed reading it! I am curious though...where has land reform benefitted people who depend on plantations for income and food security? Also, following from your Fiji example, matai (chief) titles in Samoa are tied to the land and the aiga (extended family). Therefore, as in other parts of the Pacific island region, must social change precede any form of codification framework for customary land? And how will this impact on settlement change?