Comments

For places outside of POM and Lae where the LLG are in charge of waste removal - are there any laws prohibiting private companies from doing domestic and corporate waste removal?

I read this interesting article and must commend NZ for taking a proactive role in how best it helps with the development aspirations of the countries in the Pacific, especially those who are members or observers of the Forum Secretariat. Undoubtedly, evolving learning cultures, sharing experiences, imparting skills, bringing in diverse perspectives contribute to helping capacity building needs become more evident. While development co-operation dialogue and policy need to be realistically addressed in many countries, this will obviously demand a focused review of capacity available and thus the strength of the institutions that have the required capacity. Human resource development should be a priority in any development cooperation effort to ensure sustainable development occurs to the point where one would not have to talk about Aid but discuss what is working well and what one is doing to handle a challenge. I among many others take this opportunity to applaud NZ Aid, MFAT and the NZ Government for its leadership role in the Pacific. Keep it up.. Kia ora. Alurigo Ravusiro (Port Moresby)

I agree with you Paul. It's almost like the predictable government apologist responding to a genuine problem with a lot of bureaucratize and obfuscation. The real problem that many seem unable to get their head around is one of competency and lack of initiative. Waffling about what needs to be done never actually achieves anything more than revealing another political filibuster. Either there is an effective response to a problem or there isn't. Saying that the local MP's will suffer at the next election hardly helps those who desperately need help now. Of course outsiders often seem have a problem with 'New Guinea time' unless they themselves are prone to practice it.

Paul, Thanks for the excellent piece on the reality of the drought in rural areas and lack of response from the PNG government. Your piece paints a stark contrast to the rosy image Felicity Herbert painted of the government's response last week. Not only is the government failing in their own response to the drought relief effort, their pride is prohibiting other actors from delivering food aid to starving PNG citizens. If the PNG government is adamant to manage the response to this disaster themselves, and without any form of external assistance, then they must also be willing to be held accountable for the lackadaisical and underwhelming response so far. They must also be prepared to face their people and answer why when their people were starving and food aid was available from donors and long-term friends of the country they did not take it. Keep up the good work that you are doing. Regards, Jonathan

Thanks Stewart – a good piece of political analysis. Personally, I think it entirely appropriate that the Pacific diversifies its foreign relationships while still drawing on historic ties. The article prompts three questions for me. First, if the departure of Australian advisers from PNG is primarily an indication of national independence, why only ask half the advisers leave rather than all of them? Does the selection of ministries where the cuts have been targeted say something (for example, why not the immigration advisers?). I’ll cover this more in a presentation to the Australasian Aid conference next week. Second, where do you draw your figures on the impact of the LNG resources boom in PNG? The background article talks of the PNG LNG project being “expected to double or even triple the size of the PNG economy, as measured in conventional terms, and a further doubling is expected when the Gulf LNG project comes on stream in 2021.” My understanding is that this is an unhelpful myth. PNG LNG was good for the PNG economy – it contributed about 25% to real GDP growth over 2014 and 2015. This is only a small fraction of the 100 to 200% mentioned in the background article. Even before the drop in oil prices, revenues from the PNG LNG project were largely simply going to replace declining revenues from other mines (such as Ok Tedi) and oil fields that were coming to the end of their economic lives. There is no resource boom to be emboldened by. Third, and related to the previous point, what are the economic and development implications of this type of independence? Many of the foreign policy initiatives have new costs (new aid donations, new overseas missions and APEC will be a major drain on the PNG budget). Chinese concessional finance would flow without some of these embellishments. A more independent approach could be undertaken at lower cost. The likely diversion of funds from government health and education programs possibly raises questions about policy priorities. Paul

Tff has relieved the parents and increased enrolments the positives the negatives are evident as well. Lack of resources at the schools, more work load for teachers and importantly parents loose authority over their children all leading to poor educational standard a massive wastage of young energetic population who are eating the fabric of the society. Tff needs further refining.

I am from a sub-Saharan African nation and I can absolutely relate to the bottom-line conclusions of this article. I feel there is such a wide gap between the poor and the wealthy in developing nations to a point where the needs of both groups are totally different. One groups yearns for connectivity whiles the other just wants the very basic necessities of life : clean water, shelter, health care, food etc. I agree with you, if any strategy should be considered at all, it must be a complimentary agenda and not a replacement one.

I'm afraid Felicity Herbert has provided a very rose-tinted perspective on the PNG Government's performance in responding to the 2015-16 El Nino induced drought, which can only be described as too late, too little and inappropriately applied. The responsiveness and capacity of the National Disaster centre during the last major El Nino period of 1997/8 was better, including the readiness to request external assistance in a timely manner, without finding this a matter for shame. The shame comes from the delay and continued delays until lately, including the recognition that it's not a case simply of dishing food or funds to districts or main centres, but getting it delivered to those in need mostly in very remote locations. The churches (and some NGOs, plus the wider community of PNG - or wantoks) were markedly ahead in the game, both in undertaking assessments and responding to need, especially in remoter locations, but clearly their resources were limited. That said, some provinces and districts and some public sector workers have certainly been performing better and substantial effort in supporting their communities in time of need. The drought affected the whole country to varying degrees, although the impact was only potentially catastrophic in some areas, and for some communities and especially for those most at risk (notably young children, nursing mothers, the elderly etc). Good work was undertaken in some provinces and districts, but these weren't necessarily those most severely impacted, and there was much greater need to target the limited resources to those in greatest need, or where the drought (and frost) impact was continuing longest, and to ensure that the food and other support wasn't misdirected to the less needy, or misappropriated by cronies along the way. All in all, whilst some commendation may be merited for some, many lessons must be learnt from this experience; the warnings were there and being given early on, and there was no reason to have ignored them until so late, even if big events were occurring. Budgets were certainly being squeezed from mid-year, but keeping Papua New Guinea's population alive and healthy should surely be one of the highest priorities for a government, and be relatively shielded from the fiscal squeeze (except in terms of ensuring the cost effectiveness of the relief efforts), but with a readiness to ask for financial and logistical assistance to complement the domestic effort.

Like other commenters, I am struggling to see the 'not bad' news in this. It's all well and good to have a National Disaster Office, and some sort of systematic response from them... but it clearly hasn't been enough. I found your point about the National Agriculture Research Institute raising the alarm, yet being ignored, particularly troubling. It shows that as long as these kinds of attitudes continue, history could well repeat. Having systems and institutions in place is one thing... mounting an effective response to a crisis, or better still trying to avoid one, is another thing altogether. And ultimately the response is what affects the people on the ground.

The allocation of drought relief from DSIP funds is, in my own opinion, a serious mistake and little more than a PR exercise. The lack of preparation and low priority given to this essential issue in human security is acknowledged in the article above, which admits that the PNG government chose to concentrate on other matters despite warnings from NARI and others. It is important to note in addition to this that in practice, very little has in fact been done to allocate funds to the drought. First, DSIP funds were already not restricted to the guidelines, so in practice what has happened is an announcement that existing funds could be allocated to drought relief - although this was already the case in practice. At the same time, the funding problems noted above - the competition between NARI and other sectors - are no less serious at the district level, where there are problems of over-commitment. Secondly, DDA's supervision of DSIP spending is a nice theory, but in practice, DDAs are dominated by MPs and their affairs are not transparent. It is not clear how the average voter is supposed to assess their performance. The politicisation of DSIP spending also opens up the possibility of MPs being reelected precisely for distributing their drought relief to their own supporters. Thirdly, democratic principles are essential, but at the same time it is not reasonable to excuse an ineffective response to a crisis with the prospect of electoral punishment sometime in the future. By then, for some, it will be too late. Finally, if anything requires national planning and consolidated oversight, it is a response to a national disaster. Devolving responsibility for this to local authorities imposes on them a very onerous task. This might be described as a 'passing the buck', except that no new bucks are in fact being passed. In sum, serious questions should be asked about a decision to fund drought relief through DSIPs: it is not a secret to anybody, least of all O'Neill, that DSIPs are political in character.

Jonathan, I absolutely agree with your comments and was about to say something similar. The work that Mike Bourke has been doing is excellent and I hope that the PNG authorities will draw more on his analysis to target relief. At the same time more details on the delivery of relief are needed: to facilitate coordination among disparate actors; to identify whether relief is getting to where it is needed; and to evaluate and correct the performance of various agencies. If the PM's department has the data, then perhaps it could start by publishing a table in the newspapers of what relief is being provided and where (down to the village level) and a timetable of the roll out of ongoing relief. In terms of feedback, the photos shared by Sally Lloyd have had a powerful effect on relief efforts: perhaps shaking off some of the complacency. It would be good to get more stories and feedback from remote areas: how and where relief is getting through; where it's not and why; how people are being affected etc. Perhaps this information and feedback challenge is something that PNG's active social media can help solve--to drive accountability and better relief efforts. A lot more can and needs to be done.

Isn't the answer to your title question Ashlee that Australia is an AID scrooge? Our low levels of humanitarian funding reflect our low levels of aid funding overall, exacerbated by a policy which focusses more on small countries that are geographically close to us than countries with the greatest needs. I am not sure that a large increase in the share of aid to humanitarian assistance is a good solution, for two reasons. I fear the Government's focus on the Pacific might mean that this would further reduce funding to effective multilateral development programs and to effective development programs in non-Pacific countries. My second reason is that there appears to be considerable scope to improve the effectiveness of humanitarian assistance through better disaster prevention and preparedness and more direct support of people and NGOs in disaster areas, with less use of imported civilian and military personnel. However I certainly think the effectiveness and impact of the aid program would be significantly improved if we removed the artificial separation of humanitarian and development programs. We should apply humanitarian principles to the whole aid program and thus: - provide assistance on the basis of need and our capacity to make a difference - prioritise poor people's survival and focus on ensuring everyone has access to basic services and is safe - ensure local people are at the centre of decision making and action. This is what we expect and largely achieve for Australians in Australia but we don't seem to apply these principles across our aid program.