Comments

Global warming is a big threat to human beings. Sometimes to distribute the funds to the people in need is more complex than to acquire the finance.

Further clarification...the SWF legislation was already in its advanced stages with plenty of consulation with Australian treasury before Mekere became Minister; the Lae Port redevelopment also was in its advanced stages; the new fibre optic project (negotiated by the previous IPBC and SOE Ministerial regime) - already in its advanced stages; the draft legislation regarding a infrastructure fund - that too was already in advanced form before Mekere became Minister! We are yet to see any new development programmes initiated by the current IPBC regime which they can claim as their own initiative!

Thanks Terrence for the excellent posts on this topic. As you say, I think we agree far more than we disagree. And where we do disagree, you go far further than merely attributing behaviors in Solomon Islands to “culture”, as if it were some ubiquitous, exogenous, and primordial force. You treat behavior as if it is something that is amenable to analysis, with an important role to be played by rational choice models. So I am happy. I don’t think I have all of the answers. But I know that we need serious analysis (like yours) to find them, rather than outsiders blaming problems of economic development and political governance purely on the ill-defined “culture” of locals. I also agree, though, about where we disagree most – the importance of development partners making greater use of Government systems. I don’t believe that we can expect Government accountability to emerge unless Government can reasonably be held responsible for more of what impacts on Solomon Islanders’ lives. Why would you care about national-level politics when the school has a Taiwan sign on it, and the clinic has an AusAID sign on it, and there are no local roads or public infrastructure, and there are no local businesses operating within formal regulatory or legislative frameworks, and the police visit every three weeks but leave just about everything to village-level dispute resolution systems? Legislation, regulation, policy and Government service delivery do not appear as large parts of your life. Would more budget support change this? I think donors making better use of Government systems and delivering aid through Government agencies and in alignment with Government policy programs would certainly help. It would allow an expansion in the reach of Government services. It would switch some accountability for service delivery and private sector development towards Ministers and away from foreign donors. It would, if provided through appropriate SWAPs or sector budget support, reduce the amount of funding available for the development budget pork-barrel. It would also move the emphasis of donor dialogue, which I believe can be an important motivator for change, away from fragmented projects and implementation issues, towards broader issues of policy. 40% of public expenditure in Solomon Islands is from donors. Most of this money goes straight into project implementation, without hitting the sides of Government systems. Often, Government doesn’t even know what donors are doing or how much has been spent because of the complete inadequacy of reporting systems. Two hundred projects, some of which have marginal linkages to any Government development strategies but are – of course – covered by a National Development Plan that includes everything you can think of. Funds channeled through these projects are anything but “out of the arena of political contestation”. As in most countries, the development budget is a far more active arena of political contestation than the recurrent budget, which is largely absorbed by payroll expenses, inflation adjustments, and rolling over of nationally implemented programs. The recurrent budget provides for far fewer of the short-term, geographically targeted infrastructure, “private sector development”, and community programs that populate the development budget – perfect bite-sized morsels for engaging in clientelist politics. Use of Government systems is widely seen as desirable for many reasons and it is something that donors have already signed up to at Paris, Accra, and Cairns. To me, one of the most important of these is the impact on political governance. Increasing the resources to support recurrent programs will make what central Government does more noticeable. Reducing money through projects will reduce some of the scope for clientelism. A fair amount has been written about the importance of using Government systems for these reasons, especially in fragile contexts (examples here: http://go.worldbank.org/QLKJWJB8X0 and http://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper/42/). Some resources perhaps wouldn’t be used very well. But that’s part of the process and bad spending happens everywhere. Even (don’t tell anyone) under donor projects. But at least if Government is plainly in control of the spending (and under the right constitutional/electoral arrangements) there is some chance the Government or minister responsible will be held accountable for that at the next election. Other than some quibbles, this is the only area where I think we are actually at odds. Look forward to your next post. Tobias

My elder brother broke cartiledge on my neck because he wanted to log our tribal land and I did not agree in a fight. Stop all banking transactions. Logging in Solomon Islands is worse than the ethnic tension.

need to know more information about Education Against corruption in Indonesia

Hi Colin, Very interesting piece. I think it also boils down to Landowners' lack of knowledge of their legal rights when signing the lease agreements. Would be really interesting to see the results of the CoI. I'd also like to request a copy of the PNG National Gazette dated July 27 2012- please send this to me as I am interested to know which land areas in Oro Province have been granted SABLs recently. Thanks, Stella Wewak

Very well written.

Dear John, Nate and Aran, Completely and utterly agree with your idea. But I wonder - might this idea even be elevated to a joint, regional unit supported by willing partners in the Asia-Pacific, rather than being housed completely within AusAID? Or is the political landscape in AusAID / DFAT such that 'baby-steps first' approach is warranted before launching into a regional initiative, if only to develop some real and dedicated international/intranational conflict mediation capacity first? I wonder if a parallel or alternative approach could be to develop a civil society 'mediation support' network, comprised of academics and mediation practitioners? Something to build up the capacity whilst AusAID / DFAT are convinced of it's utility, that could be folded into any unit they (hopefully) might create? Just food for thought. Best, Michael Cornish PS. For those having trouble with the link for the "Framework for working in fragile and conflict-affected states: Guidance for Staff", it is missing the colon, and so should be: http://www.ausaid.gov.au/Publications/Documents/aid-fragile-conflict-affected-states-staff-guidance.pdf PPS. Nate, no doubt you have considered this lead already, but Prof. Damien Kingsbury at Deakin University would be a brilliant person to speak to re: your thesis - he was intimately involved in the mediations from the GAM side.

International panels are close relatives of the Australian parliamentary committee and generally about as impactful. Then of course we have the global leader's statement from the G8/G20/General Assembly etc. This usually starts with something like: "We are united in", "We support","We welcome", "We look forward to"; but rarely "We will" or "We commit to" - especially if any significant action or amount of money is involved.

Have confidence in NRI taking the lead as our premier think with better grants from governments.

Have faith in NRI being our premier think tank with enough funding from the government.

I find the entire debate on development aid revolving and fascinating having worked in the sector for over 20 years. The following are general views targeting most donor agencies and INGOs and my intention is to provoke a practical discussion: 1. While aid is a good tool to facilitate development in many different ways, I often get the impression that at times donor agencies are taking away the role of the government and it could be that national budgets for certain sectors such as health, clean running water and health seem to be shrinking. I do think donors should ask the governments, or implementers to co-fund significantly as a way of demonstrating commitment and sustainability (this can be reviewed by countries instead of one foot fits all) There seems to be limited discussion on sustainability or transition plans in some of the projects/programs. Are donors doing less or more harm? Other countries have a lot of resources but they still continue to receive funding. Will they not then abuse their own revenue as they rely on spending donor funds? Please mobilize support to bring the discussion on sustainability back on the national and international agendas. 2. Let’s all pause and ask ourselves how we can increase impact by reducing duplication and enhancing transparent coordination and collaboration, the two fundamental concepts that can potentially result in significant savings. Implementers, donors and INGOs have to start talking to each other more often and honestly (to avoid recycling funds) and a proper mapping exercise needs to be presented systematical and not for the sake of meeting a proposal condition before funding is approved. My suggestion is that funding models need to be adjusted to appropriately align to the current context. Twenty years ago and many years beyond, and taking into account many variables including lack of systems then, the fact is that funding was less but the impact/results was greater, for example look at what the missionaries and volunteers did, they built some of the durable hospitals and schools we see today and provided basic furniture therein, trained medical personnel, sent many people to school nationally and abroad, but with way less money that we see being channeled to other countries by donors (examples on the work of missionaries can be found in some of the countries in Africa and I have taken these to be good lessons). While some impact is seen in other countries, it is also important to establish, where is the money going- is the current level of funding sustainable and for how long- could this money be used to develop sustainable and revenue generating infrastructures such as the HIVAIDS levy in Zimbabwe-with improvements it’s a good starring example despite all these challenges? What can we learn from the past regarding value for money and empowering governments and communities-? Yes, the costs may have gone up over the years, but we can also consider going back to simplicity and innovative ways that result in long term sustainability? 3. Please exploit the development of practical, simple and easy to monitor systems that can also make implementers accountable, for example how much money actually reaches the person who is being provided with ARVS or an orphan who is being sent to school. This unit cost can also help governments to budget with sustainability in mind and for a better future. 4. Please exploit how the multi nationals and private sector can also contribute towards the development sector.