1. INTRODUCTION
In
this review titled ‘A Way Forward: Review
of Papua New Guinea’s Millennium Development Goals 2015 Dismal Performance’
I take a look at three recent articles that address the reasons Papua New
Guinea (PNG) had not performed well in its national tailored Millennium
Development Goal (MDG) targets between 2000 and 2015. The reasons range from
technical to geographical and cultural as well as political. In addition, I
would discuss what PNG could do post-2015 to achieve the United Nations’
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 2030.
2. ARTICLE
1: THE MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS IN PAPUA NEW GUINEA: THE RESPONSE OF
GOVERNMENT
The
article ‘The Millennium Development Goals in Papua New Guinea: the response of government [pdf]’ was written by Marjorie
Andrew, Deputy Director & Research Leader at the National Research
Institute. On the 15th of March, 2015 she presented her research work
at a three day conference on ‘Resource
Development and Human Well-Being in Papua New Guinea: Issues in the measurement
of progress’. She highlighted several reasons why PNG’s performance on
locally tailored MDGs indicators were ‘off the mark’ (Andrew, 2015, p. 22).
In her remarks on pages 3
- 4, Andrew indicated that PNG national indicators we tailored twice; first in
2004 for the Medium Term Development Strategy 2005 – 2010 and re-tailored in
2010 for Medium Term Development Plan 2011 – 2015. Of the 91 PNG tailored national
indicators, only 40 were the same as the United Nations’ MDGs 1 to 8. The
others (51 tailored indicators) were either blurred or less complying with UNs’
requirements and therefore cannot be measured internationally. This was of the
reasons why PNG was put in the area of ‘no data’.
On pages 5 - 7, Andrew distinctively pointed
out that PNG government lacks internal technical expertise to collect and
analyse important statistical data for 2015 MDG Progress Report. Though several
departments produced report annually, overall technical expertise across public
institutions is ‘weak’. She mentioned that PNG’s reliance on international
donors to do reporting showed that without them, vital reports may remain
undone.
3. ARTICLE
2: MDGS: WHERE DID WE END UP AND WHERE TO FROM HERE?
Dr.
Genevieve Nelson, Chief Executive Officer of Kokoda Track Foundation, gave some
insights on the eight MDGs and put forward several reasons why PNG had
difficulty achieving the MDG indicators. In her introduction, she thought 2015
was ‘a time to reflect on that past
decade’s [and-a-half] progress towards meeting the goals and setting a new
framework for post-2015’ (Nelson, 2015). Furthermore, she highlighted that
progress was made in area of poverty reduction worldwide. Quoting McCarter’s
(2003) she said the estimate for people living under $1.25 per day had halved
from 43 percent in 1990 down to 21 percent in 2010 – an indication of reduction
in poverty. Nonetheless, Dr. Nelson said disparity emerged from individual
countries. She clearly indicated that according to the ‘MDG Progress Index
developed by the Centre for Global Development Think Tank’, PNG is awarded a dismal
score of just 1 out of 8.
Dr.
Nelson further put emphasis on several challenges why PNG is one of the few
countries in the word that did not meet the MDGs. The two technical reasons she
identified were that the PNG’s tailored development indicators change very
little every few years; and PNG had capacity issues within government offices,
including the government departments. Often there was ‘no data’ in tables due
to their inability to produce reliable data on a regular basis. In addition to
the technical reasons, others reasons that potentially contribute to PNG’s inability
to meet the MDG indicators include Geography, Linguistic and Cultural
diversity, and Governance and Corruption.
Dr.
Nelson remarked that PNG was ranked low on the MDGs Progress Index (1 out of 8)
should be a wake-up call for the government. She reiterated that ‘business-as-usual’
attitude has to change – there is no room for complacency going forward. PNG
must improve on the technical, geographical, cultural and political challenges,
by developing appropriate policy framework focused on human development and
provision of services.
In
summary, Dr Nelson said post 2015 era should see governments, donors,
businesses and NGO working together to improve people’s lives. Though it may
seem hard, the future of the nation depends on ‘innovation and new technology, collaborations and partnerships, and
strong action focused on the delivery of basic services to remote communities,
to improve outcomes for all Papua New Guineans’ (Nelson, 2015, para. 15).
4. ARTICLE
3: HOW SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT GOALS (SDGs) CAN BENEFIT PAPUA NEW GUINEA’S
SOCIETY AND ECONOMY
The
article was written by Ann-Cathrin Joest for an NGO group called the Seed
Theatre Incorporation. Her emphasis was on the how PNG could use its lessons
learned on MDGs as a stepping stone for developing policy framework for the 17
SDGs, post-2015. Joest introduced her article by stating the obvious - PNG had difficulty
achieving the MDGs. She also mentioned that according to the UN’s Human
Development Index (HDI), PNG is rated among the thirty ‘Low Human Development’
(UNDP, 2014) group of countries, ranked 165 out of 187 countries. She also
mentioned that low life expectancies at birth, school retention, maternal
health, high infant mortality and increase sexually transmitted infections were
among the human development issues. Joest also mentioned that PNG is ranked ‘one of the lowest on the Gender Inequality
Index’ (Joest, 2005. para. 2). In addition she mentioned that urban crimes
and tribal fight were major challenges.
Joest
reasoned that this poor performance was the result of poor education and food
insecurity; inadequate access to sanitation, clean water and energy; and
failure of past and previous governments on its MDG responsibilities. Joest said
that the MDGs expired in 2015. Yet under those circumstances, SDGs2030 policy framework
will not be successful post-2015 if government does not take action to address
issues relating to education, food security, and institutional capacity among
the others.
