Showing posts with label SDGs2030. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SDGs2030. Show all posts

App to help LOs Report Illegal Logging on their Land

Lukim Gather, a phone application developed by Catalpa International will help PNG to monitor its protected areas. 

PNG UNDP 

The new system will allow Rangers, who work in isolated areas, to quickly record and report harmful activities, such as illegal logging, bush fires and natural hazards.

This initiative rolled out by the Conservation Environment Protection Authority is possible through the support from UNDP through funding from Global Environment Facility.

Read about it here

Source: PNG UNDP

China Not a Development Partner But Loan Shark in PNG

WHICH DONORS CONTRIBUTE THE MOST TO PNG? While discussing 2020 Budget papers many members of NEC were surprised to find out just how much PNG receives from our donor partners. (Facebook/Kramer Report)

Note: This post was later retracted by the writer)

In 2020 PNG will receive close to K1 Billion in free development funds to assist us in our development goals.

Topping the list was Australia contributing K745m while China only contributes K7m
  • Australia K745.0 m (81%)  
  • European Union K80.0 m (8.7%) 
  • United Nations K41.7 m  
  • New Zealand K22.9 m
  • China K7.0m
  • USA K5.0 m 

In contrast when you look at it from how much we borrow, China tops the list on K450m. 
  • China K446.2 m 
  • ADB K437.6 m 
  • World Bank K185.50 m 
  • Japan K181.3 m 
  • India K7.7 m 
  • Australia K0.0 m 
Some countries are happy to lend us money where they benefit from the interest earned and conditional to their companies being awarded the contracts. Source National Planning Department 2020 Capital Investment Budget.

This piece of article is damning. Read here



Youth Participation: A Bridge to Opportunities - Nigel Akuani

Port Moresby: Real opportunities that benefit young people bring about effective youth participation.

Png youth inclusion sdg

This reflective statement was made by the Year-Eleven students of Jubilee Catholic Secondary during their talk on the topic ‘Youth Participation in Decision Making’ on TribeFM’s Chatroom program of Wednesday 13th November.

In their discussion the students dealt with a definition of the topic, its importance, factors affecting participation, importance of role models, recommendations and a call for the government to assist with the empowering of young people.

Jamieson Lalaga defined youth as a period of transition from the dependence of childhood to the independence of adulthood. He said that adults need to understand this. 
“This transition allows a young person’s consciousness, active participation, creativity, independence and ability to take responsibility for their actions. Effective youth participation is about creating opportunities for young people to be involved in influencing, shaping, designing and contributing to policy and the development of services and programs,” he said.

Ian Waho stressed the importance of youth participation in decision making and said it was essential for young people to contribute effectively and positively to society.

Solange Dawana spoke of the proper role models in society. 
“Youth involvement in decision making is lacking in Papua New Guinea because many young people today do not have someone positive to look up to,” she said. “In Papua New Guinea we tend to give the upper hand to the elders in our society because of our respect for them. To achieve cooperation, participation and workflow in society, young people have to be acknowledged and given the opportunity to act,” she added.

Felicianna Konga concluded the discussions recommending that the elders in society to provide pathways necessary for young people to contribute on matters. 
“They need to be given a chance to speak their minds, if not, they will tend to look for it elsewhere.  They will be going against adult supervision without a second thought as to whether their decisions are good or bad,” she said.

Chatroom’s next session on Wednesday 20th November will have Students of St Charles L’wanga Secondary and Specialists from UNICEF discuss the importance of the upcoming ‘International Children’s Day’.

What does it mean to be ranked 154/188 on the Human Development Index - PNG, Vanuatu, Fiji & Australia

UNDP, 2016


Australia

A Very Human High Development country with Human Development Index (HDI) value of 0.939 out of high of 1.0, Life Expectancy at Birth of 82.5 years, Expected Years of Schooling of 20.4 years, Mean School Years of 13.2 years, Gross National Income (GNI) per capita of $42,822 (International Currency) and GNI per capita minus HDI rank of 19. Of the 188 HDI ranking, Australia was ranked 3rd in 2014 and moved one place up to 2nd in 2015.

Fiji

A High Human Development country. It has a HDI value of 0.736 out of a possible 1.0, Life Expectancy at Birth of 70.2 years, Expected Years of Schooling of 15.3 years, Expected Years of Schooling of 10.5 years, GNI per capita of $8,245 (International Currency) and GNI per capita minus HDI rank of 20. Fiji was ranked 91 in 2014 and remained at 91 in 2015 among the 188 countries.

Vanuatu 

Vanuatu is categorised as a Medium Human Development country. Vanuatu has HDI value of 0.597 out of a high of 1.0, Life Expectancy at Birth of 72.1 years, Expected Years of Schooling 10.8 years, Mean School Years of 6.8 years, GNI per capita of $2,805 (International Dollar) and GNI per capita minus HDI rank value of 23. Vanuatu ranked 134 in 2014 and remained unchanged at 134 out of the 188 countries on the HDI ranking.

Papua New Guinea

PNG was categorised as Low Human Development Country. PNG has HDI value of 0.516 out of a high of 1.0, Life Expectancy at Birth of 62.8 years, Expected Years of Schooling at 9.9 years, Mean Years of Schooling at 4.3 years, GNI per capita of $2,712 (International Currency) and GNI per capita minus HDI rank value of 4. PNG HDI rank was 153 in 2014 but fell 1 place to 154 in 2015 out of the 188 countries ranked.

Comparison - some similarities 

  1. Australia (VHHD), Fiji (HHD) and Vanuatu (MHD) have HDI value was near 0.6 or higher,
  2. Life Expectancy at Birth above 70 years where Fiji and Vanuatu’s Life Expectancy at Birth were 70.2 years and 72.1 years respectively. 
  3. Expected Years of Schooling for the three countries have an interval of 5 years with Australia at 20.4 years, Fiji at 15.3 years and Vanuatu at 10.8 years, 
  4. GNI per capita about $3,000 (Vanuatu = $2,802) or more 
  5. GNI per capita minus HDI rank value more approximately equal to 20. 
  6. Fiji and Vanuatu DHI ranks have remained the same in 2014 and 2015 at 91 and 134, respectively. Australia’s HDI rank improve from 3rd in 2014 to 2nd in 2015.


 Contrast - some differences 

  1. The difference between the Human Development Index (HDI) value of Australia and Fiji was 0.203 (0.939 – 0.736 = 0.203) and Australia and PNG was 0.423 (0.939 – 0.516 = 0.423) indicating a wide disparity between the VHHD – MDH and VHHD – LDH countries; 
  2. The difference between the Life Expectancy at Birth of Australia and Fiji was 12.3 years (82.5 – 70.2 = 12.3 years) and Australia and PNG was 19.7 years (82.5 – 62.8 = 19.7 years another example of identifying disparity between the VHHD – MDH and VHHD – LDH countries;
  3.  The difference between the Expected Years of Schooling in Australia and Fiji was 5.1 years (20.4 – 15.3 = 5.1 years) and Australia and PNG was 10.5 years (20.4 – 9.9 = 10.5 years)
  4. The difference between the Mean School Year in Australia and Fiji was 2.7 years (13.2 – 10.5 = 2. 7 years) and Australia and PNG was 8.9 years (13.2 – 4.3 = 6.2 years);
  5. The difference between the Gross National Income per capita in Australia and Fiji was $34,577 ($42,822 - $8,245 = $34,577) and Australia and PNG was $42 110 ($42,822 – 2,712 = $42,110) ; and 
  6. The difference between the GNI per capita minus HDI rank in Australia and Fiji was -1 (19 – 20 = -1, Fiji higher value than Australia) and Australia and PNG was 15 (19 – 4 = 15). 

Summary 

The indicators for the VHHD, HHD and MHD countries showed relatively close similarities when the indicators of an MHD country was used, in this case Vanuatu. There were significant differences when the human development indicators from PNG (a LHD country) were differentiated again the indicators from VHHD and HHD countries. 

The HDI ranks for 2014 and 2015 showed that Australia improved by one place from 3rd to 2nd, Fiji retained its rank at 91, Vanuatu retained its rank at 134 and PNG’s rank dropped from 153 to 154.

BUILDING INSTITUTIONAL CAPACITY: REVIEW OF PAPUA NEW GUINEA MILLENNIUM DEVELOPMENT GOALS 2015 PERFORMANCE


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.