We want to hear what people across the Pacific think about these new goals. This short survey explains the new goals and gives people across the Pacific the chance to rate their relevance and help track progress. The more we know about the goals, the more we can hold our leaders to account to implement them.

Your response will remain anonymous and will help assess where Pacific countries and territories currently stand in relation to the goals, and provide feedback to our leaders and policy makers as progress is made – or not as the case may be.

We aim to keep the survey running (online and offline) over the next couple of years and will periodically report on results. These reports will be made public and shared with national governments and regional organisations.

This survey is an initiative of the Pacific Institute of Public Policy in association with RMIT University, and has been approved by the RMIT Human Research Ethics Committee. More information about the survey is available in the Participant Information Sheet.

If you are 16 years or older, from a Pacific country or territory, and happy to participate you can have your say by starting the survey here.

The concept

We tend to think of evidence in terms of policymaking, rather than politics. A great deal has been written about how to use evidence to improve bureaucratic processes to deliver specific outcomes. But this has not really been brought together with work to use evidence to foster political debate about what those outcomes ought to be. In a country like Vanuatu, where connections between citizens and political actors are weak – and where this has serious implications for the quality of service delivery – improving how the bureaucracy functions without improving the nature of the national debate (and vice versa) can only ever deliver very partial solutions to development problems. This concept note describes a groundbreaking approach to change the nature of political debate in Vanuatu by helping political actors first listen to, and then interpret, evidence in the form of stories about how people respond to the absence of the state. Our current focus is on political actors, but we recognise the many implications our work will have for how the bureaucracy engages with, and uses, the evidence.

PiPP was set up to hold open spaces for political dialogue across the Pacific, to promote politics based on issues rather than on personality and patronage. It has done this by hosting debates and forums on various channels (tv, radio, social media), synthesising and publicising research on key issues and hot topics, and encouraging face to face engagement between MPs and their constituents. PiPP does not advocate for any policy position, it simply provides the space within which indigenous positions can emerge.

PiPP has already laid some of the groundwork for this project by stimulating a national debate on the role of Parliamentarians as citizen representatives. Building on the trust and relationships developed through PiPP activities carried out with Vanuatu’s political parties since 2008, the 2011/12 MP Face to Face programme established proof of concept – that is, given an appropriate and accessible opportunity and space, the people of Vanuatu will make use of it to engage in robust and meaningful dialogue with their elected representatives. We have learned that the MP Face to Face programme meets a recognised demand within the wider community – the events were well attended and the feedback received was in the most part very positive and repeatedly highlighted people’s appreciation that such forums imply their voices matter and can be heard, especially in rural areas. As one political observer stated, ‘the genie is out of the bottle, politicians will no longer be able to avoid the conversations that matter’. Clearly, the MP Face to Face programme delivered something of a shock to the political system in Vanuatu, which needs to be followed through to effect meaningful change – something that realistically will take a number of election cycles and will be an evolving mix of innovation and normalising activities such as Face to Face.

In this project we take the ‘space-for-debate’ approach to another level entirely; using stories from across the country to improve the quality of debate about Vanuatu’s national priorities and about how far the state’s responsibility should extend in delivering services to its citizens.

Overview of findings

The pilot survey (of 499 households in Port Vila, Vanuatu) was designed to build a picture of the nature of the connection between citizens and political actors around the issue of basic service delivery. By asking respondents to tell a story and then signify (interpret and validate) that story we sought to understand who people rely on when they need help, why they rely on them, whether they have an active choice in who they rely on, and the sort of response that they get. Our role was to collect the stories and to look for interesting patterns in the data, and then put these patterns and the stories in front of political actors, facilitating discussion about what this implies for MPs and government staff through our on-going citizen engagement programme.

Education was the main topic of stories collected in Port Vila, with 91 stories (18% of the total), followed by health, jobs and transport (which included the state of the roads). There were no real surprises here: the data echoes what we hear all the time – lack of access to education (because of non-payment of school fees) decent health facilities, the lack of jobs and problems with poor transport infrastructure. We also hear many MPs complain that the requests they get for help are generally little more than demands for cash to help individuals or individual communities with specific problems such as school fees, funerals or building projects.

The only sector where gender made a difference to the content of the stories was land: 73% of the stories about land came from men. Otherwise there was no real gender division between the stories in each sector, though marginally more women than men talked about housing, and marginally more men than women talked about access to electricity.

Over half the interviewees (55%) categorised their problem as extremely serious, with more men (147) than women (125) falling into this category. It is not for us to say whether this is right or wrong, expected or unexpected: people interpret their stories in their own contexts and what may be extremely serious to one person could be less so to another, for a variety of reasons. In the preamble to the interviews, people were told: “I’d like you to tell me a story, one that you think it would be good for our leaders to hear… PiPP will use your story and what you tell us about it to talk to our leaders and help them improve service delivery in our country.” Knowing in advance that their stories would be placed in front of political leaders may have encouraged them to mark ‘extremely serious’ to ensure they were listened to, but we have no way of knowing whether or not this happened. And given that 57 people reported that their problem was ‘not serious but needed a solution’ we do not think the preamble biased the answers too much. In any case, this is not the issue: were interviewees to tell their stories directly to political leaders we have no reason to believe they would say any different.

Given the seriousness of the problems, a high percentage (38.1%) thought at the outset that their problem could be solved. This question was asked to get at the degree of confidence people show in ‘the system’ that they fall back on when they face problems—whether that includes government, traditional authorities, churches or NGOs or a mix of organisations. Fewer (11%) knew for certain that it could be solved, 37% either didn’t know or thought it would be difficult. 16% had no confidence at all that the problem had a solution. There were no significant differences between the pattern of responses between men and women.

51% of people sought outside help to solve their problems, while 49% relied on their friends and family for help.

Given this, the pattern of satisfaction with how things eventually turned out is unsurprising: most people (64%) were either not at all satisfied or not very satisfied, but for 36% the final result was either OK or positive.

Trust plays a major role in people’s assessment of how reliable the ‘system’ is and the degree of confidence they have that their problems can be solved. However, trust is more strongly associated with chiefs, NGOs, business and local churches than it is with MPs and government staff. Duty also plays a major role, but perhaps in a way that was unexpected. While non-state actors are associated with it’s their duty to help, a key finding from this survey is that even where the citizens of Port Vila are not confident that their problems can be solved, and particularly where they see their problems as serious ones, they see it as the duty of MPs and government staff to help them. Interestingly, MPs are seen as the least responsive of all groups involved in basic service delivery, with government staff and business coming in second.

Where to from here?

By acting as a broker rather than traditional researcher we undertook this work to be able to let political actors navigate the institutional anthropology for themselves, fostering an open set of debates about the state could provide. We have no preconceived notions of what the state should provide in Vanuatu or how it should link to churches, CSOs, NGOs, customary and informal institutions. Neither can we predict what political priorities will eventually emerge from this or what they will ultimately deliver: that is for the politicians and citizens to decide. Our role is to collect the evidence and broker the debate.

The information we collected serves as a solid basis to further inform our on-going citizen engagement programme. We have presented the findings of this research to political actors to support their role in the policy process. This is not, however, a substitute for getting out into the community and listening: it is to help MPs listen to the right things and to inform their listening with background and context. The information can also help inform government debate on the key topics, particularly if it is taken out nationwide—the results of the national survey would be made public, but the intention would be to continue to use the data to inform political debate.

PiPP provided advisory support and input into this three year collaborative research project involving RMIT University, Oxfam Australia, Deakin University and the University of the South Pacific. Funding for the project was through the Australian Development Research Awards.

Led by RMIT University Associate Professor Simon Feeny, who is also a PiPP associate, the research examined how shocks affect individual households, as well as understanding how households are resilient, and seeks to provide important evidence to help design and target policies that protect households from the effects of future shocks.

Fieldwork was conducted across 12 sites in the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu in 2010–11 and consisted of 1,000 household surveys, more than 50 focus group discussions, and a number of key informant interviews. Six of the sites were re-visited approximately two years later to assess how things are changing in the communities. In the latest round of fieldwork, smartphone technology was used to conduct the household survey.

A book on the research findings, Household Vulnerability and Resilience to Economic Shocks, Findings from Melanesia, includes a forward by Odo Tevi, a member of the PiPP board, and described by PiPP executive director, Derek Brien, as ‘a very welcome rich new body of evidence to inform the policy debate and help shape new social protection measures required in our region’. Especially as we are at a point in time where traditional social security networks and land tenure systems in melanesia coming under threat as people increasingly move to urban centres.

In the lead up to the Rio+ 20 global conference of heads of state and government on sustainable development, PiPP undertook detailed national assessments for Palau and Vanuatu as part of the study coordinated by the United nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP) – Green Economy in a Blue World – Pacific Perspective 2012.

This publication explores the concept of a green economy in the Pacific, including a summary of the opportunities, challenges and constraints. I am confident that it will support the efforts of our development partners and Governments in formulating policies for a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient Pacific.

For Pacific island countries, the green economy is very much a blue economy, which is why the Pacific Small Island Developing States (PSIDs) chose this theme to be conveyed by the Pacific to Rio+20.

The future we want [PDF 0.5MB], the outcome of the Rio+20 Summit, reinforced the global commitment towards balancing the economic, social and environmental pillars of sustainable development through the green economy approach, including enabling policy, legal, regulatory and institutional frameworks. Green economic policies, coupled with other macro-economic and social policies to promote inclusion, can be used to “incentivize” greater balance in developmental outcomes – particularly in favour of social inclusion, equity, and environmental sustainability. Pacific island developing countries, where in spite of previous efforts and significant resource outlays, vulnerability has increased and the capacity to cope has not. Overall economic performance in the Pacific has been weak; and while there has been some social development, including progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), there are still significant gaps, particularly in the areas of poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability. The importance of poverty alleviation and environmental sustainability in the Pacific has received high-level recognition through the conclusion that ‘poverty eradication is the greatest global challenge facing the world today’ and through the Pacific Islands Forum conclusion that climate change is the single greatest threat in the Pacific and managing the Pacific Ocean is one of the Pacific’s most significant challenges.

The Pacific Ocean provides environmental, economic and social benefits to the global community. Thus there is a need to support the stewardship role of the people of the Pacific through recognizing the unique challenges faced. The preservation of natural resources and ecosystems and environmentally sustainable growth are of critical importance for the Pacific. While the top priorities of the Pacific leaders are addressing the threat of climate change and overcoming the challenge of managing the Pacific Ocean, the need for greater gender equality, strong institutions and sustainable economic performance are also evident in the region.

This publication is offered to support national governments and their development partners in formulating policies for a more inclusive, sustainable and resilient Pacific.

In the lead up to the 2012 general election in Vanuatu, PiPP provided a summary analysis of the policy platforms of the registered political parties. This analysis was published in Bislama as an eight page supplement to the national daily newspaper, and followed an extensive consultation exercise with the executive of each registered political party. It also built on work previously undertaken in 2008 to profile all political parties and groupings in Vanuatu.

Analysis of the policy platforms of the parties contesting the 2012 general elections revealed striking similarities with many splinter groupings seemingly cutting and pasting broad policy statements from their original ‘mother parties’. In a country where electors vote predominantly on personality and social standing in the community, as opposed to well-designed and clearly defined policy platforms, it was not surprising that many of the furnished policy documents constituted quite broad statements that lacked clear delivery mechanisms or commitments.

As it turned out, the 2012 election returned the most fractured parliament to date: 16 parties and four independents. The largest party secured only 8 of the 52 seats on offer, and failed to form a government. The coalition government that emerged comprised 12 different political groupings or factions, and almost immediately faced a motion of no confidence. The fluid nature of the country’s political landscape does little to encourage parties or individual MPs to formulate policies to tackle the nation and state building challenges. Managing coalition politics and voter expectations, which include tangible transfer of goods or money from the MP, leaves little space for policy formulation or execution.

The governance landscape in Vanuatu will be dominated by political patronage for some time to come. But things are changing, and we are finding that through our work and discussion forums there is a growing demand for more widespread civic education and opportunities to discuss the key issues.

Infographic summarising research findings 2011 [PDF 1.3MB]

Research findings report 2009 [PDF 1.8MB]

Research findings report 2008 [PDF 2.0MB]

This research presents findings from a three part series of studies on telecommunications use, benefits, and constraints in Vanuatu.

This series of studies undertaken by the Pacific Institute of Public Policy in 2008, 2009, and 2011 has helped illuminate the economic and social impacts of telecommunications market liberalisation. For those living in Vanuatu, many of these impacts are clear: prior to 2008, people in Vanuatu had limited access to phones, but now mobiles are a common household item. Since 2008, both the incumbent, Telecom Vanuatu Ltd (TVL) and the new provider, Digicel, have expanded services across the country, including to remote islands in the north and south. Modes of communication are changing, new business ventures are emerging, and mobile phones are becoming a part of everyday life. The Pacific Institute of Public Policy has been mapping these changes.

The 2011 study adds to findings from the 2008 and 2009 reports, not only by exploring the ongoing impacts of increasing telephone access, but also by investigating the constraints imposed by complementary infrastructure, and patterns of internet uptake. The study was extensive, including over 1,000 face-to-face household surveys, and nearly 100 in-depth focus groups and semi-structured interviews with community representatives and small businesses. Data was collected in 13 rural and three urban research sites across eight islands of Vanuatu over a three month (March and June 2011) period. The following is a summary of our key findings.

Phones are prevalent throughout Vanuatu…

Perhaps one of the most prominent and persistent themes emerging from the study results is that phones—in particular, mobile phones—have become a primary mode of communication across the country. The overwhelming majority of households had access to a mobile phone; four out of five survey respondents reported personally owning a mobile phone; and at the household level mobile phones appeared to be the most commonly owned electrical appliance. From 2008 to 2011, increasing numbers of households in both rural and urban areas obtained access to multiple (three or more) mobile phones.

…but in rural areas, their use is more limited

Despite these clear countrywide patterns, there were some interesting differences between urban and rural areas. For instance, although mobile phone penetration in rural areas is high, rural respondents reported using their phones less frequently than urban respondents. This may reflect limited service coverage, and perceived cost: more focus groups in rural areas expressed concern about the difficulty of obtaining a reliable service signal, and discussed the expense of using mobile phones. Although a number of respondents reported using both Digicel and TVL services in an attempt to maximise cost savings and coverage reliability, in several areas consumers still only have one choice of provider.

…which may be partly attributable to poor transportation and electricity services

In addition to coverage concerns, the usefulness of phones may also be limited by deficiencies in parallel infrastructure. Results from both the household survey and focus groups indicated that poor wharf services were a major inconvenience and source of inefficiency, limiting the potential gains made through improved communication by phone. In addition, few rural areas had grid-supplied electricity, and thus had to rely on solar cells, batteries, and diesel generators, which can be costly to set up and operate. In such areas, fewer residents were able to charge their mobile phone batteries at home, and ownership of other electrical appliances such as televisions and computers was very limited.

The benefits of phone use are still widely felt…

Nevertheless, as with previous years, respondents in 2011 reported a wide range of perceived benefits of increased access to mobile phones, including multiple commercial and financial benefits, connecting with social networks, and accessing key services and information. The greatest positive impacts from phones appeared to be in enabling more frequent contact with family and friends and increasing the speed of communication. Access to health care services and to increased social support was also seen to have improved somewhat as a result of increased access to phones, and, since 2008, increasing numbers of respondents have noted benefits in gaining access to specialised services. In contrast, more than a quarter of respondents felt that phones had not helped them at all in terms of improving communication with government departments.

…and are likely still to be fully realised in rural areas

Again, though, there were some interesting urban-rural differences in the results. Phones appear to have become more integrated in urban communities: nearly three quarters of urban respondents said they could not continue their current economic activities, or could only continue with difficulty, if they could no longer use mobile phones. In contrast, fewer rural respondents were currently so reliant on their phones, in several cases reporting that the loss of phone contact would make no difference to them. However, focus groups revealed that rural respondents were more likely than urban respondents to focus on improving telephone services as a community priority. This suggests that because mobile phone use is more recent and still constrained in rural areas, its benefits have yet to be fully realised (but people see its potential).

Some other forms of communication are diminishing in importance…

The rise of mobile phones appears to have been accompanied by the decline of other modes of communication. Use of fixed line phones was low across the country, and the availability of public phones in rural areas appears to have been declining, likely due to the costs of maintenance and the inconvenience of travel for rural communities. Looking back across the 2008, 2009 and 2011 studies, the use of letters and communication via local leaders has been steadily decreasing, as has the perceived importance of other such traditional communication forms.

…but direct face-to-face contact is still valued, and some social concerns about phones persist

Nevertheless, phones have not been a direct substitute for face-to-face interaction, which remained a preferred channel for many communication purposes. Furthermore, respondents expressed several concerns about the negative impacts of mobile phone use, particularly related to a breakdown in social relations and divergence from traditional behavioural norms. This suggests that face-to-face communication will remain important within communities, and that the greatest benefits of phones arise when they are used in constructive ways to improve connectivity with distant correspondents, rather than to break down close social connections.
Another concern that some respondents raised is that phones are costly. However, there was no evidence that people were substituting expenditure on essential items for expenditure on phones, and most respondents limited the amount they spent on phones to no more than 1,000vt per month—approximately 2% of the mean monthly income across respondents.

Internet use is still limited

In stark contrast to the data on phones, the majority of survey respondents did not have internet access—reflecting the absence of services in most areas. Those who did tended to use internet cafés or access the internet at their workplaces, and to a lesser extent through mobile phones and on home computers. Respondents perceived the internet to be important, especially for news and information, but did not view it as essential. Perceived cost, limited network access, and lack of experience with the technology appeared to be key barriers to increased usage.

Overall, these results suggest that mobile phone use is widespread throughout Vanuatu. Although people are enjoying greater connectivity, there are still some constraints on achieving further economic and social benefits.

This research was carried out in association with the Government of Vanuatu, Ministry of Infrastructure and Public Utilities with funding from the Australian Agency for International Development through its Vanuatu Governance for Growth Programme.

K*Star was coined as the collective term to address the burgeoning terminology associated with the knowledge field, terms including: Research Communication, Knowledge Mobilization, Brokering, Translation, Exchange and Intermediation, have gained currency in the past decade. The meaning of others has evolved, notably Knowledge Management.Focusing on different terminology has masked one important point: that the actual functions described are all systemically related to each other and that the functions can provide real value in improving the efficiency, and accelerating the impact, of various initiatives.

The first global K*Star conference was convened by the United Nations University Institute for Water, Environment and Health (UNU-INWEH) in April 2012: it brought together key experts from across the world, and from different sectors, to: try and reach mutual understanding; stall the fragmentation of the knowledge field; and avoid potential serial re-invention of the wheel.

PiPP executive director, Derek Brien, delivered the keynote address at the conference, which focused on the divide separating practitioners and policy-makers in how they interpret and use knowledge. For some, navigating the knowledge-policy interface should focus on process. In this case, the K*Star process is key to helping people to make the best possible decision – an approach focusing on supporting people so that they can better access, use and understand knowledge in their decision-making process. It is not about offering solutions. For others, however, outcome reigns supreme – and in this case it is trying to influence people to make the ‘right’ decision (i.e. one that we agree with). Subtle, but a crucial difference.

Following the conference, Louise Shaxson, ODI research fellow and PiPP associate, led the team of collaborators to produce a concept paper on K*Star in an attempt to expand our understanding of of knowledge, and drawing on experiences and case studies shared by conference participants, including: Louise Shaxson (ODI), Alex Bielak (UNU-INWEH),Ibrahim Ahmed (General Department of Agriculture, Um Ruwaba, Sudan), Derek Brien (Pacific Institute for Public Policy), Bernadette Conant (Canadian Water Network), Catherine Fisher (Institute of Development Studies, Impact and Learning Team), Elin Gwyn (Ontario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs), Laurens Klerkx (Wageningen University), Anne Middleton (Health Canada), Sarah Morton (University of Edinburgh), Laxmi Pant (University of Guelph), and David Phipps (York University).

The K*Star concept and conference was born out of a previous workshop on improving the impact of development research through better research communications and uptake, which was co‐hosted by the Australian Government Aid Programme, UK Department for International Development and the UK Collaboration on Development Sciences on 29-30 November 2010, in London. Bringing together 80 participants from across the globe to share ideas and knowledge, the workshop was addressed by PiPP chair, Nikunj Soni, who reminded participants that it is vital to always ‘be in the live debate’ – in order to maintain engagement you must be in the room and you must constantly engage with both sides; and for this to work you need to retain your neutral, independent status as a knowledge intermediary: you can’t be seen to be taking one side or the other. This remains our ethos at PiPP and is why we have successfully established a network that traverses the policy/research divide.

The Office of Development Effectiveness (ODE) at the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade strives to find stronger evidence for more effective aid. ODE monitors the performance of the Australian aid program, evaluates its impact and contributes to international evidence and debate about aid and development effectiveness.

As part of its evaluation into the aid program’s engagement in policy dialogue – Thinking and Working Politically: An evaluation of policy dialogue in AusAID – ODE commissioned a think piece by PiPP executive director, Derek Brien.

Presented as a Pacific perspective on more effective donor engagement in policy dialogue, Derek’s think piece suggests the need for better engagement and understanding so that there may ultimately be a meeting of minds on the common development expectations, and the means to achieve them.

The evaluation also included a literature review of international best practice, case studies from Indonesia and Solomon Islands, interviews with AusAID staff and a web-based staff survey.

Broadly, the evaluation recommended that policy dialogue be better incorporated into the agency’s practices by:

• promoting a common understanding and providing senior direction on policy dialogue
• embedding policy dialogue into aid management practices
• ensuring policy dialogue is properly resourced
• supporting the skills development of staff.

In our region we have over one thousand languages, and a cultural make up that is as diverse as it comes. Some rules of engagement cross cultural boundaries, and some don’t. The way one person says something, is not necessarily the way the other person hears it. Engaging in policy dialogue in this context is about effective communication: building trust, understanding and consensus for action.

PiPP’s independent analysis of Vanuatu’s bid to join the WTO presented an accessible guide to policymakers and he general public and demolished some of the myths about joining the global multilateral trading system.

A pilot study in collaboration with Asia Development Bank to investigate locally derived, country – specific strategies for improving policy processes and provide a much stronger understanding of existing policy processes, capacities and conditions. The reproach brought together key stakeholders in the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and the Republic of the Marshall Islands to better understand the current policy environment and identify pragmatic strategies to straighten policy processes.