We must not forget that the same laws will apply in the same national parliament and provincial houses of assembly. In the same national and district courtrooms, case law will grow and precedents will continue to be set in the absence of the hard questions that may never get asked about the blatant breaches in our society and adopted system of government.

From 2017 our leaders will (more than ever before) need the knowledge, political will, grace and patience to restore integrity, democracy and the rule of law as a national emergency in order for all else to be rebuilt without exception. The truth is a new government in 2017 will inherit inter-generational debt, a massive deficit and redundant parliamentary rules/standing orders governing important decision-making processes. Not to mention the crumbling sanctity of the National Executive Council (NEC) or cabinet.

They will realise that legislation set up in principle to provide robust governance mechanisms have been misunderstood or ignored by their predecessors. In 2017 a newly elected parliament will discover an exhausted public service, a manipulated police force, an angry defence force, and many broken Papua New Guineans with drought and income starved families and disrupted livelihoods.

Those elected Members of Parliament will find very drained state-owned enterprises, institutions and agencies incapable of operating with only a steady trickle of public funds to deliver wages, health & education or district support according to policies and promises of the past and present. They will find that the much promised revenues from oil and gas have been committed to paying off the current government’s unilateral decisions and therefore debt for unauthorised loans for generations.

New leaders in 2017 will need to navigate a global economic downturn of epic proportions with PNGs development and economic interests at heart. Our new leaders will discover that our broken service delivery system and our overheated economy will need more than elected candidates with tunnel vision.

Those elected will need to be legislators, not aspiring millionaires or public finance managers. Newly elected leaders will require an understanding of serious fiscal discipline, tax and industrial relations reform and economic modelling that reflect PNG’s economic conditions and our revenue-earning potential in sectors other than petroleum and energy.

PNG will need MPs who are humble yet extraordinary thinkers to guide monetary/fiscal, social, cultural and development policy simultaneously to aid a new-look holistic reconstruction strategy focused on understanding that our vast natural resources should never again be left to a single individual who knows no institutional, spiritual, executive or national boundaries. Those new MPs should be held to the universal promise that candidates seek election (and re-election) to be servants to their people not master manipulators of their resources.

All the hopes in online commentary revert to a single assumption that PNG will inevitably have free and fair elections next year. If all we do is dare to dream it’s no longer enough because we will inevitably get what we vote for yet again.

Photo: Sepik Wewak Urban Local Government facebook group

The audience and esteemed panel of adjudicators were impressed by the high standard of debate, especially considering participants only had one day to prepare for the grand final topic. Jonathan Guyant of Vanuatu was particularly persuasive, putting a personal face to the topic and what it means to be ‘successful’ in Melanesia. He was awarded Best Speaker for the grand final debate.

Below is the transcript of his presentation.

—

The affirmative team quote Kofi Annan, and praise the effects globalisation may have on countries all around the world.

Now I could say I disagree – but don’t take my humble student word for this. Take this quote from the Nobel prize winning economist – yes an economist, we are talking about the economy here – and he states that ‘globalisation as it is, is not a force for good. People should govern markets – markets should not govern people. Globalisation and its drawbacks have led us to cross roads and it’s high time we changed direction’.

Distinguished guests, adjudicators, chairman, members of the opposing team, dear audience, a very good morning to you all. We would firstly like to thank PiPP for organising this debate competition. The motion for today’s final is that Melanesia must globalise to succeed.

My team and I find fault in this. We believe the Melanesian countries do not necessarily need to globalise in order to succeed.

do you wish to preserve the identity of your beloved Melanesia? Or do you want to be just another random face on the ever-expanding international body of this globalised world?

My name is Jonathan. I will define the key terms in the motion, introduce our team and the points we have come up with. I will also present our first point, concerning the economic setbacks that globalisation could bring to our Melanesian nations. Kali, our second speaker, will offer a rebuttal on the points given by the opposing side. She will look into the environmental impacts that accompany globalisation and will elaborate upon the fact that globalisation will be a threat to Melanesian culture and it’s custom. Aleesha, our third and final speaker will be the one to summarise all the points raised by our team and conclude our argumentation.

Jonathan Guyant presents his statement at the Grand Final of the 2015 Melanesian School Debate

Now let us take a closer look at the key terms in our motion. We feel that the affirmative team has overlooked these key terms in the motion; must, globalise and succeed. So starting with must. Must has a number of definitions, but the one that seems the most relevant to the motion, and most pertinent to us was the one stating that must describes an imperative need or duty that you are commanded to carry out. This would imply that globalisation is an imperative need or duty for Melanesia. But is it really?

Let us all reflect on Melanesia’s current status in different fields. Starting with the economy. We may refer to Melanesia’s economy as a ‘traditional economy’. This means that our countries suffer little from global financial crises’ that conversely greatly affect the wealthier globalised nations. Here in Vanuatu, 80% of the population live in rural areas. In the Solomon Islands, 78% live in rural areas. In Papua New Guinea the number goes up to 87%. And finally Fiji – yes Fiji – still has 47% of its population living in rural areas.

Ladies and gentlemen, this means that over half the population in Melanesia live in rural areas and rely on this traditional economy.

The next term is globalisation. The Financial Times define this as a process by which national and regional economies, societies and cultures have become integrated through the global network of trade, communication, immigration and transportation. This signifies that all of those things are facilitated though the opening of borders between countries. At first glance, one might think that it holds the answers to many of the worlds needs. But we would just like to clarify that the way you phrase a sentence can have different meaning and influence any given person’s opinion. What I mean by that is, opinions vary form one person to another, sometimes very drastically. It all depends on your perspective.

For instance, if you look at globalisation from the eyes of a money-crazed giant, trampling the forest beneath its feet, searching for ways to enrich itself at the expense of poorer countries, all the while totally disregarding their local culture and customs. Then of course you’ll jump on the globalisation bandwagon. What could the consequences possibly be? If you’re the giant that is.

What I’m trying to say is – globalisation is located in the giant superpowers of this world. The US, Western Europe and increasing emerging countries like China who are all main actors in this race to the bottom.

Consider what huge economic setbacks globalisation could bring to Melanesia. One of them is free trade. It’s supposed to eliminate unfair bias to newcomers and raise the economy in both developed and developing countries. But does it really do so?

Maybe for rich countries, just maybe. But not for us. Let us instead consider fair trade. When we open up markets without regulations our own key industries and businesses may suffer, for example sugar cane, copra or garment industries. Our livelihoods will suffer at the profit of a multi billion-dollar corporation. Also this lack of regulation leads to substandard working conditions and low pay. People, this happens when you cut costs at the expense of human rights.

The recent Trans-Pacific Trade Agreement and PACER-Plus are suppose to offer an opportunity to help Pacific countries benefit from enhanced regional trade and economic integration. But do they do this for Melanesia? They encourage competitiveness yes, but do not create a level playing field for the countries that are involved. These economic policies can also lead to labor migration. When there are fewer employment opportunities at home, people will move away in search of jobs. This decreases the labor force and can also lead to a brain drain of our young educated and talented people.

The third and final term that I will define is success. Once again, success can be defined in many ways. But success cannot be measured – you cannot rate success in any way shape or form. This term is defined by the Merriam Webster online dictionary as the correct or desired result of an attempt. Now see we disagree. Others may say that success is the absence of failure. Again we disagree. Today, my team and I want to win. If we loose will we have failed? I don’t know yet, because success is a feeling. Success is the love that you see in your family and friends eyes, and the love that you give back. Success is the smile on your lips as you shrug off the defeat. Success my dear friends is anything you want it to be, and is discarding Melanesian ways, customs and traditions the path to success? Do you think that in the future you will be able to buy success at the next KFC or Adidas store they open in town? Do you really want to sacrifice your Melanesian identify just for the sake of globalisation.

To conclude my team and I believe that Melanesia must not resort to globalisation. But ladies and gentleman, what do you think? Do you wish to preserve the identity of your beloved Melanesia? Or do you want to be just another random face on the ever-expanding international body of this globalised world.

Photo credit: National Geographic

The appointment process is rather opaque, with an unwritten convention that the post will be rotated through the regions. It’s the Caribbean’s turn, but their vote is split between two candidates. Africa has also put forward a candidate, so the field is wide open.

It is an interesting time for the Commonwealth, teetering as it does on the brink of irrelevance or renewal. Its main value has been as a force of liberal democracy and a platform for small states, but it has never really lived up to its potential, leading some commentators to write it off completely.

Lack of strong leadership is one of the reasons that the Commonwealth has struggled to fulfil its charter and the selection of a new Secretary General is an opportunity remedy this.

Among this group, both of the female candidates stand out.

Dominica’s candidate, Baroness Scotland, has a personal narrative that resonates and inspires.

Born in Dominica, Baroness Scotland migrated to the UK as a child, worked hard, became a QC, and then rose to be Britain’s first female Attorney General, having previously served as a Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Her politics are progressive, and she seems to be genuinely passionate about winning the post of Secretary General.

As Secretary General, I would immediately seek to build consensus on a revitalised Commonwealth that is focused on tangible and expanded delivery on its twin goals of democracy and development. Recognising that the Commonwealth isn’t simply about member States, but the people of those States, its work will always be deeply rooted on delivering cost-effective and measurable positive impact on the lives of the people of the Commonwealth.

Baroness Scotland’s main rival is Sir Ronald Sanders, currently Antigua and Barbuda’s Ambassador ‘Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary’ to the United States. He has the backing of a handful of Caribbean countries and was part of an eminent persons group in 2010 that reviewed the Commonwealth. However his campaign has been tainted by a report that he received $1.4m from an alleged fraud against Antigua’s government.

Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba, the third candidate, may be able to capitalise of the split in the Caribbean, by building on a base of support from African countries. She has served at the ministerial level and did two terms as Deputy Secretary-General of the Commonwealth Secretariat from 2008-2014, so would bring relevant experience to the job.

How will the selection play out?

Caribbean countries are conscious that they have a golden opportunity to win the selection. However their failure so far to unite behind a single candidate has compromised their campaign. In the final hours, they will also need to secure support from other member countries, and this is where the Pacific could play a critical role. The pragmatic approach for the Caribbean would be to unite behind the candidate that can attract sufficient support from other regions. The pragmatic approach for the Pacific would be to support the candidate that best reflects the interests of small island states.

In the event that there is no consensus, the process allows for last minute candidates to be put forward. In recent weeks Australia’s ex Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has been touted by the right-wing press as a ‘compromise’ candidate. Whether he is suitable and would garner sufficient support is debatable. He has a mixed record when it comes to the Pacific, and is not without his controversies. There are of course opportunities for further candidates to emerge.

From a Pacific perspective, Baroness Scotland would be a good Secretary General. She understands the needs and issues facing small island states – recently calling for a 1.5 degree target on climate change. Moreover she has the ability to lobby on our behalf, and would be a welcome and capable first female Secretary General of the Commonwealth.

Whoever emerges as Secretary General, they will face the challenging job of rebuilding the organisation’s relevance in our region and across the world.

Photo caption: Baroness Scotland – a contender for Secretary General of the Commonwealth

Announcing release of the final MDG progress report last week, Forum Secretary General Dame Meg Taylor praised Pacific governments for their ‘substantial progress’ in meeting the development goals, and offered a modest excuse for the lack of performance measured in many areas, particularly in poverty reduction, gender equality, and environment improvements: ‘The MDGs were global goals and applying them at the national level was difficult. In addition many of the MDG indicators did not suit the national context.’

I suggest a different way of evaluating lack of progress on MDGs. Juxtapose the Forum’s MDG assessment with the following headlines: ‘Another PNG MP to stand trial for fraud,’ ‘14 Vanuatu MPs heading to jail,’ ‘Eight sacked over government fraud in Solomon Islands,’ ‘Widespread fraud suspected in Marshall Islands government departments,’ ‘Green light for former Cooks minister to be tried,’ and so on.

It starts from the top and rolls down the line of government workers who view ‘government money’ or aid funding as a pot of money to put in their own pockets. Unfortunately, anti-corruption institutions and enforcement systems are weak in most islands such that there are more government leaders and workers focused on manipulating government finance systems for their own benefit than there are people and resources attempting to enforce accountability and rule of law.

Speaking last week about the Marshall Islands’ membership in the United Nations Convention Against Corruption, Auditor General Junior Patrick confirmed this concern about the reliability of enforcement systems. He said the initial UN review of government systems shows there is a framework in place for preventing corruption. But, he added, he would like to see the UN anti-corruption review go a step further “to see if implementation is effective, what is the time frame for investigations and prosecutions, and what resources are available (for accountability efforts). We have a framework, but is it functional?” For small island countries in particular, where enforcement capability is modest, this is the $100 question.

These same political leaders and personnel in government ministries and agencies—mentioned in the headlines above—were supposedly responsible for delivering performance on the Millennium Development Goals, development plans, and a host of other government services. But when large numbers of government officials are focused on personal instead of national interests, it is obvious their nations are not going to be effectively implementing poverty reduction schemes or gender equality goals.

In an earlier blog in this space, I commented: ‘Corruption comes in many forms: coming late and leaving early but getting fulltime pay, not carrying out the mission of a government office, manipulating tenders and funds for personal interest, and seeing some or all of the above and doing nothing about it.’

From the many corruption investigations, some of which have led to high-profile prosecutions in the region, we now know that leaders in many countries are running government as if it is their personal business. So when people talk about island leaders and saying things such as, ‘Strong political leadership and commitment’ is what is needed to make progress, are we simply kidding ourselves? Political leadership and commitment for what agenda? We simply cannot continue to ignore the fact that widespread corruption is undermining rule of law and slowing progress to a crawl in many countries. The imprisonment of 14 Vanuatu MPs is a landmark anti-corruption development for the Pacific. But over recent past years, penalties in the region for corrupt actions by politicians have been modest to non-existent in many islands, reinforcing a prevailing message, at least at high levels of government, that crime does, indeed, pay.

So eight of the 14 Forum members managed to implement only two or fewer MDGs. In September, all the countries in our region signed onto the 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), promising to implement these over the next 15 years. We could not manage seven MDGs and now we’ve got 17 SDGs, with 169 targets—who exactly is going to make these 17 SDGs a reality in our islands? This is not to say that public health professionals, doctors, educators, community development specialists, and staff at the Forum Secretariat are not committed to making improvements in their respective islands. The point is that for them to be successful, they have to have the attention and support of political leaders. Yet many of these leaders appear to be more focused on self-interested business deals or embezzling aid funding than they are on implementing national development priorities.

Only two nations—Cook Islands and Niue—met all seven MDG targets, while Palau accomplished six. These nations should be recognized for this laudatory performance and probably the most helpful development for the rest of the Pacific islands would be for this trio to convene a working group to identify and share the ingredients that allowed for their success so that other countries in the region can see if there is anything in the Cook Islands/Niue/Palau models that would work elsewhere. Still, until corruption is minimized and rule of law is emphasized, getting traction on the new SDGs is going to be a challenge in many islands.

Caption: The Vanuatu bribery case has made headlines across the region (pictured here). The Vanuatu Appeal Court will deliver its ruling next Friday on appeals by 14 MPs jailed on bribery convictions.

The first part of this blog was published last week. The following is part two:

However, the report fell short of proposing a mechanism to protect the rights of the informal economy participants. Subsequently, there is no mention of the need to properly organize informal economy participants and their activities into groups for the purpose of dialogue and consultation. Section 3(1) of the Informal Sector Development & Control Act 2004 provides for the administering authority to consult (if they wish to) with relevant ward committees, the police force and relevant government agencies responsible for health, physical planning and building, when declaring areas on which informal economy businesses could be conducted. However, experiences thus far have indicated that this has not been the case.

Even if this exists in some provinces there is little evidence to suggest that the administering authorities sought views from informal economy operators or vendors because informal economy, both its activities and operators, are disorganised. Furthermore, given the complexity and cross-cutting nature of the informal economy, provinces need to have special informal economy committees comprising of key stakeholders to deal with these issues. For instance, border provinces such as Vanimo see massive influx of cheap Indonesian goods into Vanimo town and the villages along the highway leading to Batas. These imported goods (with questionable content and quality) make up a large portion of the informal economy in Vanimo and the neighbouring villages. To protect consumers and ensure fair play, the provincial government or the Vanimo Town Authority will have to work with the Border Development Authority, customs, police, NAQIA and others. Therefore, the absence of such a mechanism will do little to change the status quo of the situation.

The report also did not highlight the need for a proper restorative justice mechanism to be in place to deal with cases of harassment and abuse inflicted by enforcers on informal economy participants. The Informal Sector law in its current form is silent on this matter. Section 3(6) of the law only goes as far as saying that “an operator (informal economy vendor/participant) aggrieved by the decision of the Administering Authority under section (4) and (5) may appeal to the District Court”. Yet for most informal economy operators or vendors the Village Court is the most affordable, reliable, reachable and dependable arm of the justice system since it addresses individual and community’s legal concerns through a typically PNG way. The District Courts can be utilized by an interest group or an entity representing the interest of informal economy vendors/operators. Therefore, the report fails to recognize that the infringements done by the informal economy participants (apart from the sale of drugs, counterfeit products and homebrew) are ‘economic crimes’ and not criminal offences that would require the ‘heavy arm of the law’. Thus section 4(2) of the Informal Sector law should be reworded or amended to ensure that the members of the police force are excluded from being appointed as inspectors to police the informal economy.

The NCDC buai ban law demonstrated that administering authorities armed with additional powers can abuse it and in the absence of a voice and an appropriate restorative justice mechanism for the informal economy participants, the informal economy will be suppressed to a point where lives could be lost. Deaths relating to the buai ban have been well-documented in the media. Such actions would thereby defeat the whole purpose of the law. In saying that the law does provide sufficient space as captured under section 3, where the administering authority is required to “adequately notify and welcome feedback from the informal economy operators of its attempt to make changes/determination to the law”. The operator(s) on their part should respond within a set time frame or take the matter to the district court if not satisfied with the authority’s feedback. In addition, inspectors appointed by the administering authority as per section 5(2) should properly notify the informal economy operator/vendor of its decision or actions. However as alluded to earlier, with most of the operators/vendors lacking basic literacy skills and resources (funds) they would need someone to do this for them, or better still an entity like an informal economy market vendor association to represent their common interests and amplify their concerns in order to get the attention of the authorities or policy makers.

Increasing penalty fees and repealing section 18 of the Act, which has a list of laws and their clauses that were excluded, means that informal economy participants will be forced to comply with standards that may be too high for them, especially when most of these participants have very poor literacy skills and lack formal employment to supplement their meager incomes. While the intention is to put forth a progressive and rosy image of the city and urban areas, this should not come at the expense of people’s livelihoods. PNG is now a country that is already experiencing a widening gap between the rich and the poor amidst its most prosperous period in its 40 years of nationhood. Early indications are that the PNG LNG will not be as transformative as it was predicted to be. On the contrary, the emergence of the PNG LNG project has created more problems than solutions for this nation. The cost of basic household goods and services have dramatically increased while the government is being forced to make deals that could possibly cost this country a great deal. At a difficult time when this nation is heading into uncharted waters, the wisest thing to do for the PNG government is to lean on its strengths. The informal economy with almost 80-85% of its population engaged in myriad of activities is its strength. Through the good and bad times, it has helped this nation to ride out crisis after crisis. Giving it its long overdue consideration in the national agenda may well be a game changer for PNG.

Caption: Village men in the Trobriand islands (PNG) work on their carvings. Many informal sector participants are innovators and skilled survivalists. Photo by Ben Bohane – wakaphotos.com

Furthermore, if provided with the right environment, it could unleash entrepreneurialism and innovation that is abundant among many Papua New Guineans but lethargic due to lack of support. One should only take a bus ride to the infamous Gordon Market or travel up into the Kakaruk (chicken) Market in Goroka or elsewhere to witness the vibe of energy and salesmanship at play. This is what the law aims to nurture but in compliance with appropriate minimum standards to protect consumer welfare and generally minimize its negativity.

Yet the challenge will once again fall on the shoulders of the government to ensure that the intention of the law is realized. Already the government is urged in the report to step up and provide leadership in administering the law as well as providing essential public goods and services to encourage the development of the informal economy in PNG. So far the government has failed miserably in this area although it has introduced a policy and a law to address issues affecting the informal economy. This reinforces the sad reality that implementation and enforcement have always been a challenge for the PNG Government. Most Local Level Governments are struggling to function effectively in most areas of the country due to lack of support both in terms of resources and limited understanding of their functions and responsibilities. The report alluded to the fact that most LLGs that were consulted had no idea about the existence of the law although it is a national law.

At the national agency level the report found that no oversight was provided making way for administering authorities to make laws without alignment to the Informal Sector Development & Control Act 2004. In most cases administering authorities simply turned a blind eye on the law. For instance, in 2012 the courts making reference to the Informal Sector Development & Control Act 2004 restrained the Lae City Council from implementing its decision to close down informal markets in the city. In the case of National Capital District Commission (NCDC), buai producers and political leaders in Central Province issued threats challenging the legality of the buai ban law although this has not come to pass. If the ban was contested in the courts with reference made to the Informal Sector Development & Control Act 2004, the outcome could have changed the dynamics of the informal economy in PNG.

This is where the Constitutional Law Reform Commission’s (CLRC) foresight in introducing a ‘modal law’ is important as it bypasses the difficulties that could have eventuated if a national law superimposes itself with no regard to the administrative set up of certain provinces like NCDC. By allowing provinces to have the freedom to make necessary amendments to the modal law to suit their unique situation, it is hoped that they will effectively control negative aspects and promote the positive side of their informal economy. By having the Department of Community Development & Religion as the lead agency providing oversight on the law, it is envisaged that the amendments will be made with due respect to the spirit/intention of the national law as well as in alignment with the national informal economy policy.

The department to its credit has already embarked on a restructure (with no progress as yet) that will see a new section dedicated to coordinating the implementation of the policy and the law. Yet questions are being asked if this arrangement will yield any tangible results. The department itself is still reeling from the leadership tussle which transpired two years ago which has seen the department fragmented into factions as staff took sides. The aftermath of this battle can still be seen today with most of its offices half empty and manned by only few dedicated officers. In this environment there is no guarantee that the law will hit the ground running once it is passed by the government. This is where the department with the aid of CLRC should explore options that will lead to the effective implementation and administration of the policy and the law. One option would be for the department to quickly work towards establishing a stand alone mechanism, like an office within its structure. Such a set up, apart from speeding things up, would allow the department to effectively reach out (going beyond its traditional role as a social welfare department) to other stakeholders whose mandate or policies are related to aspects of the informal economy policy and Act.

On the other hand the informal economy participants for their part, misunderstood the law the first time it was passed by parliament, subsequently giving rise to the proliferation of diverse sets of informal economic activities, some of which posed serious health and safety risks. This meant that balance needed to be found in the law to ensure that the growth of the informal economy is controlled to minimize its harmful effects. The informal sector law in its current form in fact advocates for this. This is contrary to the views that it ‘gave fire’ to the widespread chaos that is unfortunately the hallmark of PNG’s informal economy. The draft report to the credit of the CLRC, has reinforced this idea with penalties raised depending on the severity of the offence, which is determined by taking into consideration an informal economic business activity’s impact on the environment, hygiene, health, safety and the nature of the items sold such as whether it is addictive and other factors. Furthermore, it has inserted a provision to deal with betelnut-related issues which now imposes a much tougher penalty for irresponsible chewers.

(To be continued next week…)

Caption: Fresh produce at the local food markets in Port Moresby, PNG – John Conroy

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.

Three years in the making, the new goals set an ambitious agenda to apply to every country over the next 15 years. Now the hard part – implementing the 17 goals and 169 targets in 193 countries.

The new agenda moves us on from Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which expire at the end of the year, and which were essentially a tool to focus aid delivery. This time, every country will have to apply the new goals to their own national context. Funding the new agenda will be a mix of domestic resource allocation and new development partnerships.

For small countries it will mean prioritising, without cherry picking, goals. What that means in reality is unclear as we are all charting new territory when it comes to implementing this agenda. What we do know, and the new agenda recognises, is that development is a continuing spectrum – not something that can be achieved by merely copying the practices of others. And history tells us that imposed solutions rarely get traction – no matter how well intentioned or how deep the evidence base may be. So the fact that the new agenda is founded on country stewardship is to be celebrated.

Unlike the eight MDGs, which were conceived behind closed doors, the new agenda is the product of exhaustive intergovernmental negotiations, which included extensive consultations with civil society and business groups. Given the competing national and issue-based interests, it is unsurprising then that the list of new goals is vastly expanded from their predecessors. There were many vibrant debates among UN member states and across civil society about what should and should not be included. Not all ideological differences were settled, and perhaps for the first time the agenda was not dictated by a small group of powerful nations. In fact in some cases, it was a small group of small countries that held sway.

The Pacific bloc in the United Nations (the Pacific Small Island Developing States – PSIDS) championed a goal on oceans, and as part of the Alliance of Small Island States (which was chaired by Nauru throughout the 2014 Open Working Group) led the call for a goal to tackle climate change. For our countries, perhaps more aptly referred to as large ocean states, these two goals are essential elements of sustainable development.

Our regional neighbour, Timor-Leste, defied ardent opposition to be the primary proponent for a goal on peace, justice and strong institutions. Drawing on the reality of building a nation state from scratch, Timor-Leste’s recent experience of peace-building and state-building has demonstrated that without sustained peace there can be no sustainable development. Without capable and accountable institutions we cannot make the leap from goal setting to managing our economies to deliver the services and build the infrastructure our people need. Goal 16 on peaceful, inclusive societies is now widely viewed as being the ‘powerhouse from which all other action will flow’ and underpins the success of the whole agenda. Perhaps not surprising given the state of the world, most recently exemplified by the massive displacement and migration of people from Syria.

Our governments will be the primary custodians of this new agenda, but they cannot operate in isolation of national, regional and international partners. If we are serious about being the first generation to eradicate extreme poverty and the last to suffer the scourge of climate change, then we must hold our leaders to their national and international commitments to properly resource the implementation of this agenda. We will have to track our progress, and share our learning at home and abroad. More than ever, we need an active civil society to be actively engaged in renewed national conversations that will chart our own development pathways.

To start these conversations in the Pacific, PiPP has teamed up with RMIT University to launch a short survey that will tell you about the goals and what they seek to achieve, and give you the chance to rate the relevance of the goals and how your country is fairing against the targets. We aim to continue this survey (both online and offline) over the coming years and to periodically extract information in public reports to national governments and regional organisations. The aim is to get a broad understanding of the goals and how best to prioritise actions in our region, and to provide feedback to our policymakers and implementers on our progress.

We should be very proud of the achievements of our representatives in New York. The contributions from the PSIDS and Timor-Leste were instrumental in ensuring the transformative nature of this agenda. Not only for the inclusion of the goals on peace and institutions, oceans and climate change, but by ushering in a new era of global engagement. By showing that no matter how small and under resourced, small island countries can shape the international agenda.

Now all of us at home need to take the lead and actively shape the means of implementation. Otherwise the hard fought gains will be lost, and it will be back to business as usual – leaving others to determine our fate for us.

In his presentation, President Nakao check marked the main objectives for ADB in the region: Private sector to take the lead in creating opportunities for growth; substantial infrastructure investments in communications, seaports and airports to reduce the high cost of doing business; institutional and policy constraints such as barriers to imports and slow and complex customs procedures to be addressed; expand opportunities for education which can promote innovation and develop the skills required for Pacific countries to engage globally; and Pacific islands to keep their unique cultures, social fabric and environmental beauty as they aim at greater integration.

Worth considering is President Nakao’s observation that while life expectancy has risen and average income has increased in the region in recent years, the flip side has seen a greater number of islanders facing hardships, increasing vulnerability of the islands to natural disasters, and the need for ‘renewed’ efforts to implement the eight Millennium Development Goals (to be replaced, next month, by 17 Sustainable Development Goals). A Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat report showed that 10 of 14 Pacific members failed to implement a majority of the eight MDGs, while three could not manage to implement a single one. This is a big red flag and suggests a leadership gap — or an absence of ‘champions’—that has prevented the region from delivering on health, education and poverty reduction goals despite massive foreign aid.

Official development assistance to the 14 independent Pacific nations doubled since 2002. ADB has kept abreast or even ahead of this trend. President Nakao confirmed that ADB’s assistance to the Pacific more than doubled in the last decade, with over US$2 billion in loans, grants and technical assistance approved from 2005 to 2014 compared to US$856 million from 1995 to 2004. Meanwhile, President Nakao emphasized that ADB is integrating ‘resilience’ to climate change and natural disasters ‘into everything we do in the Pacific.’

The lack of social, health and economic progress in many island nations, the increasing urban overcrowding that exacerbates vulnerability to poverty and disasters, and rising unemployment forces the obvious question: What benefit is the public receiving from this multi-billion dollar aid flowing into governments in our region?

In addition to asking what benefit the public is getting from this government aid largesse, another worth asking is, ‘Who is resilient in the Pacific?’ It is certainly not people in the urban centers, which are on the receiving end of most of this foreign aid. If container ships that bring imported goods stopped coming, villagers and outer islanders would survive because they are resilient, having self-reliance skills for survival on these islands. One hundred years ago, when a cyclone swept through, there was no International Red Cross or U.S. Agency for International Development to swoop in with food, water and other aid. Life was harder, but traditional systems were honed over centuries so that islanders could live on remote islands. These traditional systems, many of which are still in practice in rural areas, conserve coastal fisheries, manage agriculture crops, and govern teaching of navigation, canoe building and local medicine. We have a lot to learn about resilience from outer islanders, and should be incorporating traditional systems into resource management because they have worked for centuries.

A key challenge for many islands is that most aid projects are initiated by donors in conjunction with urban center-based government officials with little participation from outer islanders and local community leaders in addressing sustainability needs of their islands. A vestige of cargo cultism, often people think if it’s from the outside it must be better. When it comes to ‘resilience,’ however, this is not the case.

The World Happiness Report 2015 makes an important point about ‘resilience’ without actually using the word: ‘Countries with sufficiently high quality social capital appear to be able to sustain or even improve subjective well-being in the face of natural disasters or economic shocks, as the shocks provide them an opportunity to discover, use and build upon their communal links.’ Translated, this means people whose culture and bonds are strong, who work together as a way of life are better able to withstand problems that befall their islands. Like sharing fish from the day’s catch with your neighbors, you come together to fix a problem. Phrases in the Marshall Islands such as ‘kan dikdik kan yokwe’ (we share what little we have with love), ‘jiban dron’ (helping each other) and ‘jake jobol eo’ (share the wealth) do, in fact, govern life in the rural areas of the Pacific where culture remains the underpinning of life — in great contrast to the centers today.

Yet donors and recipient governments want to concentrate funding into cities or sub-centers because it is ‘very costly’ and more difficult to invest in services on outer islands or rural villages, a point emphasized by President Nakao. Still, if these remote areas are the backbone of our islands’ cultures and sustainable living, perhaps the most important question to ask is, are they worth saving? Because if we want to keep people on the outer islands, we need to get engaged in a ‘conversation’ about development needs and priorities on the outer islands instead of just giving things to them — solar lights, water catchment tanks, small fishing boats — as now typifies rural development projects. If maintaining this self-reliance strength is not a priority, then following current policy toward development will have the desired impact: In another 15 years, the remote islands will be empty, everyone gone to capital cities, where stresses on already over-taxed government services will multiply, or migrated out to the United States, Australia, New Zealand or elsewhere.

The donor aid cycle perpetuates itself: as more people leave rural locations, resilience declines, requiring more aid to boost resilience and help people find a way out of poverty that doesn’t exist to the same degree on remote islands. Maybe the important point to keep in mind is that current policies keep the aid industry chugging away. They are not expanding existing resilience and self-reliance but attempting to create it in an urban environment where dependency, corruption, and poverty combine to undermine most donor efforts at creating resilience that is already in place just a few miles away on another island. Island government departments that cheerfully jump on the aid bandwagon instead of pushing for island-centered development strategies that promote rural development to increase self-reliance are as much a part of the problem as the people arriving on airplanes with draft plans waiting on signatures to implement.

*This blog was updated by the author on September 18 from the original text posted on September 9, 2015.

The 17 new sustainable development goals (SDGs) and their 169 targets are intended to provide the ‘transformative steps which are urgently needed to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path’ and in doing so ‘free the human race from the tyranny of poverty and want and to heal and secure our planet’ by 2030.

A tall order perhaps, but the transformation has already commenced.

Firstly, the extraordinarily inclusive and collegial process that has given rise to the new agenda has re-calibrated the norms of intergovernmental negotiations. A key aspect of the discussions that have taken place over the last two years has been the many and varied voices that have not just had their say, but have been heard and have shaped the new agenda.

Timor-Leste, for example, as one of the newest members of the UN, was instrumental in securing Goal 16 on peace, justice and effective institutions. The Pacific bloc doggedly pursued the inclusion of Goal 13 on climate change and Goal 14 on the conservation and sustainable use of our oceans.

While some have argued that the breadth of the SDGs is troublesome, it is the very inclusion of development issues such as peace, oceans and climate change that makes this agenda transformative. Reaching far beyond the MDGs, the new goals and targets map a necessarily wide range of economic, social and environmental objectives. For the first time this has been done in a manner that recognises the deep interlinkages and mutually reinforcing nature of the agenda. To put it plainly, development is complex and we should not apologise for the complexity of the agenda – we should celebrate it.

The elevated level of ambition of the SDGs is further marked by their universality. Unlike the MDGS, which were a set of actions to be done by or for ‘developing countries’, the new goals will apply to every country. But that does not imply uniformity in application, as each country will need to tailor the agenda to their own national context and priorities. This will add to the complexity of measuring global success (or otherwise) against the new goals. However, it should also move us beyond the neat, but somewhat simplistic, dashboard reporting system of the MDGs. The follow up and review of the new agenda is predicated on regional peer learning rather than a global naming and shaming exercise.

The 2030 agenda for sustainable development contains a number of transformative elements to deliver a much needed paradigm shift in how we go about the business of development. Much will hinge on how it is implemented – and for that to be successful our national and regional planners and policy makers must be focusing on that as a matter of priority. We need to build on the momentum of the last two years to continue to chart our own development path. In that light, the new goals can support – and not subordinate – national and regional development plans.

The new goals and targets will be formally adopted by world leaders at a special UN summit from 25-27 September in New York, and will come into effect on 1 January 2016.