While there appear to be far more democracies in the world than ever before, the CPJ’s executive director Joel Simon says there is a sinister new threat.

And this is in some respects more troublesome than the old style dictatorships. Simon describes this new scourge in a recent book, The New Censorship: Inside the Global Battle for Press Freedom, as the ‘democratators’, those leaders who profess to be democratic but are actually subverting their mirage of open governance. As Simon says:

“What are these differences between dictators and democratators? Dictators rule by force. Democratators rule by manipulation. Dictators impose their will. Democratators govern with the support of the majority. Dictators do not claim to be democrats – at least credibly. Democratators always do. Dictators control information. Democratators manage it.”

Simon points out that democratators win elections yet while they may be free, they are not really fair, meaning they are decided by fraud.

He has a growing list of leaders that fit this label, including Latin American “populists” like Rafael Correa of Equador and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, “European backsliders” like Viktor Orban of Hungary and Viktor Yanukovych, the deposed former president of Ukraine, and African leaders such as Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Jacob Zuma of South Africa.

Also high on Simon’s list of media threats is the way terrorism has impacted on how big media groups currently go about their global news-gathering. Conscious of the ever-present threat of ritualised kidnappings and bombings, journalists are sometimes forced to report from bunkers and are less enthusiastic about meeting uncertain sources in case they might be abducted.

Even the appearance of journalists sometimes makes them look like an extension of the military – with helmets, flak jackets and camouflage fatigues. This accentuates their targeting by fundamentalist groups who regard them as an extension of the ‘state’.

China is the elephant in the room when it comes to freedom of information. While China’s leaders embrace the internet, they believe they can, and ought to, control the web. It is clear that China has the technological means and resources to make internet control a reality.

Chinese authorities use monitoring and filtering to keep a lid on the cyberspace “conversation” to prevent repercussions.

United States responses to the Wikileaks scandal in 2013 and the massive surveillance revelations by Edward Snowden encouraged allegations of hypocrisy from critics pointing out that Washington’s commitment to internet freedom dragged when its own geopolitical interests appeared threatened.

Earlier this month, I had the good fortune to be in Brussels as one of the people giving feedback at a stakeholders meeting for a massive European Union-funded research project on the media reporting on six major violent conflicts around the world, including the Syrian civil war and conflict in Burundi.

While there I happened to pick up a new “Euro” style newspaper called Politico, which steered me to a remarkable media development in Spain with the headline “He brings news of the future”

“Who was he?” asks the subeditor in me when it was always drummed into us to have a name in the headline. (The online version changed the headline).

This was the story of Pedro J. Ramírez, one of the leading editors in Spain, who had been in charge of El Mundo for 24 years. But he was sacked by his newspaper’s owners.

Why? Because under his leadership, El Mundo pursued a robust investigation into corruption implicating the governing Popular Party and the Prime Minister [Mariano Rajoy].

When he was fired, Ramírez used his massive €5.6 million pay-out to help fund a new online newspaper, El Español. His pay-out plus record-breaking crowdfunding doubled what had been previously raised by a new Dutch publishing venture, De Correspondent.

Another interesting success story has been in France, where investigative journalist Edwy Plenel, famous for his Rainbow Warrior bombing investigation in 1985 for Le Monde, founded Mediapart.

He has assembled a team of some 60 journalists and his fearless brand of investigative journalism is shaking up the establishment.

Even in New Zealand, where the mediascape is fairly dire with hundreds of jobs cut in recent years—and a loss of 180 jobs in a recent shake-up at Fairfax New Zealand, the country’s biggest news publisher, there are stunningly innovative things happening.

The main independent New Zealand media group Scoop Media – and we at AUT’s Pacific Media Centre have a partnership project with them, Pacific Scoop – has launched a new crowdfunding business model and established a Scoop Foundation for Public Interest Journalism. The inititiative by Selwyn Manning in launching Evening Report web portal has also been significant.

This brings me to the achievements of the University of the South Pacific and its talented new crop of graduates. Close to 200 USP journalism graduates are now contributing to the Fiji and the Pacific region’s media and related careers.

Through its long-standing award-winning newspaper Wansolwara – now 19 years old, surely a remarkable accomplishment for any journalism school in the Australasian and Pacific arena, the student journalists have played an important role in independent, engaging and truth-seeking journalism.

Personally, I shall always remember with pride my experiences with USP and Wansolwara over the five years I was with the campus – the longest by far of any expatriate educator. Wansolwara was founded by student editor Stan Simpson and lecturer Philip Cass. And Pat Craddock of the USP Media Centre was another key person in building up the programme.

One of the highlights for me was the reporting of the George Speight coup in May 2000 by the courageous USP students. They won many awards for this.

It was thanks to the groundwork and experience that I gained at both USP and previously UPNG as a journalist turned academic that I was able to go to the next level at the Pacific Media Centre.

There I have been able to blend some of the best elements of academic media studies and practical journalism that makes a difference.

A tribute too to Dr Shailendra Singh and his team, Irene Manarae, Eliki Drugunalevu and Dr Olivier Jutel. Shailen was recently the first home-grown academic at USP to gain a PhD in journalism at the University of Queensland with the first major survey of the Fiji mediascape for more than a decade. Congratulations Shailen for a very fine thesis!

My concluding message to graduating student journalists is that no matter what government, political or industry pressure you face, you should hold on strongly to your core values of truth, accuracy, honesty and courage in the public interest.

Our communities deserve the best from their media in these deceitful times. University media are among the few that can still be trusted and they should do their best to contribute to democracy with integrity.

So go for it and change the world to the way it should be!

Caption: Pacific media cover a Pacific Island Forum summit in Vanuatu, 2010. Photo: Ben Bohane/wakaphotos.com

Thus it is also an honour to be sharing the event with Monsieur Michel Djokovic, the Ambassador of France, given how important French aid has been for this programme.

France and the Ecole Supérieure de Journalisme de Lille (ESJ) played a critically important role in helping establish the journalism degree programme at USP in 1994, with the French government funding the inaugural senior lecturer, François Turmel, and providing a substantial media resources grant to lay the foundations.

I arrived in Fiji four years later in 1998 as Head of Journalism from Papua New Guinea and what a pleasure it was working with the French Embassy on a number of journalism projects at that time, including an annual scholarship to France for journalism excellence.

These USP awards this year take place during challenging times for the media industry with fundamental questions confronting us as journalism educators about what careers we are actually educating journalists for.

When I embarked on a journalism career in the 1960s, the future was clear-cut and one tended to specialise in print, radio or television. I had a fairly heady early career being the editor at the age of 24 of an Australian national weekly newspaper, the Sunday Observer, owned by an idealistic billionaire, and we were campaigning against the Vietnam War.

Our chief foreign correspondent then was a famous journalist, Wilfred Burchett, who at the end of the Second World War 70 years ago reported on the Hiroshima nuclear bombing as a “warning to the world”.

By 1970, I was chief subeditor of the Rand Daily Mail in South Africa, the best newspaper I ever worked on and where I learned much about human rights and social justice, which has shaped my journalism and education values ever since.

I travelled overland for a year across Africa as a freelance journalist, working for agencies such as Gemini, and crossed the Sahara Desert in a Kombi van. It was critically risky even then, but doubly dangerous today.

Eventually I ended up with Agence France-Presse as an editor in Paris and worked there for several years. In fact, it was while working with AFP in Europe that I took a “back door” interest in the Pacific and that’s where my career took another trajectory when I joined the Auckland Star and became foreign news editor.

The point of me giving you some brief moments of my career in a nutshell is to stress how portable journalism was as a career in my time. But now it is a huge challenge for you young graduates going out into the marketplace.

You don’t even know whether you’re going to be called a “journalist”, or a “content provider” or a “curator” of news – or something beyond being a “news aggregator” – such is the pace of change with the digital revolution. And the loss of jobs in the media industry continues at a relentless pace.
Fortunately, in Fiji, the global industry rationalisations and pressures haven’t quite hit home locally yet. However, on the other hand you have very real immediate concerns with the Media Industry Development Decree and the “chilling’ impact that it has on the media regardless of the glossy mirage the government spin doctors like to put on it.

We had a very talented young student journalist here in Fiji a few weeks ago, Niklas Pedersen, from Denmark, on internship with local media, thanks to USP and Republika’s support. He remarked about his experience:

“I have previously tried to do stories in Denmark and New Zealand – two countries that are both in the top 10 on the RSF World Press Freedom Index, so I was a bit nervous before travelling to a country that is number 93 and doing stories there ….

“Fiji proved just as big a challenge as I had expected. The first day I reported for duty … I tried to pitch a lot of my story ideas, but almost all of them got shut down with the explanation that it was impossible to get a comment from the government on the issue.

“And therefore the story was never going to be able to get published.

“At first this stunned me, but I soon understood that it was just another challenge faced daily by Fiji journalists.”

This was a nice piece of storytelling on climate change on an issue that barely got covered in New Zealand legacy media.

Australia and New Zealand shouldn’t get too smug about media freedom in relation to Fiji, especially with Australia sliding down the world rankings over asylum seekers for example.

New Zealand also shouldn’t get carried away over its own media freedom situation. Three court cases this year demonstrate the health of the media and freedom of information in this digital era is in a bad way.

• Investigative journalist Jon Stephenson this month finally won undisclosed damages from the NZ Defence Ministry for defamation after trying to gag him over an article he wrote for Metro magazine which implicated the SAS in the US torture rendition regime in Afghanistan.

• Law professor Jane Kelsey at the University of Auckland filed a lawsuit against Trade Minister Tim Groser over secrecy about the controversial Trans Pacific Partnership (the judgment ruled the minister had disregarded the law);

• Investigative journalist Nicky Hager and author of Dirty Politics sought a judicial review after police raided his home last October, seizing documents, computers and other materials. Hager is known in the Pacific for his revelations about NZ spying on its neighbours.

Also, the New Zealand legacy media has consistently failed to report well on two of the biggest issues of our times in the Pacific – climate change and the fate of West Papua.

One of the ironies of the digital revolution is that there is an illusion of growing freedom of expression and information in the world, when in fact the reverse is true.

These are bleak times with growing numbers of journalists being murdered with impunity, from the Philippines to Somalia and Syria.

The world’s worst mass killing of journalists was the so-called Maguindanao, or Ampatuan massacre (named after the town whose dynastic family ordered the killings), when 32 journalists were brutally murdered in the Philippines in November 2009.

But increasingly savage slayings of media workers in the name of terrorism are becoming the norm, such as the outrageous attack on Charlie Hebdo cartoonists in Paris in January. Two masked gunmen assassinated 12 media workers – including five of France’s most talented cartoonists – at the satirical magazine and a responding policeman.

In early August this year, five masked jihadists armed with machetes entered the Dhaka home of a secularist blogger in Bangladesh and hacked off his head and hands while his wife was forced into a nearby room.

According to the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists in figures released this year, 506 journalists were killed in the decade between 2002 and 2012, almost double the 390 slain in the previous decade. (Both Reporters Sans Frontières and Freedom House have also reported escalating death tolls and declines in media freedom.)

(To be continued next week…)

Caption: French Ambassador Michel Djokovic (third from left), Head of USP Journalism Dr Shailendra Singh (fourth from left) and Pacific Media Centre director Professor David Robie (fifth from right) with the prizewinners at the University of the South Pacific journalism awards. Image: Lowen Sei/USP

Samoan prime minister Tuilaepa Sailele recently offered a public reaction to the news that New Zealand’s Government Communications Security Bureau, or GCSB, had moved in 2009 from occasional, targeted electronic surveillance tactics to ‘full-take’ collection. Mr Sailele showed his trademark forthrightness in asserting that the proper term for spying was ‘diplomacy’ and that it happened all the time.

This is a mischaracterisation. To conflate the sometimes confidential and always delicate role of the diplomat with someone rooting through literally everything you send over a wire is misguided, and does a significant disservice to diplomats. It’s a little rich, too, when someone who has ‘nothing to hide’ also has no problem with the physical intimidation of the Samoan media.

Let’s be perfectly clear about one thing: There is a world of difference between the intelligence gathering that allies conduct between themselves—often cooperatively—and the kind of thing of which New Zealand stands accused.

Intelligence gathering is a rather broadly-defined activity. It comprises:

• Human intelligence – understanding the people and personalities relevant to your relationship;
• Technical intelligence – understanding the tools and technologies of your counterpart;
• Geospatial intelligence – literally, knowing the lay of the land (and sea) in areas of interest;
• Open source intelligence – using publicly available materials to conduct analysis and better understand your counterpart;
• Signals intelligence – usually, electronic eavesdropping.

As a by-product of the information age, governments are relying increasingly on signals intelligence in their spying and intelligence gathering. Part of the reason is political, and part of the reason is financial. When you calculate the political and financial cost of physically venturing into another country and breaking their laws in order to gather sensitive information, hacking, data interception and other technological tools seem pretty darn attractive.

It’s not a substitute, though, and although the prevailing wisdom is that a single satellite photo renders a walk-though unnecessary, many intelligence experts have expressed concerned for the loss of the detail and nuance that only comes about from being there. Not to put too fine a point on it, the USA might bomb fewer weddings if it quit relying exclusively on satellite images.

Until 2009, the Waihopai signals facility on New Zealand’s south island was used primarily to listen to the traffic bouncing off the satellites that service the southwest Pacific. It was a tightly-focused instrument, capable of listening in on particular phone calls and other communications. Then in 2009, as part of its commitment to the so-called Five Eyes intelligence agreement between the USA, Canada, the UK, Australia and New Zealand, Waihopai got a significant upgrade.

This upgrade changed the game completely. It reduced New Zealand’s role to being a more or less passive accessory to the American international agenda, and it integrated American assumptions about the primacy of signals intelligence into the Pacific intelligence community.

Waihopai acquired what is known as ‘full take’ capability. In short, it became possible not only to grab selected bits of information bouncing off the satellite, but to acquire and store pretty much everything. This information was passed on, in bulk and largely unfiltered, directly to the NSA. Ironically, it is more difficult for New Zealanders to access the data they gathered than it is for Americans. In a shameful climb-down in international stature, New Zealand has implicitly granted the NSA the ability to spy wholesale on its own citizens when they travel abroad—a capability they deny their own intelligence officers. Green Party co-leader Russell Norman insists that the GCSB is breaking the law in doing so.

It is most certainly breaking the law of most south Pacific nations. And this is why Mr Sailele’s complacence and comfort with the situation is so surprising: As prime minister of Samoa, he has a duty to uphold the law. And Samoan law contains clear protections for personal information on telecommunications systems. Mr Sailele’s opinion on the matter is of no importance. Nor is that of Michael Field, who not only reported the Samoan story, but wrote his own remarkably similar op-ed on the topic.

But Mr Field is perhaps not the kind of authority we’d want to rely on in this circumstance. His argument for normalising rampant, wholesale spying consists of asking how New Zealand should be expected to invade its neighbours without sufficient intelligence to do so. He uses the UK’s request that New Zealand invade German Samoa during WWI as his primary example. It’s worth mentioning that friends don’t usually invade friendly countries. Because that would be an act of war.

Presumably, if New Zealand’s military assistance were sought by a Pacific islands nation, the intelligence required to protect troops and civilians would be readily supplied by those asking for help.

Mr Field’s tangential play to anti-immigrant paranoia is perhaps indicative of who he thinks his audience is. ‘A large chunk of Fiji’s population live in New Zealand,’ he writes, ‘and more may come if things ever go bad again.’

This blasé—even shameless—attitude toward surveillance and the utter derogation of personal privacy becomes more understandable when we realise that, politically and diplomatically, there is little that New Zealand could have done to mitigate the damage. The smallest partner in the Five Eyes alliance, it brings virtually nothing else to the table other than its proximity to the strategically important southwest Pacific.

Mr Sailele too is no doubt aware—now, if not before—of the fact that the Five Eyes have installed a tap on their fibre-optic link to American Samoa. So his gruffness can best be understood as the reaction of someone who confuses being powerless with being weak, and seeks to hide both.

As with so many geopolitical issues, Pacific island nations are severely circumscribed in how they can react. For example: Objecting to wholesale, fairly blatant interception of mobile phone traffic, as happened in Honiara, might put Solomon Islands prime minister Manasseh Sogovare in a difficult position diplomatically, or even politically. From a realpolitik perspective, he’s much better served buddying up with the spies and trying to reappropriate the data for his own purposes. If he doesn’t, maybe the next one will.

The most obvious response to all of this is perhaps the least desirable to the western alliance. Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa and Vanuatu have all accepted significant investment in their national telecommunications infrastructure from Chinese interests. This may not have the effect of cutting off the Five Eyes’ intercept capabilities, but it will at least allow their rivals to see things as clearly as they do.

This is hardly a desirable play for Pacific island countries, though. It’s a bit like trying to decide which creepy boyfriend-wannabe gets to hang out under your windowsill every night.

Pacific islands governments could be doing more to protect themselves. Their national networks are small and have only a few points where they contact the outside world. By virtue of this, they are in the rare position of having what is known in security circles as a minimal attack surface. There are relatively few points where an external entity can usefully insert itself into their networks. By applying some basic technologies and security protocols, they could improve their communications integrity significantly. This might not be enough to safeguard the most tightly held secrets, but it might be sufficient to keep the commonplace ones intact.

More to the point, though, the process of information acquisition among friends should be a two-sided process. Instead of indulging their most prurient instincts, developed countries should engage with their development partners to improve open source information gathering. Surely even the most aggressive military strategist can see that things like improved maps, meteorological and geographic data, better economic data gathering, state of the art taxation systems and better records management for police and the courts are vastly more valuable as intelligence sources than a minister’s private conversations with his children.

In the midst of all of this, the peoples of the southwest Pacific have to be asking themselves where this leaves them. Commoditised more now than ever before, their personal lives are subject to intrusion with complete impunity. Anyone who thinks this comes without cost, who thinks they have nothing to hide, has not been paying attention. Public shaming on the internet can happen to anyone, and it doesn’t take much to do it.

In the short term, private citizens have few alternatives other than to live with the awareness that their governments are creeps—literally, they are allowing a kind of pathological curiosity that, if it happened in the physical world, would be considered little short of depraved. And lest you say that’s an exaggeration, there is evidence of NSA staff listening in to military service members’ most private conversations. The private sector is little better. One former telco technician I spoke with was completely up front about it. ‘Yep,’ he told me, ‘That’s how you’d spend a slow Sunday night shift. Browse all the calls until you found something interesting, then gather all your buddies and listen in.’

Businesses and governments have yet to realise the fullest implications of the utter lack of security in our private communications. But if the Snowden revelations teach us nothing else, it’s that the lack of privacy cuts both ways. Nobody, not even the NSA, is hack-proof. Nor will we be until we start to respect our individual privacy, to accept that the only way to ensure that information cannot be stolen is not to store it.

Then, perhaps, we can begin to build the technological, diplomatic and legislative tools that we need in order properly to protect our secrets, big and small.

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.