A group of prominent Pacific Islanders and Australians has recommended that an independent advisory group be formed to shift Australia’s development assistance away from a commercial model “toward one of partnership, in which risk, reward and power are shared more equally.”
It is one of four recommendations made in response to a call for submissions as Australia prepares a new International Development Policy. The group’s members include former Pacific Islands Forum Secretary Generals, Dame Meg Taylor and Tuiloma Neroni Slade, Pacific academics Professor Transform Aqorau and Professor Katerina Teaiwa, Principal and President of the Pacific Theological College, Reverend Professor Upolu Luma Vaao, and Australian Senator David Pocock, amongst other leaders.
The group notes: “Australian development assistance has become a commercial industry in the Pacific in which control, power and significant finance sits with intermediaries who compete for the aid dollar – multilateral funds, international NGOs, UN agencies and private managing contractors. While some of these intermediaries play critical roles, the system is not delivering for Australia or the Pacific to the extent it could.”
They say this has created a “perverse incentive” to prioritise relationships with Australia’ s Department of Foreign Affairs, and that successful intermediaries set the agenda and design, implement and evaluate programs, “while (critical) beneficiary voices and perspectives are either absent or watered down via filtering through such intermediaries.”
The group recommends that Australia’s international development policy support home-grown Pacific initiatives such as the Pacific Resilience Facility, noting that “there is no shortage of local agency, ideas and initiatives.”
It writes that “the impact of the last five decades of Australian development assistance is negligible and the Pacific remains the most aid dependent region in the world,” noting that the integration of AusAID into the Department of Foreign Affairs in 2013-14 worsened development effectiveness.” The group recommends that Australia establish a mechanism with Pacific stakeholders to assess the impact an quality of development assistance, “and account mutually to the citizens of Australia – including Indigenous Australians and the Pacific diaspora – and the Blue Pacific.”
Speaking to the submission, Dame Meg Taylor notes: “We need to ask ourselves why we, the Pacific, remain the most aid dependent region in the world, and how we shift from this perverse dependency on donors to seeking the financial and technical assistance to build our economies so we ensure the independence of our nations and define our own destinies, rather than being the pawns in this geostrategic positioning.”
The group also calls for a deeper understanding of the Pacific (and the Pacific diaspora) amongst Australians “to grow a cadre of diplomats and officials with strong cultural competence.”
“The Australian policy community and wider society need to make a meaningful and sustained investment in building Pacific literacy. Too little is taught in schools and universities about the diversity, dynamism, and history of the Pacific region. We propose, as have many Pacific people, a stronger educational effort,” they write.
On this point, Professor Katerina Teiawa, who is Professor of Pacific Studies at the Australian National University and Vice-President of the Australian Association for Pacific Studies, says: “Pacific literacy in Australia is critical and needs to be mainstreamed from Primary to Tertiary levels. That education and greater understanding must include knowledge of Pacific geographies, histories, cultures, arts, sciences and languages. This is quite different from a Pacific education focused on matters of interest to Australian policy makers, such as defence, security, and development. The Pacific is worth knowing and understanding for its own sake.”
Pacific regional agencies also made submissions on Australia’s development program. The Pacific Community (SPC) called for more flexible funding, and a greater proportion of Australia’s total assistance to agencies such as itself, noting, “Flexible, predictable, multi-year funding provides the stability and agility to support strategic, high-impact initiatives by regionally owned organisations that embody Pacific agency and priorities.”
It also called for timely, ‘at-scale’ and simplified climate financing that is additional to existing overseas development assistance, noting: “There is widespread agreement across the Pacific that the multilateral mechanisms are not working fast enough to achieve meaningful impact. It is not enough to pledge funding that remains inaccessible—it is essential to invest in funding architecture that enables climate financing to be mobilised and leveraged in ways that are timely and contextualised to the Pacific region.”
The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS) for its part encouraged Australia to align its new policies to its own 2050 Strategy for the Blue Pacific Continent. It calls on Australia to provide a global ODA equivalent to 0.7% of Gross National Income (GNI) and support the promotion of digitisation and blue/green technology, connectivity, trade and labour mobility, and the Pacific Resilience Facility.
Specifically on trade matters, it suggests funding or in-kind support “under the Pacific Quality Infrastructure Initiative; and addressing inefficient, excessive, and opaque border procedures and documentary requirements that add unnecessary time and cost to trade with the development of the Pacific Regional Trade Facilitation Strategy.”
Another regional body, the Pacific Islands Association of Non-government Organisations (PIANGO) has called for support of civil society organisations and voices through core funding, scaling up of funding for anticipatory action and pre-arranged disaster risk finance, and cancelling of climate debt and commitment to “a debt-free future for the Pacific.”
Some of the recommendations made by Papua New Guinea ‘citizen movement’, the Voice Inc. reflect common themes, such as improved cultural competency. “We note plenty of ‘skilled experts’ have passed through PNG over the years and the need to rethink this approach by utilising people with either a deep understanding of the PNG context and/or a wiliness to listen to Papua New Guinean voices in targeting development approaches and investments.”
The Voice Inc. also calls for building of local capacity, university twinning arrangements, flexible funding mechanisms, access to Australian markets, increasing transparency of aid programs, and more investment in local NGOs, universities, think tanks and contractors.
DFAT received 210 written submissions relating to the new policy, and has held a number of consultations. The policy is due to be finalised in the first half of this year.
Total Australian ODA to the Pacific was AU$1,720.8 million in 2020-2021 and the Australian Government’s 2022-23 budget pledged an additional $900 million in ODA to the Pacific over four years. In the Pacific, PNG is the largest bilateral development program, followed by Solomon Islands, Vanuatu and Fiji.
