PAPUA NEW GUINEA SLIDES FURTHER DOWN UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT INDEX

17 January 2008

Papua New Guinea (PNG) now ranks 145th in the world for overall human development, a slide from 139th in 2006-07, according to the United Nations Development Report for 2007-08. A total of 177 UN member countries are included in the index, excluding 17 for which insufficient data was available. In comparison, New Zealand has improved from 20th to 19th position.

The human development index is based on life expectancy, adult literacy, education enrolment and Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per head. This latest UN report shows that if you are from PNG, you cannot expect to live beyond the age of 57 (compared with 80 in NZ). If over 15, you may also be among the 43 percent who are illiterate.

Other statistics for PNG are of similar concern. Although there is an improvement in the infant mortality ratio from 68 deaths per 1,000 live births last year to 55 per 1,000 this year, the maternal mortality ratio has decreased alarmingly. The latest figures show that for every 100,000 live births, 470 women die in childbirth compared with 300 in the period covered by the 2006 report. This is not surprising since only 41 percent of births are attended by skilled health personnel and there are only five doctors per 100,000 people. The NZ figure is seven deaths per 1000 live births, with 100 percent of births attended by skilled health personnel and 237 doctors per 100,000 people.

One reason for the high maternal mortality rate could be the lack of access to safe drinking water - almost two-thirds of the population falls into this category. Over half of the people do not have access to basic sanitation. Two percent of the 15-49 age group are HIV positive.

While PNG ranks lowest of the Pacific Island nations included in the report, some of the other Melanesian countries also have low rankings on the index. The Solomon Islands is 129^th, Vanuatu is 120^th and Fiji is 92^nd, all occupying similar positions to those in last year's report. Tonga and Samoa are 55^th and 77^th respectively and it is likely that positions for the rest of Polynesia, if available, would be similar.

Why is the ranking of the Melanesian countries, especially PNG, comparable only to that of sub-Saharan Africa? A number of reasons can be advanced.

PNG has suffered from poor governance for many years. It is resource-rich but little attempt has been made to harness the resources for the benefit of the country as a whole. It should not necessarily be seen as a single nation but as a loose union of nations, each with separate languages and cultures. Although a number of the 800 distinct languages identified by early anthropologists no longer exist, many of the people who relate to the languages still see themselves as different. Any government, no matter how public-spirited, must start from the basis of difference and recognise the need for devolution of power possibly with appropriate forms of self-determination. A non-representative government based on individual enhancement is unlikely to have much influence. The high incidence of crime and violence commonly reported can be partly attributed to these factors.

The PNG GDP is relatively high at $US 2,563 per capita, but 8 percent of GDP is spent on debt servicing, repaying loans to agencies such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund. This compares with 3 percent of GDP spent on health.

The Solomon Islands ranking can be explained similarly. Governance issues have contributed in a major way to its relatively low ranking, culminating in the troubles that led to the establishment of RAMSI in 2003 and a series of lesser crises since that time. Human development cannot progress in countries during times of conflict.

Is financial aid alone the answer? If it were, the three Melanesian countries would be ranked much more highly. Aid must be given effectively if it is to have any impact on the lives of the people at village level.

The five principles of aid effectiveness have been widely endorsed through the Paris Declaration, 2005. Many countries, including much of the Pacific region have still to put them into action.

The first principle is ownership: a country, including its people, must be fully responsible for its own development planning. Projects or programmes introduced by donors are unlikely to be sustainable - the most a donor should do is to provide support for a local planning process.

The second is alignment: donors should ensure that their assistance is linked to the country development plan.

Harmonisation is the next, the way that donors work together to minimise transaction costs for the recipient government through multi-donor programmes headed by one lead donor, or sector-wide approaches with donors each contributing to different parts of a programme. These also ensure that less time is spent reporting in different ways to a range of donors.

Management for results can be defined as starting from the desired outcome and then working out the best way to reach that goal.

The final principle is mutual accountability, whereby both donor and recipient are fully accountable to each other. This implies transparency and good governance on both sides. It is not just about accountability between governments but also to the people, who can then judge the outcomes against the initial planning process.

New Zealand has a major role to play in assisting the Melanesian countries to achieve a higher ranking in the UN Human Development Index. As well as promoting the Paris Declaration principles, we must ensure that more aid money is available to support their application. We sit comfortably towards the top of the index. With our current large financial surplus we should increase the amount of Official Development Assistance in this year's budget to reach at least 0.35 percent of Gross National Income. We would thus get back further on track to reach 0.7 percent by 2015 as pledged by NZ governments on a regular basis since 1970.

Rae Julian

Executive Director

New Zealand Council for International Development/Te Kaunihera mo te Whakapakari Ao Whanui o Aotearoa