Environment and development
in coastal regions and in small islands
colbartn.gif (4535 octets)

Field Project Assessment
Sound development in the Motu-Koita urban villages, Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea

Date of
assessment:		 Site visit: 11-13 December 2000.
Assessment completed: 30-09-01.
Assessment
conducted by:

Gillian Cambers, UNESCO consultant, Hans Dencker Thulstrup, UNESCO Apia, Dirk Troost, UNESCO Paris, (not closely associated with the project); Haraka Gaudi, Papua New Guinea Institute of Public Administration (field-project leader), Linus Digim’Rina, University of Papua New Guinea (closely associated with the project).

Project
documentation:
  1. Draft Motu-Koita Summit Report (to be published in the CSI series). 
  2. Malone, Karen. December 1999. Growing Up in Papua New Guinea. Growing Up in Cities – Management of Social Transformations/CSI Workshop Report.
  3. Special Parliamentary Committee on Urbanisation and Social Development.  March 2000. Policies and strategies for managing urbanisation in Papua New Guinea. Final Report (Part one).
  4. Special Parliamentary Committee on Urbanisation and Social Development.  June 2000. Defining the Parliamentary agenda on social development.
  5. Special Parliamentary Committee on Urbanisation and Social Development. November 2000.  Accessibility of land under customary land tenure systems for urban development purposes and ensuring a viable future for urban landowners. Urbanisation report, part two.
  6. Lady Carol Kidu, MP.  December 2000.  Statement to Parliament on the Third Report from the Special Parliamentary Committee on Urbanisation and Social Development.
  7. Field project summary (revised December 2000).
Activities:

A visit was made by the assessment team to Port Moresby during 10-14 December 2000. The visit encompassed a visit to Parliament for discussions with Lady Carol Kidu, Member of Parliament; discussions with researchers at the University of Papua New Guinea, and with the Papua New Guinea UNESCO National Commission. A site visit was paid to three urban Motu-Koita villages; Baruni, Tatana, and Hanuabada, during which brief discussions were held with villagers.
Constraints:
  1. Due to time constraints it was not possible to perform extensive discussions with recipient communities and other stakeholders as part of the field visit
  2. At the time of the field visit, documentation items (3), (4), (5), and (6) were not available to the assessment team

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Field Project Assessment 

The following assessment discusses the project activities to date in terms of several long-term parameters or characteristics of ‘wise practices’.  Inevitably, projects still in an early phase, cannot be expected to fulfil all these characteristics completely.

The sixteen characteristics, used to define ‘wise practices’, are used here to assess this field project.  A qualitative scale is used as follows:

None  (0): The field project activities to date do not comply with this characteristic and/or the characteristic is not relevant.
Slightly (1-3): The field project activities to date have begun in some preliminary way to satisfy  this characteristic.
Partially (4-6): The field project activities to date have gone some significant way towards fulfilling this characteristic.
Fully (7-9): The field project activities to date have gone the full way to complying with  this characteristic.  

This assessment is based only on the activities undertaken to date, and does not include those planned for the future.  

Have the project activities ensured long term benefit?  

Partially (4)

The project has contributed significantly towards raising awareness and discussion of Motu-Koita issues at the national as well as local levels through the organization of activities such as the August 1999 Motu-Koita Summit, follow-up actions relating to the recommendations of this event, as well as through the project’s close association with Lady Kidu and the Special Parliamentary Committee on Urbanisation and Social Development. However, it is clear that the Motu-Koita remain in a very precarious situation with regard to the securing of self-determination and control over land resources.

Do the project activities provide for capacity building and institutional strengthening?

Partially (4)

The project is contributing to capacity building through awareness raising activities among village communities aimed at promoting positive action for change. Through the August 1999 Motu-Koita Summit and subsequent follow-up activities in Parliament and among the Motu-Koita communities, analyses and recommendations have been put to local and national councils and government agencies, including the Motu-Koita Council, for improvements in management and administrative arrangements. The full impact of the awareness-raising activities on the institutional arrangements of village-based and local organizations and groupings, however, remains to be seen.
Are the project activities sustainable? Slightly (3)
All project-internal activities are very dependent on the pilot project coordinator, Mr. Haraka Gaudi. However, with the establishment of the Special Parliamentary Committee and the heightened awareness of the Motu-Koita issue among the general public as a result of the project’s advocacy activities, objectives and ideas generated within the project are gaining a wider audience and wider recognition. It should be noted that occasional conflicts of interest at the individual level as well as mutual suspicion between Motu-Koitans, especially with regard to the settlement of land claims, have hampered the project’s efforts at uniting the Motu-Koita under a common cause.
Have the project activities been transferred?

Partially (5)

Through the activities of the Special Parliamentary Committee, the issues discussed and elaborated under the project have become part of the national debate. The Committee has initiated parliamentary debates on urbanisation and urban landowner issues with relevance for all urban centres in Papua New Guinea. The project furthermore has great potential for transferability within Papua New Guinea itself, where ongoing migration from inland/highland areas to coastal urban centres contributes nation-wide to tension between migrants and original population groups. This transferability related to migration issues has wider relevance at both a regional and global scale. However, it should be noted that the transferring of further project activities at the community level as a result of the national debate on this issue has yet to be documented.
Are the project activities interdisciplinary and intersectoral?

Fully (5)

The project actively involves national and local political and administrative units, university scholars, national administrative bodies, and local communities. Activities planned under the project include development of educational materials, advocacy and awareness-raising work, intersectoral stakeholder meetings, and social science research.
Do the project activities incorporate participatory processes?

Partially (4)

While the project as a core objective seeks to increase the participation of the Motu-Koita in the planning and development of the greater Port Moresby area, it is clear that Motu-Koitan participation in such decision-making processes has so far been very limited. Within project activities, full participation by all stakeholders is actively pursued and encouraged, even if the project has yet to conduct stakeholder meetings at which all interests, including industrial developers, are represented.
Do the project activities provide for consensus building?

Partially (5)

The project actively encourages the building of consensus and mutually beneficial development centred on the rights of the Motu-Koita people, in a context where violent rebellion among the younger generation of Motu-Koita is openly discussed as a clear and distinct risk. As noted above, the gaining of consensus within the Motu-Koita communities is occasionally hampered by internal disputes. This matter is being addressed by the project, however as highlighted above, the challenge of extending the project’s consultation activities to include all stakeholders remains.
Do the project activities include an effective and efficient communication process?

Partially (5)

While lines of communication and contractual relationships between individuals involved in the project have occasionally been unclear in the past causing some difficulty, these issues seem presently to have been clarified satisfactorily. Project coordinator Haraka Gaudi’s present position with the Papua New Guinea Institute of Public Administration should provide for sufficient stability to ensure the building of effective and well-established communication processes in the future.
Are the project activities culturally respectful?

Fully (8)

All activities of the project have taken place in full recognition of the cultural specificity of the Motu-Koita (for a discussion of this, see the following item). The core focus of project activities related to cultural aspects of Motu-Koita life have been directly associated with traditional ownership of land. While a broader range of cultural issues have not been a key focus of the project activities to date, planned activities (see revised future project activities below) stipulate an increasing focus on highlighting aspects of Motu-Koitan culture as an identity-building tool.
Do the project activities take into account gender and/or sensitivity issues?

Partially (4)

The majority of project activities have so far focused on the greater Motu-Koita cause, where ‘Motu-Koita’ has as a rule signified a homogenous group sharing certain grievances. However, as has been stated above, such homogeneity is not always present in the community. Project activities to date have not examined in detail gender issues or issues relating to marginalized or otherwise disadvantaged groups within Motu-Koita society (youth, elderly). However, these matters will be increasingly dealt with in the planned phases of the project (see below).
Do the project activities strengthen local identities?

Fully (9)

Strengthening local identity is a core objective of the project, and plays a key role in all activities undertaken, from the conducting of the August ’99 Motu-Koita Summit, to the advocacy activities in villages, to the December ’99 Growing Up in Papua New Guinea workshop.
Do the project activities shape national legal policy?

Fully (8)

Through its association with the Special Parliamentary Commission on Urbanisation and Social Development, the project is both shaped by – and is helping to shape – national legal and institutional frameworks, in particular through the convening by project coordinator Haraka Gaudi of the 1999 Motu-Koita Summit, and the follow-up activities taken to this summit.
Do the project activities encompass the regional dimension?

Slightly (2)

The project has contributed actively to the global ‘Wise Coastal Practices for Sustainable Human Development’ (WiCoP) forum (user name = csi, password = wise), and has great potential to serve as a model site for the region under an overall migration theme. However, to date only limited contacts have been established with projects and activities elsewhere in the region.
Do the project activities provide for human rights?

Fully (7)

The project seeks as a central long-term objective to improve the ability of Motu-Koitans to take an active part in determining the course of their lives and the development of their communities; in particular the ability of the Motu-Koita to take part in decision-making processes influencing their communities, the ability to retain control over traditionally owned land resources, and the attaining of a fair share in the benefits of the development of the National Capital District. These objectives refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, articles 17, 21, 22, and 25.
Have the project activities been documented?

Fully (7)

Project activities have been fully documented, see the listing at the beginning of this assessment.  In addition to that list, a ‘Field Project Workplan’ was prepared in February 2001.
Have the project activities been evaluated?

None (0)

 This present evaluation is the first such exercise.

¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
Revised Future Project Activities 

  1. Review and finalize materials arising from work under the project to date:

    1. Review the draft report (dated November 2000) of the Motu-Koita Summit and provide detailed commentary and additions, if needed.
    2. Draft a three-page chapter for inclusion in the report detailing progress to date in following up the Summit’s recommendations.
    3. Submit three contributions on aspects of the activities outlined under this contract to the WiCoP forum (user name = csi, password = wise).

  2. Extend and develop advocacy activities targeting specific groups in Motu-Koita society:

    1. Focus advocacy activities on under represented groups in Motu-Koita society such as youth and women.
    2. Extend advocacy activities to all urban Motu-Koita villages in the National Capital District, maintaining existing efforts in Baruni, Tatana, and Hanuabada.

  3. Plan and prepare educational and curriculum materials focusing on Motu-Koita:

    1. Highlight among authorities, educators and communities the need to focus on elementary/primary school age children (i.e. the new generation).
    2. Collect qualitative and quantitative data among Motu-Koita villages on knowledge and attitudes towards Motu-Koita heritage, history, culture, and knowledge systems for statistical purposes.
    3. Develop plans (titles, outlines, production schedule, authors, artists, etc.) for the eventual production with the Department of Education Curriculum Unit of small school booklets on Motu-Koita heritage, history, culture, and knowledge systems.
  4. Involving University of Papua New Guinea (UPNG) researchers and students, conduct research and social profiles of Motu-Koita villages, with special reference to land ownership and land use issues:
    1. Develop a general overview of all urban Motu-Koita villages.
    2. Perform a social profile of Baruni village as a model case study.
    3. Identify and discuss specific land ownership and use issues, including the preparation of cadastral maps for Baruni.
    4. Coordinate all efforts with relevant ongoing research carried out by other departments and individuals at UPNG.
  5. Organize a meeting of stakeholders:
    1. Identify and confirm all stakeholders involved, including Motu-Koita village representatives; local, regional and national government institutions and individuals; and developers and private sector representatives.
    2. Arrange for all stakeholders (and other interested parties) to meet and discuss issues of relevance with regard to the Motu-Koita cause, including the participatory development of a pre-agreed meeting agenda between participating stakeholders.
    3. Devise strategies and action plans to target problem areas raised.
  6.   Prepare documentation of all activities listed under item 2-5.
Introduction Activities Publications Search
Wise Practices Regions Themes