Project fieldwork commences in PNG

Posted on July 22, 2011 by Kate Morioka| Leave a comment


Fieldwork for ActionAid Australia’s study on climate change and women’s rights began this week. Here is a brief update from Kate Seewald, AAA’s Volunteer Research Assistant, who has been conducting key informant interviews with government, donor agencies and non governmental organisations in Port Moresby.

As part of my Masters in Human Rights programme at the University of Sydney, I have had the opportunity to undertake an internship with ActionAid Australia. I’ve been able to contribute to the current research project, focusing on women’s rights and climate change in PNG and the Solomon Islands. Now on semester break, I’ve joined Kate Morioka, the Research Project Manager here in Port Moresby as we conduct key informant interviews with various representatives from non-governmental organisations and government agencies. We have been seeking to learn more about the barriers in place preventing women from effectively adapting to climate change, and how those barriers can be challenged and overcome.

It’s been an amazing experience so far, and I’ve been particularly impressed with the local PNG women who work tirelessly within grassroots organisations focusing on improving the lives of women within their country. They are well aware of the challenges faced by women as the effects of climate change increase, which include unpredictable weather and soil degradation reducing crop reliability, and the increase in malaria and water-borne disease in the areas where women work and collect water. However, they advised us that very little has yet been done in research or advocacy on the gendered dimensions of climate change in the Pacific region. For this reason, perhaps, they were very excited to speak with us and share their knowledge and experiences, and are already looking forward to the final research report and findings!

To date interviews have been conducted with the PNG Government’s Office of Climate Change and Development and Disaster Management Centre, Young Women’s Christian Association, United Nations Development Programme, National Agricultural Research Institute, Institute of National Affairs and Consultative Implementation and Monitoring Council.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Research

Tagged , ,

Women and Tuna Canneries: A Fishy Business

Posted on June 28, 2011 by Kate Morioka| Leave a comment

By Kate Morioka, Research Project Manager

Stocks of tuna fish are predicted to move away from PNG to the south-east, towards Fiji and Vanuatu, as a result of increasing sea temperature caused by global warming. 

Some say this is an opportune time to fish as much tuna as possible, before they swim away from existing waters.  Such perception is encouraging fishing companies in PNG to ramp up their fishing and associated processing activities, having some flow-on impacts on women and their families.

I was sitting in Nancy’s kitchen, listening to her speak about her research on women employed at the RD Tuna cannery in Madang.  Nancy is a respected anthropologist who has been living and researching in PNG for almost 20 years.

“The cannery”, she explained “is owned by a Filipino company, and is a major employer of ‘local women of child-bearing age’.”  Seven days a week, 24 hours a day, women are hired on rosters to work at the cannery, being paid a sub-minimum wage with limited health and safety standards in place.

Nancy tells me that young women in Madang believe that working at the cannery is the first step in their pathway to formal employment.  The PNG Government is encouraging economic growth and women across the country are aspiring to become the ‘modern career woman’, earning a living in the formal sector.

Women are desirable workers in tuna canneries because of their small dexterous hands required to sort and clean fish. Some may work without gloves and appropriate protective gear in unsafe conditions.

A female worker at the cannery earns about 80 kinas per fortnight (AUD$35) – the majority of women’s earnings are spent on vanity goods (e.g. make up and beauty products), clothing and PMV (Public Motor Vehicle which are local buses).

Nancy says that women are better off selling their surplus crops at the local market than working at the cannery.  Families that have a mother, daughter or aunt working at the cannery have less food than those that don’t.  This is because women play an important role in gathering and supplying food.  Women who work at the cannery are not able to contribute as much food as they would if they didn’t work at the cannery because they will have time to spend on their home gardens.  Also, the type of food that working women are contributing is usually imported products, such as tinned fish, noodle, rice, rather than traditional food sources, which ultimately affects the nutrition of all family members.

At the end of the day women are earning a meagre salary in unsafe working environments and their families are worse off.  Is this really a path to formal employment and economic liberation for women?

Want to find out more about women in tuna canneries? Have a look at Nancy’s blog www.nancysullivan.typepad.com

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Fishing

Tagged , , , , ,

Who’s Ethics?

Posted on June 21, 2011 by Kate Morioka| Leave a comment

By Kate Morioka, Research Project Manager

As a social researcher carrying out research in Melanesia, I question the so called ‘research ethics’ defined and applied by academics from the Western world.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe that the safety of participants is paramount to any human research.

What I don’t believe in are researchers in Western countries making decisions about what is ethical and what is not for people in developing countries.

At a recent ACFID workshop on research ethics, a large majority of organisations in the room supported the need for an ethics review committee for the Australian development sector.  There have been two previous attempts to establish such a committee for Australian NGOs conducting social research in developing countries. 

As a product of Western university system, I am fairly familiar with the process of obtaining ethical clearance for studies involving ‘human subjects’. The process is cumbersome and lengthy but it forces us to think conceptually and pragmatically about our research methodology and how to protect participants from potential harm. 

For NGOs conducting human research with Australian Government funding, they must obtain approval from a relevant ethics review committee – either from a research institution in Australia or if there is one, from a national research institute in the country where the study is being conducted.

For research that is not funded by the Australian Government, it’s up to the NGO conducting the research as to whether they seek ethics approval or not. 

Now you may be thinking “NGO research, like academic research, should also go through an ethics review process – otherwise how do we know that they are conducted ethically?” This is a valid question but I don’t think it is the right question to be asking.

I strongly believe that before we hastily establish an ethics review committee, we need to critically reflect on our view of research ethics, which is essentially grounded in Western science. We have a tendency to engross ourselves in the discourse of ethics but rarely do we question it, nor do we ask the very people we are trying to safeguard about whether they think what we are doing to them are ethical. We rarely stop and ask ourselves the following questions:

From who’s perspective are we defining ethics?

Who decides what is ethical and what is not for the research participants, who are likely to be from vulnerable populations?

To what extent are we exercising power and control over the participants?

How do we know that the risk management strategies we put in place really protect the safety of the participants?

What assumptions do we bring into our understanding of ethics?

It’s time to reflect and rethink our understanding of ethics, and take a long hard look at ourselves and our biases. We may be doing more harm than good by enforcing our view of research ethics onto the very people we are trying to protect.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Research

Tagged , ,

Walkabouti along New China Town

Posted on June 6, 2011 by Kate Morioka| Leave a comment

 
 
 
 

By Kate Morioka, Research Project Manager

 

It’s Monday afternoon and I’m heading towards Chinatown in Honiara to meet our partner, the Solomon Islands Development Trust (SIDT). The last time I was here was five years ago, about six months after the 2006 Chinatown riots, sparked by allegations of election-fixing of the Prime Minister, abetted by Chinese businessmen.
I remember from my last visit that Chinatown was black and scarred from the riots of April 2006. Up to 90% of buildings in Chinatown, the retail centre of Honiara, were burnt down and looting was rife. Chinese owned properties were targeted and subsequently about 1,000 Chinese people were displaced and some fled the country in fear of their safety.

I remember walking down the streets of Chinatown in November 2006 and feeling its emptiness – there were hardly any people around, most shops were closed or destroyed, and there was the utter silence. It was like walking through a ghost town.

Following the riots, the then Prime Minister resigned after just eight days in office.  The no confidence motion led to his resignation.  RAMSI forces were also quick to respond, deploying more troops, along with extra police forces from Australia, New Zealand and Fiji, to restore law and order.  There were doubts that the large scale looting and destruction of Chinatown were spontaneous.  The investigation resulted in three members from the parliament being arrested for orchestrating the riots.

There were also fingers being pointed at the Participating Police Force and the Australian forces, criticised for their failure to predict and prevent looting and arson that had occurred. Approximately 31 troops and police officers were injured whilst they attempted to protect people and buildings from the rioters.

Fast forward five years later and the Chinatown I see before me is very different to what I remember. Burnt buildings have been completely replaced with new ones, and there are streams of new shops bustling with activity, with lots of people and cars everywhere. It really feels like the retail centre of Honiara.

My visit this time is to the ‘New Chinatown’, where SIDT’s office is located.  The timber two-storey house, located near the Solomon Star printing office, is a hub for many non-governmental organisations, including the Vois Blong Mere Solomon, World Wildlife Fund, Green Peace and Civil Society Network.  There are definite advantages to co-locating NGO offices in one central building: the potential for collaboration and information sharing, and strengthening the NGO identity and representation.  What strikes me as I walk into the NGO hub is that the place is buzzing with ideas, energy and the desire for change.

The New Chinatown is more than about having new buildings and shops.  It is a place where people, businesses and organisations are thriving, and they add to the momentum for bringing about social change.  I feel a strong sense of hope that there will be no repeats of the 2006 riots…not in New Chinatown.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Partnership

Tagged , , ,

Linking women’s rights to climate change

Posted on May 30, 2011 by Kate Morioka| 3 Comments

By Nehal and Kate, Research Interns. 

Hi there! Our names are Nehal and Kate, and we are the Gender & Climate Change (Pacific) Research Interns here at ActionAid Australia. For the past seven weeks, we have been investigating the link between women’s rights and climate change, in the context of the Pacific islands by reviewing key international human rights instruments and documents relating to human rights, gender and climate change. What we have found time and again through our research, is evidence that women’s rights and climate change have an inextricable link; as access to resources becomes increasingly restricted, women are usually the first to be exposed to the effects of climate change. These effects will then magnify existing patterns of inequality, including gender inequalities, across many areas of the developing world.[1]

The Pacific is made up of 20,000 to 30,000 islands. The focus of our investigation has been on Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, which are the two study countries for ActionAid’s research project. These two nations are particularly exposed to devastating natural disasters, and our initial research revealed that the impacts of climate change have already had a damaging impact on the livelihoods of locals living in the region—especially for women. We have been getting our hands on every report and resource available to write up literature reviews on climate change and women’s rights in the Pacific. We’ve also done some further investigation into policy analysis, and have compiled a small series of matrices to better determine whether the governments of the Solomon Islands and PNG are doing all they can to fulfil their international human rights obligations. It’s important to know that they aren’t just paying lip service and are actually doing everything in their power to make sure that women have the opportunity to adapt to climate change. This is most definitely central to our research project!

Some of the preliminary findings from our literature review include the following:

  • Given that women in PNG and the Solomon Islands currently face existing structural inequalities and denial of their human rights, climate change is likely to exacerbate their vulnerability to poverty, exploitation and oppression. The existence of a range of structural barriers (be they socio-cultural, economic or political in nature) have a substantial impact on women’s current ability to claim their rights in the face of climate change.
  • Although both PNG and Solomon Islands are signatories to the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), gender inequality remains a severe impediment to development. According to the 2009 Human Development Report produced by the United Nations Development Programme, PNG had a Gender-Related Development Index (GDI) of 148, placing it at the lowest level for all Pacific Island Countries and just above Haiti and Sudan. The Solomon Islands performed only marginally better, with a GDI rating of 135 out of 182.[2]
  • Other gender disparities include women’s excessive workloads, poor nutrition, and lack of access to safe water, poor access to health centers, high number of pregnancies and high rates of family violence.
  • For both PNG and the Solomon Islands, there is a poor representation of women in the political system. Within PNG currently, the percentage of female representation in parliament is just 0.9%, while the Solomon Islands remains one of just twelve nations globally with zero females in parliament.[3]
  • The primary reason behind this lack of political representation is women’s lack of access to strategic resources. These resources include but are not limited to wealth, property and finance as well as a culture of gender inequality within the political and societal systems.
  • Women, as well as organisations and institutions seeking to represent women’s interests, have considerable capacity in influencing government, companies and other institutions that hold power and creating long term social change in the areas of climate change adaptation and disaster risk management. We have learnt also that organisations and governmental departments are most effective where they take a strategic approach to climate change adaptation, explicitly incorporating activities to contribute toward gender equality[4]

 

[1]United Nations Development Programme (2010) Human Development Report, ‘The Real Wealth of Nations: Pathways to Human Development.’ Accessed online 9/5/11 at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2010_EN_Complete_reprint.pdf

[2] United Nations Development Programme (2009) ‘Gender Related Development Index and its components.’ Accessed online 23/5/11 at: http://hdr.undp.org/en/media/HDR_2009_EN_Table_J.pdf

 [3] United Nations Development Fund for Women (2007) ‘Translating CEDAW into Law: CEDAW Legislative Compliance in Nine Pacific Island Countries.’ Accessed online on the 23/5/11 at: http://pacific.unifem.org/documents/Translating CEDAWIntoLaw.pdf

[4] Brody, A; Demetriades, J & Esplen, E (2008) ‘Gender and Climate Change : Mapping the Linkages – A Scoping Study on Knowledge and Gaps.’ Institute of Development Studies: Sussex, United Kingdom.

→ 3 Comments

Posted in Literature Review

Tagged , , , , ,

Learning to Partner

Posted on May 20, 2011 by Kate Morioka| Leave a comment


By Kate Morioka, Research Project Manager. March 15, 2011. Madang, PNG

Who we partner with and how we work with our partners are important to a successful project.  And ActionAid’s research project is no exception. My initial visit to Papua New Guinea in March involved meeting with our local research partner, the Bismarck Ramu Group (BRG).

The BRG broke away from the UNDP funded Integrated Conservation and Development (ICAD) programme in 1999, establishing itself as a self-reliant community development organisation owned and facilitated by and for the local people.  The ICAD Lak Project was deemed by the UNDP as a failure because its objective of creating a biodiversity conservation areas was not achieved and logging companies ‘bought out’ the villagers and their royalties and incentives were far too generous than what the ICAD could offer.

Today, the BRG has a strong force of full time and part time coordinators who go on ‘patrols’  to the villages; and they enter the villages empty-handed, to avoid creating expectations. This approach, referred to as the non-cargo approach, focuses on self-help, reducing dependence on economic-incentives to achieve development and conservation outcomes.  Less than a decade since it split from the ICAD, the BRG had been successful in protecting 80,000 and 18,000 hectares of conservation land.

Strongly focused on the process of self-help, the BRG takes a firm stance on who it partners with and who it obtains funds from. They are not afraid to turn away donors – this is to make sure that the organisation stays grounded and true to the people it works with, rather than influenced by outside interests.

For ActionAid, with no prior experience, knowledge or presence in PNG, establishing honest, genuine and transparent relationships with local organisations, and trusting their processes is not only important but an absolute must.   This is particularly so for AA’s research on climate change and women – we are the students coming from the outside and we are here to learn from the real experts (the local people).  Immediately a rush of questions run through my head: How can our research also benefit the BRG? What can ActionAid offer? How can the information collected for the research be used in a way that is appropriate and useful for the BRG? What are the long term partnership opportunities for AA and the BRG?

Whilst it is easy to ‘conduct research’ with clear time, budgetary and organisational parameters, we have to also think how our potential research partners work, their model of engaging with the community and how they can benefit from the partnership. We also need to critically reflect on our role as outsiders, what beliefs and assumptions we bring, and our expectations.  Will the relationship between AA and the partner organisation be equal and fair? Will both parties be aware of their responsibilities and accountability to each other? Will the partnership be mutually beneficial?

All too often do researchers come into a community with their strict agendas then leave a short time later, with the local people feeling as though they may never see or hear from the researchers again.  That vey research may be critical in informing government or organisational decisions (or its remnants may remain as dust-collecting reports in bookshelves) but the information never returns to the people in a way that can be used to help them move forward. Then another one year down the track, another researcher arrives to the community and then leaves again.

I don’t want to be that researcher. And I don’t want to be doing research that will not benefit the very people who share their knowledge and stories with me.  I have so many more questions running through my head, which makes me think about how we do our research. Tomorrow I meet with Rosa for the second time, and we will answer some of these questions together.

→ Leave a comment

Posted in Partnership

Tagged , , ,

Are you from PNG? Are you interested in climate change and women’s rights? Would you like to join ActionAid’s Project Steering Committee?

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Kate Morioka| 5 Comments

ActionAid is looking for a woman from the Papua New Guinean community in Sydney to join our Project Steering Committee. It doesn’t matter whether you are studying, working or looking after a family, if you have an interest in climate change and/or women’s issues, we would like to have you on board our Project Steering Committee!

The purpose of the Steering Committee is to provide strategic guidance and input into ActionAid’s research project on climate change and women’s rights in Melanesia. The Committee will meet at ActionAid’s office in Camperdown on an ‘as-needs basis’ until November 2011.

Current members include: ActionAid CEO and Board members, University of Sydney academics and an environmental scientist from the Solomon Islands.

The next meeting is planned for the first week of June and will go for about 1.5 hours. Telephone or skype access can be arranged for those who are not able to attend meetings in person.

Participation is voluntary and travel costs will be covered by ActionAid. Although those who live in Sydney are preferred, we welcome applications from people living outside of Sydney and other parts of Australia.

If you would like to join ActionAid’s Project Steering Committee, please apply by using the comment box below and tell us in no more than 50 words why you would like to participate. Tenku tru!

→ 5 Comments

Posted in Steering Committee

Tagged , ,