Syndicate content

Add new comment

Thanks, Kops, for your very thoughtful post. I agree with you that it's important to take into account impact, sustainability, and both log-and short-term "wins". I can tell from your comments that you care very much about smallholders, and I do to. It's important to note that PPAP is not the only project working in the coffee sector, and there are others who are indeed focusing more directly onthe smallholders as individuals. The World Bank and the GoPNG agencies involved with PPAP are trying to work on the institutional level, not the individual level; we are not asserting that PPAP is the only approach that's viable, we're just saying that it's one important part of the support that's needed. Our experience around the world shows that it IS possible to work with large growers and exporters to deliver changes that BOTH allow them to operate profitably AND improve the income and benefits that flow to smallholders. I don't think that cutting out middlemen is authomatically the right thing to do, but I respect your views. PPAP wants to work with the exporters and large firms to link smallholders to them in a way that is "win-win" for both of those groups. However, I do need to be up-front with you and say that I don't think that what you call "paperwork consulting" costs are wasted money. Every time someone tells me that terms such as transparency and management capability are "expensive", and tries to convince me that PNG is "too poor to worry about transparency and good quality management", I respond with real passion: "Papua New Guineans deserve to get the best value they can out of programs meant to suport their livelihoods, and without transparency and strong management, PNG loses." Transparency and good management and recordkeeping ensures value-for-money, and Papua New Guineans deserve nothing less. How many projects have you seen fail in PNG because not enough attention was paid to keeping track of how the money gets spent? We're committed to reduce that risk in PPAP.