Attend Spring Meetings on Development topics from Apr 17-21. Comment and engage with experts. Calendar of Events

Syndicate content

Add new comment

Submitted by Kops on
PPAP is a good initiative. However good intentions of the WB and GoPNG funds could fail to sustain or even deliver the desired results because of the following factors: - A good portion of the funds are consumed on paperwork (consultancy, admin, etc) to keep up with the strict WB requirements. These requirements go as far as the Joint Partners and the Co-Partners. The consultancy costs to put together standard proposals/reports and to generally manage the procurement process will cost the Lead Partners a significant portion of the sub project funds. Of course this is justified by expensive terms such as transparency, management capability, etc....but consider the ratio of paperwork costs to actual project expenditure (actual expenditure on Co Partners). Take into account long term impact, sustainability and short term wins of the project aims. - Most of the Lead Partners that will qualify for the funds will be the big exporting companies and they will only be interested in maintaining their bottom lines rather than spending an extra penny from their pockets to help the small growers. - After reading through some of the posts above and from experience, PRICE calls the shots. PPAP project is geared towards mostly rehabilitation but after that, what is the long term plan? After GoPNG and WB spend that much money on rehabilitation, market access and quality, how will most of the rural population have access to direct markets/certification? CIC/PPAP should at least have a fair idea of the current/historical quality of coffee from certain areas and the potential for improving quality in some areas. If not, this needs to be known. Part of this project should focus on sustaining PRICE for the average grade (price subsidy if falls below market rates), assist in establishing direct market access for the top grades and invest in improving potential top grade areas. Once this mechanism is in place, this should be supported on a long term basis. Otherwise, after the project is complete, it will all fall back to ground zero again. After mentioning the above, how differently would PPAP have channeled the funds to small holders? * Cut the middle men direct with the small holders. CIC/PPAP should use the funds directly to identify the small holders, work out their current status, help them to improve/increase productivity/quality, assist them to get access to direct market/set price stabilization fund/mechanism and regulate pricing charged by buyers/exporters based on distance/fuel cost and other such factors. This will save a significant portion of cost that will now be wasted on paperwork consulting. * Set up checks and balances to sustain AND IMPROVE such a mechanism with different stakeholders, both independent affected stakeholders which further IMPROVES the livelihood of small holders (increased output-increased income-improved living standards). Thanks Kops