Project Document MVD (Final)

Millennium Village Development Pilot Project in
Papua New Guinea
PROJECT DOCUMENT
Final Draft
November 14th 2011
Submitted by Cardno Emerging Markets Ltd. U.K.

Project Document for a Millennium Village Development Pilot Project in PNG
Final Draft
ANNEX I Description of the Action

Table of Contents
SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................... 1
1. BACKGROUND.............................................................................................................. 2
1.1 PROBLEM ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................2
1.1.1 MDG Achievements/Progress.............................................................................2
1.1.2 Lack of Infrastructure, Especially in Remoter Areas............................................2
1.1.3 Lack of Government Investment, Coordination and Information..........................3
1.1.4 Low Incomes from Agriculture.............................................................................4
1.2 MILLENNIUM VILLAGE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT..............................................................4
1.3 CONSISTENCY WITH GOVERNMENT POLICIES..................................................................5
1.4 CONSISTENCY WITH EU POLICIES..................................................................................6
1.5 STAKEHOLDERS.............................................................................................................6
1.5 LINKAGE WITH GOVERNMENT AND OTHER EU/DONOR INTERVENTIONS............................6
2. MVD PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION..........................................................................9
2.1 SUMMARY OUTLINE OF PROPOSED PILOT PROJECT........................................................9
2.2 OBJECTIVES................................................................................................................10
2.3 RESULTS.....................................................................................................................10
2.4 ACTIVITIES..................................................................................................................10
2.5 IMPLEMENTATION.........................................................................................................11
2.6 PROJECT BUDGET AND FUNDING CONTRIBUTIONS........................................................14
2.7 FLOW OF FUNDS..........................................................................................................15
2.8 ASSUMPTIONS AND RISKS............................................................................................15
2.9 IMPACT AND SUSTAINABILITY........................................................................................18
2.10 MONITORING AND EVALUATION..................................................................................18
2.11 CROSS CUTTING SECTORS........................................................................................19
APPENDIX 1 LOG FRAME...............................................................................................21
APPENDIX 2: MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORK..................................23
APPENDIX 3. MVD PILOT PROJECT DESIGN...............................................................25
3.1 ORIGINAL/INITIAL FUNDING CONCEPT...........................................................................25
3.1.1 Government Funding Contribution.....................................................................25
3.1.2 UNDP Funding Contribution..............................................................................26
3.1.3 Private Sector Funding Contribution..................................................................26
3.2 MANAGEMENT COSTS..................................................................................................26
3.3 COMMUNITY LEVEL INVESTMENT COSTS.......................................................................27
3.4 FUNDING MODALITIES..................................................................................................28
3.5 PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD.............................................................................29
3.6 VILLAGE SELECTION....................................................................................................29
3.7 REPLICABILITY.............................................................................................................31
3.8 LOCATION OF PROJECT COORDINATION UNIT...............................................................32
APPENDIX 4. SELECTED VILLAGE DETAILS................................................................33
4.1 MUSENDAI VILLAGE, ESP............................................................................................33
4.2 TROLGA VILLAGE, WHP..............................................................................................34
4.3 DOMIL VILLAGE, JIWAKA PROVINCE..............................................................................35
4.4 SIBILAI VILLAGE, MILNE BAY PROVINCE........................................................................36
APPENDIX 5. PARTICIPATING CBO ANALYSIS............................................................37
APPENDIX 6. MDG BASELINE DATA, TARGETS AND INDEX SCORE CARD.............39
ii
Final Draft
APPENDIX 7. Map............................................................................................................41
Abbreviations
CAP Community Action Participation

CBO Community Based Organisation
CD Community Development
CDC Community Development Committee
CGD Center for Global Development
CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation
CLDC Community Learning & Development Centres
DIMS District Information Management Systems
DI & RD Department of Implementation and Rural Development
DNPM Department of national Planning and Monitoring
DSP Development Strategy Plan
DSIP District Services Improvement Programme
EHP East Highland Province
ESP East Sepik Province
FA Financing Agreement
GEF Global Environment Facility
HIC Healthy Island Concept
ICD Integrated Community Development (Policy)
ICHD Integral Community and Health Development
JDBPPC Joint District Budget Planning and Priority Committee
LLG Local Level Government
MBP Milne Bay Province
MDG Millennium Development Goal
MDI Millennium Development Indicator
MTDP Medium Term Development Plan (2011-2015)
MVD Millennium Village Development
NADP National Agricultural Development Plan
NAOSU National Authoring Office Support Unit
NGO Non-Government Organisation
NSA Non State Actors
PC Project Coordinator
PCU Project Coordination Unit
PLMD Provincial Liaison and Monitoring Division
PHA Provincial Health Authority
POM Port Moresby
PPAP Productive Partnerships in Agriculture Project
PMU Project Management Unit
PRAEC Petroleum Resource Area Economic Corridor
RED Rural Economic Development
RWSSP Rural Water Supply & Sanitation Programme
SDLLGP Strengthening of Districts & LLGs Project
UNDP United Nations Development Programme
WHP West Highlands Province
WHRWE West Highlands Rural Women’s Empowerment (Group)
Currency (as at September 2011)
€ 1.0 = K 3.2
The Report has been prepared by an Independent Consultant and does not necessarily
reflect the views of EC, UNDP or the Government of Papua New Guinea
iii
Final Draft
SUMMARY
The pilot project is aimed at demonstrating community led sustainable multi-sector
development in four selected communities throughout PNG. It was formulated following a
consultation process during the Feasibility Study with selected communities, CBO/NGOs,
CD based projects (especially the EU funded RWSSP) local, provincial and national
government stakeholders to agree the scope and implementation strategy for the project.
As a multi- sector project it would focus on health, education, essential infrastructure and
income generation sectors, with women empowerment a cross cutting sector, according to
the specific priorities and development plans for each village. Each village plan and
investment would be in line with government plans through integration into the district level
ward plans at LLG level and government funds available, such that the EU funds would
complement other available funds. Thus, despite the separate funding administration
conditioned by the donor, the modality would represent a partnership between the
village/CBO and donor and Government and therefore in line with the current Government
focus on empowering and building capacities of CBOs, communities and LLGs. This would
ensure that the project remains in government focus, since, if successful, it would pave the
way to replication on a larger scale, funded by government and other donor partners as a
contribution to accelerated achievement of localised MDGs.
The four selected villages cover a wide range of environments in three main regions of
PNG: Momase, Highlands and Islands. Selection was based on communities that have
already demonstrated some self-driven development (usually a single sector intervention
such as RWSSP), and have demonstrated their capacity to implement on an appropriate
technology basis, that is, have demonstrated community empowered development.
Total funding is € 1.0 million from the EU and € 0.04 million from community cash
contributions to engender ownership. As the detailed community investment programmes
have to be drawn up as the first main activity, the budget can only indicate a broad
investment level estimated at approximately €200,000 per village. This is not sufficient to
cover each community’s long term needs, such that it would complement other sources of
government or donor funds coordinated by the LLG process.
The project would be implemented through UNDP (under a Contribution Agreement

between the EU, UNDP and Government) and via CBOs as grants to individual
communities. UNDP would establish a Project Coordination Unit with its office anchored in
the DPNM and use UNDP implementation/accounting procedures. The management and
monitoring costs represent 19% of the total budget, leaving 81% for the community
investments and CBO inputs. The CBOs (all church based organisations) would have a
key role in supporting the communities’ planning and implementation efforts and in
administration of the EU funds (the CBOs selected are those that already work in the
selected communities and are experienced in handling donor funds (mainly through the
RWSSP whose funding modality is the basis for this project).
The four selected villages are: Trolga in West Highlands Province, Domil in Jiwaka
Province (Highlands Region), Musendai in East Sepik Province and Sibilai in Milne Bay
Province, with a total population of approx 5,000. It would be implemented over a 3 year
period from approx April 2012 to 2015, allowing for a possible no-cost extension in year 4.
In addition to demonstrating community capacity to implement multi-sector developments,

the Project would also reveal the capacity of government and other services to support
multi-sector village development, as well as providing lessons learnt and guidelines to
facilitate planning of a scaled up MVD approach. It would also be closely monitored by
DNPM as the project’s main aim is to to attract greater investment for a scaled-up phase.
iv
Final Draft
1. BACKGROUND
1.1 Problem Analysis
1.1.1 MDG Achievements/Progress
The Millennium Development Goals (MDG) Progress Reports for PNG in 2009 1 and 20102
reveal the most likely failure of PNG to meet any of the 8 global 2015 MDG targets,
although some progress has been made towards tailored (localised) targets for some of
the MDGs. The 2009 Report concluded that “only limited progress has been made towards
achieving some MDGs, but for others there has either been stagnation or even some
deterioration”. A comparison of recent MDG estimates and targets in Government’s
Medium Term Development Plan for 2011-2015 and its Development Strategic Plan 2010-
2030 is presented in Appendix 4, which reveals some low or very low indicators.
Another recent assessment of PNG’s progress was made by the Center for Global
Development3, which produced a scorecard for achieving the MDGs in 2011 for all
countries. It placed PNG in the very lowest group of countries, that is, ranked 133 out of
147 countries, with a score of only 0.5. From this, it was implied that there is a need for a
substantial increase in public sector investment across all sectors. However, on closer
analysis (refer Appendix 6 for the PNG score), this score was mainly due to insufficient
data – only 4 indicators were used, though each of these showed poor performance as
compared to targets (i.e. with child mortality, maternal health, combating HIV/AIDS and
environmental sustainability).
The main areas of concern are: poverty levels, health (especially incidences of malaria,
pneumonia, diarrhoea (perhaps the largest killer due to poor hygiene/water/sanitation) and
TB, which remain high), child mortality (68 per 1000) and infant mortality (57 per 1000) and
the maternal mortality rate), education (especially primary enrolment and retention in rural
areas), access to improved water sources, piped water and sanitation, especially in rural
areas, and access to electricity (especially in rural areas).
It is generally recognised that there is an urgent need to accelerate progress towards the
localised MDG targets in all sectors. The rural population is a priority focus of both
Government and EU development plans and therefore the proposed Pilot MVD Project is
timely in that it seeks to support an acceleration of progress towards the localised MDGs.
The Consultant’s field visits indicated that coverage of rural communities’ basic needs for
health and education infrastructure and services, essential infrastructure and agricultural
extension services varies widely. Some communities have received schools and health
centres or aid-posts, whilst some, especially in remote areas have not. Essential
infrastructure such as improved access roads and electrification again varies according to
location/remoteness. Agricultural extension services, however, were widely lacking.
1.1.2 Lack of Infrastructure, Especially in Remoter Areas

PNG suffers from deficient infrastructure and difficult topographies (mountains, jungle,
remote islands, etc.), which restricts access due to poor roads/bridges or long boat trips,
as well as unpredictable weather (causing landslides, flooding, road blockages, etc.) and a
breakdown of law and order in some areas. In rural communities, especially remote ones,
government services are generally lacking giving rise to poverty and chronic and acute
1
MDG Second National Progress Summary Report 2009, DNP and UNDP
2
MDG Second National Progress Comprehensive Report 2010, DNP/UNDP
3
CGD MDG Progress Index 2011, September 2011, Center for Gobal Development
v
Final Draft
health problems, lack of education, poor access to markets and inputs, and a lack of
support to agricultural development/income generation from the government extension
services. The situation, however, varies by location, remoteness, sector and province. The
Consultant found that there was a widespread perception of a gap between communities
and government services.
Government recognises these problems in its various policy and strategy documents and
is giving a high priority to rural development. However, this takes time, and despite the
obvious improvements in accessible communities, the rest of the rural population is
becoming increasingly impatient and critical of government efforts to-date. Many rural
communities feel they are still being let down by government, as well as by corruption, in
terms of allocation of the increased funds that mineral and oil wealth has brought to PNG.
CBOs especially in remoter areas step in to fill the gap where government services are
lacking. Without this vital support, poverty and social problems would be much greater in
PNG and is recognised in Government policies and strategies. This support by CBOs to
build a community’s confidence and ownership often takes a decade or more to achieve.
1.1.3 Lack of Government Investment, Coordination and Information

Government has always allocated insufficient funds to rural areas, both investment funds
and government operating costs, due partly to poor management and corruption. The
result is reflected in the poor MDG score indicated above. An example is the water and
sanitation sector in which it is estimated 4 that some 75% of the rural population still has no
access to clean, piped water and are highly vulnerable to diseases such as diarrhoea.
Communities draw on various government sector funds, MP grants and donor funding
according to contacts on an ad hoc basis, i.e. they shop around for funds, for which donor
funds that by-pass government are preferred.
Many communities complain there is no funding coordination or information on funding

available at community level. With the huge area and remoteness of many villages, the
latter is not surprising. In addition, they often have little confidence in the Ward plans
prepared by LLGs (some are not budgeted and some communities do not yet have any
plan). The LLGs however have been strengthening their role in coordinating and planning
district level expenditure, especially in planning the disbursement of the large DSIP funds
by the district level Joint District Budget Planning and Priority Committee (JDBPPC). In
particular, the District Information Management Systems (DIMS) project 5 which is due to
be completed by the end of November 2011 represents a major step to improve the data
on investments at District level.
As a result, the proposed MVD Pilot Project would be able to integrate with the District
planning system to improve the coordination of investment planning at village level. There
is a risk, however, of the funds being subject to political influence by MPs (next year there
is a national election) who chair the JDBPPC that oversees the allocation of these funds.
The MVD Pilot Project would compliment the DSIP wherever possible, as well as other
sector programmes and donor projects/programmes and MP grants and avoid duplication.
1.1.4 Low Incomes from Agriculture
4
RWSSP estimate that the scheme covers 4% of the rural population, another 20% already has some form of
water supply scheme, leaving 75% still without clean water access.
5
DIMS is a system to collect information on all development projects across all 89 districts to allow them to
improve planning of development expenditure, especially for the huge DSIP a K1.4 billion government
intervention for all types of investment across all sectors, on a decentralised basis
vi
Final Draft
Some communities live in areas with good soils and access to markets to buy and sell
produce, yet do not utilise their opportunities, as only a relatively small cash economy is
needed to satisfy their needs. Others are virtually cut off from the main roads, live in
minimally serviced villages, may have poorer or depleted fertility of soils and survive at
subsistence level. Within these extremes, there are opportunities for income generation
through improved systems of integrated crop, tree and small livestock production, plus
cooperative marketing to improve prices and micro-credit to ensure supplies of seeds and
inputs. Income generation is regarded as a priority development activity (MDG 1) as it can
also bring about improvements in other MDGs. The Pilot Project would seek to include
example villages that would model income generation in remote areas (i.e. breaking out of
subsistence agriculture), as well as those in accessible areas through increased
agricultural production, marketing or adding value. In either case, the communities may
need to seek guidance and technical advice from agricultural specialists from applied
research stations and organisations such as NARI, or from the private sector.
1.2 Millennium Village Development Concept

The MVD Project under study arose out of the experience gained in MVD pilot projects in
Africa and a Concept Paper6 produced following a visit of Professor Sachs’ team to PNG in
2008. The concept was for a broad-based, community-led development strategy to
achieve the MDGs, that is, by investing simultaneously in interventions across all sectors,
including access to clean water, education, food/income generation, health, and essential
infrastructure, poor villages would be able to get a foothold on the bottom rung of the
development ladder.
The concept also envisages the creation of a partnership model to leverage the unique
strengths of NGOs, church groups and other organisations that have experience at the
local level. This is already particularly strong in PNG due to the wide range of terrain,
isolation and languages that characterises PNG’s rural communities. Many villages are
being supported by CBOs - usually church based organisations. Some of the church
organisations involved are the Nazarene Church, Baptist Union, South Sea Evangelical
Church, Catholic Church and many more. It is understood that some 50% of services to
communities in health and education is undertaken by Church partners. It is government
policy to work with these organisations in order to reach the remoter communities.
In addition, in PNG, many villages are already undertaking multi-sector development,

especially where a single sector intervention, such as a water supply and sanitation
project, or a health service improvement project (based on a CD approach), has stimulated
a community to build on the experience and confidence gained to continue into other
sectors. The “Healthy Island Concept” (HIC) being increasingly utilised by certain CBOs
and Provincial Health Authorities represents a similar approach to the MVD approach. The
main objectives of the HIC are as follows and indicate the similarity:
 To empower individuals, families, and community to take ownership of their own

health (and welfare) for healthy life styles
 To empower community to be self reliance in community development initiatives
using their available resources
There is increasing interest and dialogue at village level in this approach. The
communities’ capacity to absorb and manage a simultaneous multi sector development
and government’s capacity to service this approach is the main reason for a pilot project at
this stage.
6
Program to Support the Millennium Development Goals and Long-Term Development in Papua New
Guinea A Concept Note, Aug 2008, J.D. Sachs
vii
Final Draft
The Pilot Project would also demonstrate whether the approach is sustainable and
replicable, and whether further adaptation to PNG conditions and capacity building will be
required. Funding limitations, government linkages and capacity of its institutions are likely
to be the major issues in any scaled-up second phase. The trial would provide practical
lessons to the Government for scaling up multi-sector development to district and
provincial levels. The partnership approach would also provide lessons on engaging
community organisations, churches, NGOs and government institutions into future
development.
The Pilot Project, if successful, would help to attract greater investment in rural
development (e.g. by Government, donor partners, the private sector and international
development banks) as the amount of capital resources required to fund wide spread
multi-sector development is substantial.
The communities would be selected on the basis of a high level of community organisation
and management and development activities already initiated, often by a CBO over a long
term, or as a result of a single sector development such as a RWSSP funded by the EU or
Health programmes, in order to demonstrate multi-sector development during the relatively
short project period available to this project.
1.3 Consistency with Government Policies

The Millennium Village Development (MVD) philosophy is aligned in broad terms with the
Government’s development priorities as stated in its strategic long term Vision 2050 and
the PNG Development Strategy Plan (DSP) 2010-2030 and the Medium Term
Development Plan (MTDP) 2011-2015, which targets rural communities with rural roads
rehabilitation, electricity and communication services to enhance and stimulate rural
economic growth. It is also in line with the Integrated Community Development Policy
(ICD) of the Dept of Community Development. However, the MVD multi-sector approach is
not specifically accepted by government yet, but it is supported as a pilot project to provide
lessons leant and guidelines for a possible change in government policy, namely to
implement the MVD approach in an expanded second phase.
Other approaches to accelerate MDG progress are also being tested in PNG, namely the
MDG Acceleration Framework (MAF) a new strategy adopted by the UNDP that
recognises that the Sach’s multi-sector approach is beyond the resources of many of the
poorer developing countries and therefore adopts a lower cost approach in which priority
MDG Indicators in a single sector are targeted. A trial project is about to commence at
Kairiku village in Central Province (funded by a USD 400,000 grant from the Democratic
Trust Fund) to target maternal MDIs and involves both the Dept of Health to provide
technical support and the DNPM in policy issues.
Another programme aimed at acceleration of MDGs is the € 1.0 billion EU funded Global
MDG Initiative (from Brussels) to support maternal health, contribute to fight against child
mortality and hunger and improve the supply of water and sanitation. For PNG, an
application has been made to fund Rural Water Supply & Sanitation projects in the
Highlands in a € 10 million programme (refer section 1.7 below)
1.4 Consistency with EU Policies

The MVD approach is in line with the overarching objective of the Cotonou Agreement to
promote the development of a common strategic approach to poverty reduction. The
European Consensus identifies poverty eradication in the context of sustainable
viii
Final Draft
development as the core primary objective. The EU human and social development policy
framework aims at improving peoples’ lives in line with the MDGs.
The Country Strategy Paper and National Indicative Programme (CSP-NIP) for the period
2008 – 2013 provide the overall framework for PNG under the 10th EDF (2008-2013), with
two mutually supportive focal components: Rural Economic Development and Human
Resource Development. Under the 10th EDF Rural Economic Development Programme,
Phase I, an amount of €1.0 million has been allocated to support implementation of a
Millennium Development Village pilot project implemented under a Joint Management
procedure through a Contribution Agreement with the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP).
1.5 Stakeholders
A list of the main potential stakeholders is given below. At a national and donor level the
main stakeholders would be the EU, UNDP and Government in the form of DNPM, the
Dept. of Implementation & Rural Development, Dept of Community Development,
Department of Provincial & Local Government Affairs and the line Departments of Health,
Education and Agriculture & Livestock. At community level, as a multi-sector project, there
are many potential stakeholders that could be involved. However, the main players would
be the community development committees, CBOs, NGOs, Provincial Governments and
Provincial Sector Authorities, CLDCs of the Dept of Community Development, and the
LLGs.
1. Community Development Committees and Ward Councillors of selected villages

2. LLGs
3. Provincial Governments
4. Provincial Sector Authorities
5. CBOs and NGOs
6. CLDCs at District Level
7. Dept. of Health
8. Dept. Environment & Conservation
9. Dept. of Community Development
10. Dept of Education
11. Dept of Agriculture and Livestock
12. Dept of Implementation & Rural Development
13. Department of Provincial & Local Government Affairs
14. Dept. National Planning & Monitoring
15. EU/NAOSU
16. UNDP
Linkages between the Pilot Project and the main Government Departments, EU and other
donor funded projects are discussed in the following section, whilst details/analysis of the
selected pilot villages and CBOs are presented in Appendices 4 and 5 respectively. An
analysis of the main relevant government departments’ suitability to anchor the Project
Coordination Unit is presented in Appendix 3.8.
1.5 Linkage with Government and other EU/Donor Interventions

The MVD Pilot Project would be closely followed in terms of future government policies
and budgetary considerations by the DNPM. In addition, as a multi-sector project it would
relate to the major Government programmes in each sector, especially the Health and
Education, as well as Infrastructure, Rural Electrification and Agriculture. Some of the
ix
Final Draft
direct linkages with Government, sector programmes and donor funded programmes in
rural areas are identified below.
The Department of National Planning and Monitoring would be the contracting

authority for the project. It would also monitor the Pilot Project (in joint monitoring activities
with UNDP) as it is concerned with national MDGs and future government policies in terms
of adopting the MVD concept on a larger scale. There is also a UN Adviser working on
MDGs in the Department. DNPM has established regional offices (Provincial Liaison and
Monitoring Division (PLMD) undertaking monitoring activities in various sector
programmes, as well as having an overview of all monitoring efforts.
DNPM is also responsible for substantial funding resources through its Economic Corridor
Development7 focusing on poverty alleviation, which is relevant to selection of the villages
in the Pilot Project and/or in an expanded phase, as well as the Rehabilitation of Education
Sector Infrastructure (RESI) programme (school investment noted on field visit) and the
Coastal Fisheries Development Programme.
The Department of Community Development has its Integrated Development Policy and
promotes linkage of villages to resource people and organisations, as well as monitoring
and reporting on MDG status. It is operating a programme in 14 target provinces/districts 8
in which focal points are established in the form of Community Learning and Development
Centres (CLDC) whose main task is to link communities with organisations to address the
problems of the “gap” between Government and communities and therefore has a
common interest with the proposed Pilot Project. The CLDCs could facilitate the Pilot
Project selected villages where they come under a CLDC focus area, or in an expanded
phase as more communities become included in an expanded programme. The
Department has a National Integrated Community Development Advisory Committee
(NICDAC), as well as similar committees at Province (PICDAC) and District (DICDAC)
levels.
Currently the Department mainly functions at national level with limited capacity and
resources available at District and community levels to reach and support individual rural
communities. It is therefore not considered an appropriate institution in which to anchor the
Pilot Project at this stage, though it should have a supportive role and be a member of the
Project Steering Committee. However, it may well play a larger role in any scaled-up
phase given appropriate resources and capacity building inputs.
The Department of Implementation & Rural Development (former Office of Rural

Development) administrates the District Services Investment Programme (DSIP), which
distributes grants for rural development to all 89 districts. The grants must be consistent
with PNG’s Medium Term Development Plan and be approved by the Joint District
Planning and Budget Priority Committees (JDP&BPC) chaired by the local MP. This is a
multi-sector fund covering schools, health, roads and bridges, agriculture and others and
sometimes individual communities. The Pilot Project investments would be integrated with
the LLG system and allocation of these funds.
The Department of Provincial & Local Government Affairs. Linkage with the
decentralised local district level governance through the LLG and the JDP&BPC is a key
7
The economic corridors are an integral part off the MTD 20151-2015 aimed at poverty alleviation in order to
integrate poverty areas into economic corridors. They are (i) PRAEC including parts of Enga, Southern
Highlands and Central provinces, (ii) Central Corridor: Milne Bay, Central, Oro and Morobe; South East
Corridor: East and West New Britain; and (iv) Momase Corridor: East and West Sepik, Madang
8
The 14 provinces/districts are NCD South in Central Region, Popondetta in Oro, Goodenough Island in
MBP, ENB- Pomio, WNB - Bialla, Manus, EHP - Henganofi, Sinasina/Yongomugl - Simbu, WHP - Minz,
Morobe-Finschafen, Madang, Wosera-Gawi - ESP and Sandaun - Vanimo/Green River
x
Final Draft
factor to ensuring government’s involvement in the project and therefore sustainability of

the approach in any scaled up government funded phase. The main linkage point would be
in the project start up phase with the PC making the provincial and district authorities
aware of the pilot project in their area and in the initial planning of the investments between
the community, supported by the CBO, and the LLG to ensure all sources of funds are
accessed by the community (EU funds complement other available funds)
The Health Services Improvement Project (HSIP) and the Capacity Building Service
Centre (CBSC), AusAID funded, both relating to health service delivery in rural areas.
The RWSSP funded by the EU (€25 million). This 5 year on-going programme, which is
closing in mid 2012, has successfully installed water supply and sanitation schemes on a
Community Development CD approach with supplementary training, especially in
sanitation (CLTS) throughout PNG. It implements via grant contracts to NGO/CBOs to
implement the schemes at village level. It has also formed the basis of communities’
continued desire to develop in other sectors, often building on the WATSAN Committee
established in every water supply scheme. The CD approach as well as the funding
modality and CBO/NGO grant management forms a model for the proposed Pilot Project.
The possible RWSSP Project9 in the Highlands under the EU Global MDG Initiative as
a € 10 million project may follow this project. If approved, it could complement the MVD
pilot villages in the Highlands. Alternatively, funds may be raised for a third phase of
RWSSP but no indications have yet been made by Government or donors.
The ADB Rural Primary Health Services Delivery Project (2011-2019) funded by
ADB10, AusAID and Other Donors (OPEC and Korea) with a total funding of USD 80 million
with a focus on 8 provinces including West Highlands, East Highlands, Enga, as well as
East Sepik and Milne Bay Province, with 2 selected districts in each province. The aim is
to strengthen rural health service delivery through developing partnerships between the
state and CBOs and civil society and will provide capacity building to health personnel in
rural communities and support building and refurbishing Community Health facilities in
each participating district.
The Productive Partnerships in Agriculture Project (PPAP): a multi-donor World Bank

and IFAD funded being implemented by the Department of Agriculture and Livestock and
the Cocoa and Coffee Boards, which aims at supporting small holder coffee and cocoa
farmers and adding product value, including investment in market access infrastructure
and a survey of current practices in selected provinces, including Highland provinces.
The District Information Management Systems (DIMS) Project under the Department
of Implementation & Rural Development indicated in Section 1.1.3 above, which is partly
funded by the EU, AusAID and Government, should be a very useful aid to improving
planning of investments at district and village level, as well as improving the flow of
information on development expenditures to communities.
Other EU projects that may have a more indirect linkage include:
(i) The NSA Strengthening Programme: a second phase is being planned

aiming at focusing on the role of NSAs in good governance, that is, improving
dialogue/linkages between NSAs and Government with an emphasis on
capacity building in NGOs and CBOs and therefore shares a common interest
with the MVD Pilot Project.
(ii) The Strengthening of Districts & LLGs Project (SDLLGP) in which small
grants are given to LLGs infrastructure facilities and capacity building aimed
9
Identification Fiche: Support for Improved Access to Drinking Water & Sanitation, EU, August 2011
10
Summary ADB Proposed Rural Primary Health Services Delivery Project (2011-2019), ADB, 2010
xi
Final Draft
mainly at the District level with the aim of improving the integration of rural
communities into the government’s decentralised system. The proposed MVD
Pilot Project would represent an example of this.
(iii) The Education Programme (€39 million) continues with another 4 year
support programme continuing with HRD (teacher training and management),
as well as continued book distribution and some infrastructure facilities at the
Teacher Training College, plus scholarships for teachers in rural areas. Will be
focussing on Milne Bay Province in terms of Public Financial Management in
the sector. However, no direct support to individual communities is included.
(iv) The Rural Economic Development (RED) Programme Phase 1. These
include the jointly funded projects with the World Bank concerned with cocoa
production (Productive Partnerships in Agriculture Project above), the
Forestry Project concerned with establishment of teak plantations and teak
seedling nurseries and the “feasibility study of a rural development action”
which will seek to identify measures to improve the economic situation in rural
areas with a focus on private sector investments in rural areas and developing
partnerships to create an enabling environment (scheduled for 2012).
2. MVD PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION

A discussion of the factors involved in design of the project is attached in Appendix 3.
2.1 Summary Outline of Proposed Pilot Project

The Pilot Project proposes to test out multi-sector development at village level by building
on existing experience and organisations in selected villages where community level
development has been demonstrated to a certain extent. The Pilot Project provides an
opportunity to formalise the approach and methodology in an attempt to accelerate
momentum towards MDGs by attracting greater investment for a scaled-up second phase.
In summary, the main aims of the Pilot Project would be:
 To demonstrate community level capacity to implement multi-sector developments,

 To demonstrate the capacity of government and other services to support multi-
sector village development,
 To provide lessons learnt and guidelines to facilitate planning of a scaled up
second phase MVD approach.
 To document “good practice” in village level development initiatives in a manual.
 To attract greater investment funds from Government, donors and international
development banks for an expanded second phase.
The Pilot Project is a €1.04 million project, comprising € 1.0 contribution from the EU and €
0.04 million cash contribution by the participating communities (approx 10% of
materials/equipment/services costs). It would be implemented using grants to village level
CBOs coordinated by a Project Coordination Unit anchored in the DNPM with UNDP
having the overall managing/coordinating responsibility via a Contribution Agreement. It
would cover four selected villages Trolga, Domil, Musendai and Sibilai with a population of
approx 5,000 and be implemented over a 3 year period starting in approx. April 2012.
The approach would be on a self driven, self–help, appropriate technology/design basis

with an average budget allocation of K 630,000 or € 200,000 per community, but would
complement other possible funding sources. Thus EU funds would be integrated into the
District level LLG/DSIP planning system, as each village would formulate their plans with
xii
Final Draft
the LLG and seek other external funds available, plus any self generated funds from
income generation enterprises.
2.2 Objectives
Overall Objectives: Demonstration of MVD approach in four pilot communities, which, if
successful, would pave the way to replication on a larger scale, as a contribution to
accelerated progress towards localised MDGs in PNG.
Project Purpose: Sustainable multi-sector development implemented in four selected pilot

MVD communities in an integrated Community Development approach in health,
education, essential infrastructure and income generation sectors, with women
empowerment a cross cutting sector, according to the specific development plans for each
village.
2.3 Results
1. Effective management of Pilot Project via grants through selected CBOs,
2. Impact monitoring system established and operational
3. Good Practice Manual produced and Lessons Learnt/Guidelines identified for planning
possible scaled-up phase
2.4 Activities
Under Result 1 Effective Management of Pilot Project
Start up activities:
 Recruit/Appoint Project Coordinator

 Establish Project Coordination Unit in DNPM with the Project Coordinator
 Establish financial management and monitoring system as per UNDP requirements
 Establish grant application and award procedures according to UNDP procedures
 Establish Project Steering Committee
Preparatory activities:
 PC discusses project implementation with selected CBOs

 CBOs to discuss and confirm with communities their participation in the pilot project
 PC to alert provincial and district authorities of MVD pilot project in their area
 CBO to assist communities to draw up village development plan and budget for
project funds in consultation with Community Development Committee (CDC) and
District LLG/JDBPPC,
 CBO supported Community proposal for a grant submitted to PCU for approval,
 Contract drawn up by PCU with the Proposal as an Annex along with a Budget and
Conditions
 Contract signed by CBO and PCU
 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for community commitment signed by CBO
and community leaders if required
 Terms of Reference prepared for CDCs if required
Implementation activities:
xiii
Final Draft
 CBO requests for funding in instalments as laid out in contract

 CBO undertakes procurement and expenditure as planned
 Community undertakes implementation (clearance, construction work etc)
 CBO prepare regular project progress reports,
 PC makes periodic follow up visits to review progress
 CBO verifies plans properly undertaken and completed
 CBO acquits/clears each instalment fund before final payment.
Under Result 2 Impact Monitoring Team and System Established and Operational
 Establish an impact monitoring team and monitoring system

 Conduct impact monitoring of community level MDIs and farm incomes at village
level before and after project (refer Monitoring and Evaluation Section 2.10 below),
 Liaise with Project Steering Committee,
 Preparation of Impact Monitoring Report
 Conduct audit - CBO would be responsible for audit as required by UNDP.
Under Result 3 Good Practice Manual & Lessons Learnt Identified
Follow-up activities:
 Identify Lessons Learnt and draw up Guidelines for planning a scaled-up phase
 Prepare a “Good Practice” Manual for village multi-sector development.
2.5 Implementation
Project Organisation
The project would be implemented by UNDP through a Contribution Agreement with

UNDP having an overall management, coordinating and monitoring role, as well as
advising on MDG policy. DNPM would be the contracting authority for the project. The
Government of PNG would sign the Contribution Agreement with UNDP and the EU
endorses the contract, as in EDF partially decentralised procedures. A Project
Coordination Unit (PCU) staffed by a PNG national Project Coordinator (PC) – appointed
by UNDP - would be established in government and would contract the four CBOs directly.
DNPM would provide an office and office support facilities for the Project Coordination Unit
in its POM office as it has an overall policy and monitoring role in relation to accelerating
progress towards achievement of the localised MDGs.
The main duties of the PC would be:
 Liaise and verify CBO participation in the Project

 Liaise with Provincial/District authorities in which selected villages located
 Establish grant procedure for the CBOs (application and award)
 Sign the grant contracts with the selected CBOs
 Allocate funds according to instalments agreed in the grant contract
 Monitor project progress through regular CBO reports to the PC
 Make regular monitoring visits to each CBO/village to check on progress
 Make periodic acquittals/clearance before disbursement of the next allocation
 In conjunction with the Steering Committee, set up a system of impact monitoring
of key MDG Indicators and farm incomes at village level
 Prepare quarterly Project Progress Reports for UNDP
xiv
Final Draft
The main qualifications and experience required/preferred of the PC would be:
 PNG national, graduate

 CBO/NGO experience
 Community Development experience
 Donor funding administration experience, e.g. RWSSP
 UN administration experience
Villages and CBOs
The four selected villages and their respective CBOs are (refer Map in Appendix 7 for their
location):
 Trolga in West Highlands Province, the Baptist Union

 Domil in Jiwaka Province, Integral Community and Health Development (ICHD)
 Musendai in East Sepik Province, South Sea Evangelical Church, SSEC
 Sibilai in Milne Bay Province, the MBCDFA Milne Bay Church Development Fund
Association
The selection criteria for village selection are presented in Appendix 3. The main criteria
are that they have a well organised community organisation, have already demonstrated
community development through a single sector entry point (e.g. the RWSSP or Health
programmes), have long standing effective CBO support and represent a range of
environments, including remoteness. Details of the four villages are given in Appendix 4.
The selected CBOs have previous experience of community development in their
respective villages and in implementing EU grant funded projects under the RWSSP, in
which the procedures are similar to those proposed for implementation of this Project. An
analysis of each CBO is attached in Appendix 5.
Project Name
As the “millennium” is not a concept that is well understood by some villagers and others, it
may be preferable to refer to the project at community level as a “pilot community
development project”. However as MVD is the title in EU documents and relates to the
objectives of MDG achievements, it was accepted that the MVD name would be retained
for donor purposes, but that at community level the name Pilot Community Development
Project may be used.
Time and Implementation Schedule
The Project would be implemented over a 3 year period with funding from early 2012
to 2015 to coincide with the deadline for MDGs in 2015, leaving some flexibility for a
possible no-cost extension in a fourth year. Indicative timing of the main phases
and activities drawn from the log-frame are shown in the implementation chart
below.
Phase/Activity Year 1 Year 2 Year 3
Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4
RESULT 1 Effective Management of Pilot Project
ProjectStart Up
Recruit/Appt PC
Establish PCU
Establish PSC,
hold meetings
Estab grant proc.
xv
Final Draft
Estab financ man

Preparatory
Initial CBO
Discussion
Confirm village
participation
PC to alert prov/
district authorities
Planning with
community/LLG
Grant application
Contract approval
and signed
MOU signed
Implementation
CBO requests for
fund instalments
PC financial man.
CBO procuremt
Village 1 investmt
Village 2 investmt
Village 3 investmt
Village 4 investmt
Progress Monitor
and PC visits.
CBO verify plans
completed
CBO acquits
each instalment
RESULT 2 Impact Monitoring
Estab MonitTeam
Collect baseline
monitoring data
Collect end of
project monit data
Prep. Mon Report
RESULT 3 Follow-up Reports
Identify Lessons
Learnt Guidelines
Prepare a “Good
Practice” Manual
External Evaln
Project Steering Committee
A Project Steering Committee (PSC) to oversee progress, monitor and advice on policy
would be set up, made up as follows:
- representative of EU
- representative of UNDP
- representative of NAO/SU
- representative of CBOs
xvi
Final Draft
- representative of DNPM
--representative of Department of Implementation & Rural Development
- representative of Department of Community Development
- representative of the Department of Provincial & Local Government Affairs
- representatives of Departments. of Health, Education and Agriculture
Meetings would be held quarterly for the first six months and six monthly thereafter, but
flexible according to needs. The PSC would have specific responsibility for advising and
participating in impact monitoring activities with a team comprising staff from DNPM and
UNDP, and possibly some PhD University students, making periodic visits to the villages.
2.6 Project Budget and Funding Contributions

An overall project budget structure assuming a minimum budget of € 150,000 to each
village in a balanced allocation, plus a flexible pool of € 200,000 to allow for variations
between villages actual requirements is proposed below. The allocation of the flexible pool
of funds would need to be handled carefully. Some form of incentive system should be
devised by the PCU based on a communities’ cost-saving approach rather than just on
additional funding required. The mid-term review would also provide early guidance on
possible redirection of funds that may be necessary in the second half of the project
period. In addition, Government may wish to add complementary funding at this stage that
might facilitate the transition to a possible larger scaled-up phase.
Table 1 Summary Estimated Pilot Project Budget
Item € million %
Village No 1 (investment + CBO) 0.15
Pool to cover actual village investments 0.20
Sub Total Community investment 0.8 81
UNDP Direct Costs 0.125
UNDP 7% fee of €0.96 million 0.068
Sub-Total UNDP 0.19 19
Total Base Costs 0.99 100
Contingency 5% 0.049
Total Project Costs 1.04
Table 2 Summary Funding Contributions to Pilot Project
Contribution € million %
EU for community and UNDP management. 1.0 95
Community cash contribution 0.04 5
Total 1.04 100
A minimum of 10% of the cost of materials, equipment and services as a cash contribution
from participating communities is assumed, but this could be larger where individual
communities chose to increase their contribution to enlarge the total available funds at
village level and therefore this contribution is seen as flexible above a minimum of 10%.
The share of management costs to UNDP amounts to € 199,000 or 19% of base costs.
xvii
Final Draft
With a target population of approximately 5,000 and a total project cost of € 1.04 million,
this represents an investment of € 208 per capita, a level that is likely to be below the real
investment requirements for village long term development plans.
2.7 Flow of Funds
EU Funds
Other Funds
UNDP avail at LLG
Coordination via JDBPPC
Grants to Grant to Grant to Grant to

CBO CBO CBO CBO
Implementation Implementation Implementation Implementation
Village No.1 Village No.2 Village No.3 Village No.4
2.8 Assumptions and Risks

Lack of Cohesion
Negative consequences of both inter-clan rivalry or inter village jealousy can pose real
threats in PNG. Supporting an individual village at random with funds putting it in a
privileged position can lead to neighbouring villages retaliating against the selected
village’s efforts. This is especially relevant in the Highlands and parts of East Sepik.
Similarly, communities are often composed of several clans or extended families living in
hamlets rather than in a cohesive village. Lack of cooperation or traditional rivalries
between different clans, exaggerated in areas with high temperaments, as in the
Highlands, can be a problem for community development.
Overcoming these problems can take considerable time and effort on the part of CBOs.
The Healthy Island Concept seen by the Consultant on his field visits to East Sepik and the
Highlands has proved a successful means to achieve cohesion. Hence the criteria for
selection of villages that have received CBO support for some time. In addition, integrating
the selected village into the LLG system can remove inter-village rivalry. One suggestion
was to only select villages on an island, such as one in Milne Bay Province where
cohesion and cooperation is stronger. However, it is not wished to focus entirely on an
island approach in the Pilot Project. The selected four villages would compare an isolated
or island community in Milne Bay Province with other villages selected in the Highlands
and East Sepik.
In the case of East Sepik, the small number of villages in the Pilot Project only allows one
of the three communities visited on the field trip to be included. The other two would form
part of an expanded second phase. SSEC will have a delicate task in explaining this to the
two villages excluded from the Pilot Phase, but it is confident this can be done without
repercussions.
xviii
Final Draft
Government Support
Whilst the MVD approach is regarded as a trial pilot project, government does support it as
the pilot villages would be integrated into the district level planning process through the
LLG/JDBPPC and it may lay the foundations for a larger Government funded MVD
approach. In addition, selection of villages in WHP and Milne Bay Province fits in with the
new Health authority approach being piloted in these two provinces for subsequent
replication in other provinces.
Sustainability
The risk of non-sustainability, namely communities not being able to maintain or afford to
maintain the investments, may occur if the investment is too high/too rapid for a community
to absorb, as well incurring a risk of non-ownership and aid-dependence; The pilot project
would aim to demonstrate the communities’ capacity to absorb the proposed capital
investments and maintain them on a sustainable basis using appropriate self-build
structures that engender community ownership. Experience indicates that church based
CBO support is more able to raise community funds for on-going maintenance costs than
government support.
Increased income generation through improved or increased agricultural production or new

diversified enterprises or improved marketing is also seen as the key factor in ensuring
sustainability of social-infrastructure investments. It was ably demonstrated in the Domil
Community in the Highlands, but less so in the communities visited in East Sepik where
the emphasis to-date has been on social infrastructure rather than income generation.
Community Contribution
The RWSS scheme experience is that raising a 10% cash contribution (of the coast of
materials/equipment/services, i.e. not including CBO costs and UNDP management) from
villages is rarely a problem and reflects the interest that communities have in their own
development and that they are prepared to take on ownership of new investments. The
latter is also considered an important part of the MVD approach. Experience indicates that
church based CBOs are more able to secure cash contributions; whilst government
requests are not so successful. In addition, in some areas of the Highlands, communities
are willing to provide higher cash contributions and hence the contribution should be
regarded as flexible above a minimum of 10%.
Government Services
There is a risk that not all the required government services required by a particular
community development plan may be made available during the project implementation
period, leaving incomplete multi-sector development at the end of the project. This is one
of the main factors under test in the Pilot Project.
Community Capacity
There is a risk that a community lacks capacity or labour to complete multi-sector

development within the project period. The major factor determining community capacity
will be management for which community leadership and support by the CBO will be key.
Selection of a village with strong leadership and an effective CBO would therefore be
essential for success of the MVD approach in a relatively short pilot project period,
although leadership is highly personal and can change abruptly. Again it is a factor that is
under test in the Pilot Project.
xix
Final Draft
The latter two risks do not necessarily represent a possible failure of the project rather a
realisation that the process can take longer than allowed under the donor conditioned
project period. Project monitoring would seek to monitor progress and identify potential
limitations and constraints.
CBO Capacity
An assumption is that the selected CBOs would have sufficient capacity, both in terms of
providing community development support and management of donor grant funds. The
church based CBOs selected for this Project all have a good track record with a number of
RWSSP projects and have a long relationship with the selected villages. An analysis of the
selected CBOs is presented in Appendix 5. However, as with leadership, performance of
CBOs is highly dependent on personalities involved and can change.
Cost Inflation and Exchange Rate Risks
Continued high inflation in costs of materials, transport and hotels, especially to remote
areas and islands, but also nationwide due to the impact of many gas/oil/mining staff that
tend to exceed the current infrastructure facilities available (hotels, cars for hire, air flights),
plus continued strengthening of the Kina against the Euro, which could reduce the value of
the investment funds provided even further.
Project Expectations
There is a risk of insufficient funds being available if the EU funds (€ 200,000 per village),
plus if there were no supplementary funding available through the LLGs, which would
reduce project expectations, as funding may fall well short of communities’ investment
requirements. The importance of creating a self-build low cost approach to utilise what
funds are available is crucial to ensure that progress is made and sustained, as well as
preventing any donor dependence on funding. Under an expanded phase, total funding
available per village is likely to be similarly constrained, such that villagers will always need
to adapt and prioritise according to funds available.
Environment
Over exploitation of local forest resources as a source of timber for self-build housing
schemes may occur in certain locations. Some communities may be able to replant teak
forests through new seedlings as a long term environmental conservation measure.
Political Influence
There is a risk of complementary funds being subject to excessive political influence, e.g.
in the allocation of DSIP funds, especially in an election year in 2012.
Insecurity
There is a risk of renewed insecurity in the Highlands region that could disrupt
development activities or restrict access by project management monitoring staff. UNDP at
present require their staff to have a security escort on field visits in the Highlands (for
which an allowance has been included in the project budget).
2.9 Impact and Sustainability
xx
Final Draft
The impact of the project on the individual selected village beneficiaries, with a population
of approx. 5,000, should be in terms of empowering communities to develop and take
ownership of their development, plus health, education, income generation 11, women
empowerment and overall livelihood improvement, and may also reduce the drift to urban
areas. As the precise plans and investments are not known at this stage, it is not possible
to define precise target indicators at this stage. However, once individual community
implementation plans have been drawn up, indicator targets can be defined for the end of
the project period (recognising that some developments can take a longer period). The
performance targets would be mainly village level MDG indicators, other health and
disease incidences and income assessments, as well as the extent of village
empowerment, which would be assessed as part of the Project’s monitoring arrangements.
The project is not expected to develop all villagers’ needs, due to financial limitations and
especially as it only covers a three year period. It would identify investment gaps through
identifying total long term investment levels required.
In terms of promoting a scaled up next phase and therefore on accelerating progress

towards the national localised MDG targets, the impact of the pilot project could be very
significant.
Sustainability of the concept of funding the MVD approach on a scaled up phase will
require close linkage with the decentralised local district level governance through the LLG
and the JDP&BPC. The provincial authorities and district level structures for the four
selected communities will need to be made aware of this project and the importance in
terms of future policies. This is a key factor to ensuring government’s involvement in the
project and therefore sustainability of the approach in any scaled up phase.
The implementation arrangements/funding modality however are not considered

sustainable in the long term – they are a once off measure for the pilot project only. A
scaled up approach would need to be handled via a funding modality through
government’s decentralised institutions for which capacity building inputs would be
required as part of a scaled-up phase.
Other issues on community level sustainability are discussed under assumptions and risks
above.
2.10 Monitoring and Evaluation

As a Pilot Project, considerable interest would be given to monitoring of project
achievements and impact. A monitoring team would be formed at project commencement
comprising the PC and staff from DNPM and UNDP and possibly some university post
graduate students to undertake monitoring in conjunction with the CBOs and participatory
community monitoring. DNPM has regional offices (Provincial Liaison and Monitoring
Division (PLMD) undertaking monitoring activities of the MTDP in various sector
programmes, as well as having an overview of all monitoring efforts and may allocate staff
to contribute towards project impact monitoring. A monitoring system would be set up by
the designated monitoring team with clear lines of reporting.
The main focus would be on measurable MDG Indicators: health (MDGs 4, 5 & 6),
education (MDG 2), income generation (MDG 1) water supply (MDG 7) and women
11
Benefits to a water supply scheme, if part of a community development plans, may be increased income
generated through the time liberated from the daily chore of fetching water. RWSSP experience indicates that
a new water supply scheme often saves 3 – 5 hours per day for the women who use this time saved to devote
to their gardens and marketing their produce, and that incomes have shown remarkable increases from e.g. K
100 per week to K 500 per week.
xxi
Final Draft
empowerment (MDG 3) according to specific community plans. In some cases, certain

sectors may have already been developed e.g. water supply and sanitation may have
already been completed before the project started, whilst others may gain the benefits
from this investment under the project.
Data would be collected from health/education facilities, e.g. number of cases of

preventable diseases and attendance at the Health Centre or aid post, trends in numbers
of pupils attending primary school from the headmaster, time saved by a water supply
scheme) and an assessment of indicative farm budgets reflecting the agricultural income
situation before and after the project to measure income generated by the project.
It is recognised that this would not properly represent the impact of the project alone as
other external factors can also affect these indicators, for example, the free primary school
policy to be introduced in 2012 should increase primary school attendance figures in all
villages, and widespread adoption of certain agricultural practices would also apply to
many villages. Before and after would therefore measure the overall “global” progress
towards the MDGs rather than specific achievements of the Project, A “with and without”
project assessment is the way to overcome this problem, but it would be difficult to gain
“other non-project” village cooperation in the PNG context, and as each village is so
different from the next in terms of what funds and developments have been undertaken to
date due to the ad-hoc nature of funding at present. However, if the proposed PhD
University students do participate in monitoring, they could monitor another similar village
(if one exists) without the project to get the “with and without” project data.
The above would be in addition to regular project progress monitoring by the CBO of
development activities by the community in relation to plan as a continuing process.
An independent mid-term and final evaluation would also be undertaken for which funds
are not required in the budget, as they are already included in the FA for the RED Phase
1.The mid-term evaluation would identify any changes in direction or budget allocations
that may be recommended to ensure successful implementation of the Pilot Project. In
addition, the DNPM would review overall progress and the possibility of providing
complementary funding at this stage, in preparation for a possible scaled-up second phase
2.11 Cross Cutting Sectors

Gender
PNG is a predominantly male dominated society and although women are major
stakeholders at community level and as beneficiaries in many of the sectors developed,
they are usually left out of the decision making processes. Whilst men dominate the
membership of development committees, women would increase their level of participation
in the community development process as a result of the Project and CBO efforts to focus
on gender. The proposed project would therefore have a significant impact on gender
equality and empowerment and would be monitored as MDG 3. Women would benefit from
improved maternal health, reduced infant/child mortality and children’s diseases (MDGs 4,
5 and 6), as well as from time saved through water supply schemes, which allows them
more time to devote to income earning activities. Women would therefore also assume
greater economic responsibility as many income generation activities would involve
women in terms of agricultural production and marketing, especially garden vegetables, to
supplement household incomes.
Youth
xxii
Final Draft
Village youth may also benefit through a communities’ effort to focus on youth by including
employment opportunities and sports activities in its development plans (as indicated from
the field visits).
HIV/AIDS
This remains a problem in PNG and is an important MDG (MDG 6 to combat, halt and
reverse the spread of HIV/AIDS), the prevention of which certain communities may wish to
include in their multi-sector development priorities (as indicated from the field visits).
Governance
The project would also have a significant impact on governance through the community
development approach, and democratic processes involved in forming community
development committees, the engendering of ownership responsibility, the integration of
planning with the District LLG system and fostering transparent and accountable
management of financial resources for sustainable development purposes.
Environment
Many villages are either located close to forests or located within forest areas, and in the
Highlands population density is high, whilst in some areas water catchments need
protection for water supply schemes. Protecting the environment to support development
efforts and long term economic sustainability is therefore central to community
development. The risk of teak forest depletion for building materials in certain areas
indicated above is an example of this.
xxiii
APPENDIX 1 LOG FRAME
Intervention Objectively verifiable Sources and means of Assumptions/Risks
Logic indicators of achievement Verification
Overall Demonstration of MVD approach in four No measurable impact on MDGs at
Objectives Pilot communities, which, if successful, national level from pilot project but
would pave the way to replication on a may pave the way to impacting on
larger scale, as a contribution to localised MDG targets for PNG if
accelerated progress towards localised approach is scale-up in larger second
MDGs in PNG phase
Specific Sustainable multi-sector development Four selected community multi-sector Project Progress Reports, Government supports multi-sector
Objectives implemented in four selected pilot MVD development plans implemented. Monitoring reports based development in DNPM and through
communities in an integrated Community Measurable MDG Indicators at on monitoring data LLG/District structures
Development approach in health, community level in health (MDGs 4, 5 collected by monitoring
education, essential infrastructure and & 6), education (MDG 2), income team with community Government services required by a
income generation sectors, with women generation (MDG 1) water supply participation and data community plan are available’
empowerment a cross cutting sector, (MDG 7) and women empowerment collected from health and CBOs willing to implement project
according to the specific development (MDG 3) according to specific education facilities
plans for each village. community sector development plans Communities interested and have
100% of population of 5,000 in the capacity to undertake implementation
four selected villages benefit
Expected 1. Effective management of Pilot Project € 0.8 million grant funds + 5% Project Progress Reports Risk of communities not being able to
Results via grants through selected CBOs contingency committed by 2015. maintain the investments,
PCU in place and operating, UNDP Grant application and DNPM has office support facilities
management costs € 0.19 million + award documents Risk of high cost inflation of materials
5% contingency. Procedures for Monitoring Reports Risk of exploitation of local forests
grant funding mechanisms in place Lack of community cohesiveness
Grant funding process efficiently Project verification Risk: funds being politically influenced
administered and acquitted reports Women allowed to actively participate
PC supports implementation through In Committee decision making
periodic visits to CBOs
2. Impact monitoring team and Monitoring team and monitor system Monitoring data collected DPNM and UNDP staff made
monitoring system established and established by PC/UNDP/DNPM and Impact Monitoring Report available, and possibly students.
operational possibly University students, village External Evaluation. Communities participate in monitoring
level indicators collected and Impact Reports
Report produced
3. Good Practice Manual produced and Manual produced and Lessons Good Practice Manual
Lessons Learnt/Guidelines identified for Leant/Guidelines for consideration of Guidelines/Strategy
use in planning a scaled up phase future strategy for MVD approach document in DNPM
Activities Inputs Risks/Assumptions
Under Result 1 Effective Management of Pilot Project
 Recruit/Appoint Project Coordinator UNDP
 PCU established in DNPM with a national PNG Project Coordinator Project Coordination Unit DNPM provide office
 Financial management and monitoring of funds as per UNDP procedures PSC members PSC members fully participate
 Establish grant application and award procedures according to UNDP procedures UNDP financial management PCU has capacity to coordinate
 Establish Project Steering Committee procedures project
Preparatory activities:
 PCU discusses project implementation with selected CBOs CBO and Community Communities agree to make 10% of
Development Committees material and equipment costs as a
 CBOs to discuss and confirm communities’ participation in the pilot project
(CDCs) cash contribution
 PC to alert provincial and district authorities of MVD pilot project in their area
 CBO assists communities to draw up village development plan and budget for project MOU accepted by both parties
funds with Community Development Committee (CDC) and District LLG/JDBPPC,
 CBO supported Community proposal for a grant submitted to PCU for approval, Insecurity does not prevent access to
 Contract drawn up by PCU with the Proposal as an Annex along with a Budget projects especially in Highlands
 Contract signed by CBO and PCU Region
 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for community commitment signed if required
 CBO requests for funding in instalments as laid out in contract
 CBO undertakes procurement and expenditure as planned Materials, equipment and CBO has capacity for procurement
 Community undertakes implementation (clearance, construction work etc) services procured for sector and administrating funds
 CBO prepare regular project progress reports investments
 PC makes periodic follow up visits to review progress CBO verifies plans properly
undertaken and completed
 CBO acquits/clears each instalment fund before final payment.
Under Result 2 Impact Monitoring Team and System Established and Operational Costs €
 Establish an impact monitoring team and monitoring system PC/UNDP/DNPM/CBO in UNDP Management 0.19 million
 Conduct monitoring of MDIs and incomes at village level before and after project PSC plus University students Village No.1 0.15 million
 Liaise with Project Steering Committee, in a joint monitoring system Village No.2 0.15 million
 Prepare Impact Monitoring Report Village No.3 0.15 million
 Conduct audit - CBOs would be responsible for audit as per UNDP requirements CBO audits Village No. 4 0.15 million
Under Result 3 Good Practice Manual & Lessons Learnt Identified Pool village fund 0.2 million
 Identify lessons learnt and draw up guidelines for a second phase, CBO, PC and PSC Base Project Cost 0.99 million
 Prepare a “Best Practice” Manual for village multi-sector development. PC, CBOs and Communities Contingency 5% 0.049 million
Total Project Costs 1.04 million
APPENDIX 2: Monitoring and Evaluation Framework
Process Planned Targets/Indicators Potential Impact
Overall Objectives: Demonstration of MVD approach in four Successful demonstration of MVD approach by If pilot project is seen as successful, a
Pilot communities, which, if successful, would pave the way to communities second expanded phase may be
replication on a larger scale, as a contribution to accelerated implemented that could impact on
progress towards localised MDGs in PNG national localised MDG targets
Specific Objectives: Sustainable multi-sector development Four selected community level multi-sector Significantly improved maternal health,
implemented in four selected pilot MVD communities in an development plans implemented. Cannot be reduced child mortality and reduced
integrated Community Development approach in health, precisely identified at this stage as will depend on diseases incidence, increased primary
education, essential infrastructure and income generation specific communities’ plans and base line school enrolment and retention, greater
sectors, with women empowerment a cross cutting sector, situation. Main indicators likely to be: health women empowerment, improved water
according to the specific development plans for each village. (MDGs 4, 5 & 6), education (MDG 2), income supplies & sanitation benefits and
generation (MDG 1) water supply (MDG 7), increase income. 100% of population of
women empowerment (MDG 3), and disease 5,000 in 4 villages benefit
incidence, reduced health centre attendance,
Project Results
1. Effective management of Pilot Project via grants through Project Coordination Unit established with PC and Important for communities to receive
selected CBOs1. operating, Procedures for transparent operation of donor funds as planned
grant funding mechanism in place and grant Important to integrate with Government
funding efficiently administered and acquitted planning/funding system
2. Impact monitoring team and monitoring system established Team established, M & E strategy in place and Monitoring has an important role in a pilot
and operational monitoring inputs carried out, Monitor Report prod project to assess achievements
3. Good Practice Manual produced and Lessons Learnt and Manual produced and guidelines for possible scale-up Important for future application of MVD
Guidelines identified for a possible scaled-up second phase produced approach in a possible expansion
Activities
Result 1 Effective Management of Pilot Project
 Recruit/Appoint PC PC appointed CBOs fully committed to MVD project
 Project Coordination Unit established in DNPM PCU and PC established/operational in DNPM Communities accept ownership of plans
 Financial management & monitoring as per UNDP rules Effective and efficient financial management as Plans Integrated with district level
 Establish grant application and award procedures per UNDP procedures in place planning and compliments other
according to UNDP procedures Grant procedures as per UNDP requirements investment funds available
 Establish Project Steering Committee
Preparatory activities: PSC set up and meet regularly as planned and Contract is basis for implementation
 PCU discusses project implementation with selected advises on project implementation
CBOs
CBOs fully briefed and their tasks clear
 CBOs to discuss and confirm communities’ participation
in the pilot project Communities confirm their willingness to Clarifies roles and responsibilities
 PC to alert provincial and district authorities of MVD pilot participate
project in their area Individual community plans prepared in relation to Clarifies roles and responsibilities
 CBO to assist communities to draw up village their priorities, EU funds and other funds available
development plan and budget for project funds in Proposal applications received for all pilot villages Materials, equipment and services are
consultation with Community Development Committee Contracts between CBO and PCU signed. available
(CDC) and District LLG/JDBPPC, Liaison with LLGs/Prov government authorities Community labour available (not diverted
 CBO supported Community proposal for a grant MOU drawn up and signed elsewhere)
submitted to PCU for approval, CDC TOR drawn up if required No delays due to funding procedures
 Contract drawn up by PCU with the Proposal as an Grant funds channelled to CBOs at community
Annex along with a Budget and Conditions level Progress monitoring identifies any issues
 Contract signed by CBO and PCU CBO undertakes procurement of material, or problems arising
 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for community equipment, services
commitment signed by CBO and community leaders Communities active in construction and other
work required
Financial management of funds ensures no
funding delays
 CBO requests for funding instalments as in contract
CBO regular progress reports
 CBO undertakes procurement & expenditure as planned PC makes regular follow up visits
 Community undertakes implementation (clearance,
construction work etc)
 CBO prepare regular project progress reports,
 PC makes periodic follow up visits to review progress
 CBO verifies plans properly undertaken and completed
 CBO acquits/clears each instalment fund
Result 2 Impact Monitoring Team and System Established and Operational
 Establish an impact monitoring team and system Monitoring team identified and produce strategy
 Conduct monitoring of MDIs and farm incomes at village for M & E activities Essential factors for monitoring activities
level on a before and after project basis, Base line monitoring data collected
 Liaise with Project Steering Committee, End of project monitoring data collected
 Prepare Impact Monitoring Report Impact monitoring report produced
 Conduct audit - CBO would be responsible for audit as
per UNDP procedures Audit carried out as required by UNDP
Result 3 Good Practice Manual & Lessons Learnt Identified
 Identify lessons learnt and draw up guidelines for expansion, Guidelines documented Important for planning possible expansion
 Prepare a “Good Practice” Manual for village development. Good Practice Manual produced and manual facilitates community actions
APPENDIX 3. MVD PILOT PROJECT DESIGN
In designing the MVD Pilot Project, the following main inter-related factors were discussed:
(i) size of project in relation to funding contributions available; (ii) the cost of project
management, especially for a small pilot project, (iii) investment costs per community of a
multi-sector approach, (iv) funding modalities, (v) project period (vi) village selection; (vii)
replicability and (viii) location of project coordination unit. However, the over-riding criterion
is the framework set out in the Financing Agreement under RED 1, especially the size of
budget (€ 1.0 million) and management through UNDP. Any changes would result in
significant delays due to the process of submitting Riders for approval by Government and
the EU.
3.1 Original/Initial Funding Concept

The original MVD pilot concept envisaged by the Earth Institute Team in 2009 was an EU
contribution of approx K.13.2 million, which at to-days exchange rate is equivalent to € 4.1
million, in a partnership with funding contributions from the Government and AusAID12.
This was a 20% Government, 20% EU and 60% AusAID, for a total core funding of K 66.3
million or € 21 million plus a cost for on-site level management and technical support of K
13.3 million or € 4.2 million to raise total costs to approx. € 25 million. This initial concept,
however, was a proposition for which there were no firm agreements. Contributions today
are discussed below. The concept also envisaged private sector partnership in funding.
3.1.1 Government Funding Contribution

No Government funding contribution as a partner was forthcoming during the Feasibility
Study as Government feels that the EU funded would be sufficient as a pilot project to test
out the viability and sustainability of the approach. If the trial were successful, it is likely
that government, as well as other donors, may contribute larger amounts of funds for a
scaled up second phase. In discussing a strategy for this study in the light of these
developments with DNPM on October 11th, the advantages of the EU’s firm commitment
(subject to this feasibility study’s findings and recommendations) and possible rapid start
by UNDP in early 2012 was recognised. Any change to the project outline given in the EU
Financing Agreement could cause a significant delay to the start up date.
It was agreed that going ahead with a small EU funded pilot project would represent a
positive step and starting point for the MVD process to which further funding contributions
may arise in future. The scope of the project under study is therefore limited to a narrow
focus on a number of selected villages that would demonstrate the capacity for community
and government services to implement multi-sector development. This is rather than a
wider focus encompassing capacity building of the government system to facilitate the
greater investments that would be required in any scaled-up phase.
However, at the District level, government funding could well play a significant role in
community led multi-sector development. The EU funds would be integrated into the
district level planning mechanism to complement other Government development
expenditure or donor funds available at District level. The DSIP 13 represents a relatively
large discretionary fund at this stage of K 10 million per MP per district – equivalent to €
3.1 million per district. However, the selected pilot MVD village’s ability to source funds
12
MVD PNG Concept Presentation to DNPM, May 2009, Earth Institute, USA
13
The District Services Improvement Programme (DSIP) is a multi-sector fund, but it tends to focus on larger
infrastructure projects rather than individual communities, although this does occur.
from either or both these sources, and the government’s ability to deliver them, is the main
aspect being tested by the proposed MVD Pilot Project.
3.1.2 UNDP Funding Contribution

Government and the EU had indicated that UNDP might make a contribution to the pilot
project However, the Consultant found that there had not been any preliminary dialogue
with UNDP, which might have cleared up a basic misunderstanding, namely, that UNDP
thought the Pilot Project was a € 1.0 million per year project, not a € 1.0 million project in
total. UNDP confirmed that it would not be a funding partner in any multi-donor funding to
the proposed Pilot Project. However, UNDP would play a fundamental role in management
and coordination and monitoring of the project on behalf of the EU.
3.1.3 Private Sector Funding Contribution

In PNG there are two large mining/oil companies which have considerable funds to
allocate to community development in compensation for the land they have lost to these
enterprises. These are the liquefied natural gas (LNG) project by Exxon-Mobil in Gulf and
Southern Highland Provinces, and the large OK Tedi Gold Mine in West Sepik and
Western Provinces that places its development funds in Sustainable Development
Programme Ltd. It is understood they have difficulty in disbursing these funds properly as
communities adopt a “shopping list” approach. Other possible private sector investors
could be larger plantations in West New Britain or the Highlands who wish their worker’s
welfare and village’s social infrastructure to be improved. The MVD Project could provide
an opportunity to disburse these funds according to community real needs, capacities and
plans. It is understood that Government is in discussion with one of these enterprises as a
possible contributor to a larger second phase, assuming the pilot project is successful.
3.2 Management Costs

Management costs are a major factor in the design of the pilot project, as with only a small
EU budget of € 1.0 million, plus a € 0.05 million community contribution available, it is
necessary to keep project management costs down to prevent them absorbing too high a
proportion of the funds available. Two main management options were reviewed:
Option A: Option A. A conventional centrally managed project by UNDP with a PMU

established in Port Moresby (POM) with an office comprising a minimum staff - mainly an
international Project Manager (PM) (preferred) recruited by UNDP, plus utilising the
services of the UNDP Field Services Unit to organise, procure and administrate the funds,
plus travel (air flights, vehicle hire, accommodation and per diem) for a nationwide project.
Table 3.1 Indicative Management Costs for Conventional PMU
Item €
UNDP Manage fee 7% of total project € 1.0 mill 70,000
Direct Costs:
Project Manager International €6,000/m x 36 month 216,000
Air Travel to selected villages flights €300 x 18/yr x 3 16,000
Vehicle Hire inc driver €300/day x 50 days x 3 45,000
Accom/per diem 150 days x € 300/day 32,000
Security in Highlands 10,000
Monitoring travel costs 20,000
Total Management Costs over 3 years € 409,000
The budget clearly indicates that this approach would be inappropriate for such a small
project as 40% of base funds would be devoted to management costs. On this basis,
UNDP concluded the project to be a non-viable and that the project size should be
increased through increased EU funding. A minimum size in which UNDP management
costs would be in line with total costs would be at least € 2 million or preferably about € 4
million, the size originally presented in the Sachs Concept paper. The Consultant concurs
with this view of project size and viability, but sought an alternative lower cost
management solution to resolve this problem as in Option B below. The possible
alternative of concentrating the pilot villages in one area, e.g. the Highlands and setting up
a PCU in that area to reduce travel costs from a POM office was discussed, but discounted
as it would not allow a range of environments to be tested under the Pilot Project.
Option B: A system based on management by CBOs at village level (as with the RWSSP)
through grants to the CBOs, with the UNDP facilitating and coordinating the grants to the
CBOs; (similar to the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) in which UNDP contracts to a
number of NGOs). UNDP noted that there were serious problems with the original GEF
grants leading them to be cancelled, but has subsequently resolved the problems through
tightening up the contracts and controls. It would only need a PNG National as a Project
Coordinator and the PCU could be established in the DNPM who would absorb the office
costs (rental and office utilities). This is similar to the RWSSP structure and approach.
Table 3.2 Indicative Management Costs for UNDP Implementation through CBOs
Item €
UNDP Manage fee 7% of total direct eligible costs inc 68,000
contingency of €0.97 million
Direct Costs:
Project Coordinator (PNG national) €1861*/m x 36 67,000
Air Travel to selected villages flights €300 x 16/yr x 3 14,000
Vehicle Hire €300/day x 16 days x 3 14,000
Accom/per diem 26 days x €200 x 3 16,000
Security for PC in Highlands 6,000
Monitoring travel costs 8,000
Sub-total Direct costs 125,000
Total Base Management Costs 192,000
Contingency reserve 5% of direct eligible costs 6,000
(excluding management fee)
Total UNDP Management Costs over 3 years € 199,000
Note:* Including pension and health charges incurred in UNDP personnel contract; office rental and
operating costs covered by DNPM.
The cost of evaluation missions are not included above as they would be covered by funds
allocated in the Financing Agreement for RED Phase 1 to provide mid and end of term
evaluation missions for the whole programme, including the MVD Pilot Project.
The total of nearly € 200,000 represents approx. 20% of the total base costs. It is still
relatively high, but this is almost inevitable in PNG with its high travel and transport costs
due to remoteness of rural communities. It is considered a fair level for a pilot project of
this size and would enable a total of four selected villages to be funded.
3.3 Community Level Investment Costs

Investment costs per community are relatively high in PNG as it is a multi-sector approach
and the cost of transport and materials are very high for the many remote villages often
accessible only through difficult terrain on poor roads or by long boat trips. As a result, total
cost per village is generally higher than that found in the African pilot projects. The
Consultant collected some data on the total investment costs required in a number of
different village situations. This indicated a wide range from K 0.75 million to K 1.5 million
(an average of say K 1.0 million or € 312,000 per community, or, for an average population
of 1,000, an average of € 312/capita or € 300,000 per community. This represents a
sizeable investment that is beyond the funding capacity of this Pilot Project
In addition, the period of implementation constrains the investment level that can be
absorbed as multi-sector development programmes are likely to take longer than the
relatively short period conditioned by donor project cycle constraints. The MVD funds
therefore are seen as contributing towards a longer term and greater investment
development plan. The MVD Pilot Project would therefore provide funds that complement
other funds available. Actual investment plans would also vary according to specific
community population, situation and location, previous sector and complementary
investments available from the DSIP or other donor sources.
At this stage, it was felt that a balanced allocation to the selected villages, namely an
average budget of € 200,000 or K 620,000 to each village against which communities and
their CBO support would need to adjust their priorities, cost assumptions and timing (e.g.
in terms of low cost self build housing, and income generation opportunities for community
self generated funds). A more flexible option for disbursement between the different
villages would be to set a minimum investment level per village of € 150,000 with the
remaining €50,000 allocated to a combined pool of € 200,000 to cover the variations in the
actual village budgets.
The issue arising is community capacity to absorb such an investment in a relatively short
period and sustainability of the investments. Sustainability, namely whether the MVD
villages would be able to support the investments made and continue their progress
without a loss of momentum after the pilot project funding stops, is an issue and one which
the Pilot Project would address. Based on discussions held by the Consultant with NGOs
and projects concerned with community development, as well as with observations on the
field visits, it is felt that there would be a risk of non-ownership, aid-dependence and non-
sustainability if too rapid and too large an investment was attempted due to capacity
constraints at community level. This could be minimised by building on experience and
confidence gained in a single sector development with long standing CBO support and
adopting a low cost, appropriate technology, approach using self-help, self-build structures
based on local materials (locally sawn timber) as far as possible. Whichever funding level,
the Pilot Project would aim to demonstrate the communities’ capacity to plan and
implement the investment on a sustainable basis.
The proposed project management model however is neither replicable nor sustainable for
a large scaled-up phase. It is justified for the pilot phase only, in relation to the prevailing
situation. This approach was also adopted in the African pilot projects.
3.4 Funding Modalities

The main issue is that funding of multi-sector development by government and donors’
cuts across the present mainly sector driven and funded development programmes by
respective in-line Departments. Currently there is no major source of multi-sector funds
available to communities, although grants provided by the DSIP and MPs are sometimes
allocated to individual communities.
.
The main funding modalities for a pilot project are:
 A separate donor funded and managed project with funds by-passing the
government direct to the community, managed by a CBO/NGO. EU funded
projects follow this modality and is preferred by communities;
 Set-up a MVD multi-sector development fund managed by Government at district
level. However, the project approach is the only aid delivery modality used by the
EU to channel funds in PNG so far.
 Place MVD funds in the respective sector line ministries to channel and
administrate the funds down to the community or a CBO at village level, according
to specific sector requirements. This represents the present modality for
government funding and some larger multi-donor funded programmes.
The MVD Pilot Project however would be integrated with the District level planning of
development expenditure and projects through close liaison with the JDBPPC to ensure
funding coordination. Thus, despite the separate funding administration conditioned by the
donor, the modality would represent a partnership between the village/CBO and donor and
Government and therefore in line with the current Government focus on empowering and
building capacities of CBOs, Wards, LLGS, and the rural population.
3.5 Project Implementation Period

Implementation period would be according to the schedule contained in the Financing
Agreement for RED Phase 1 signed in May 2011 for a 5 year period to May 2016, the time
for which began at the signature date. This would allow a 3 year period starting say April
2012 (according to time required to get the EU project document approved and to
formalise and agree the EU-UNDP Contribution Agreement) and finish in 2015, but leave
some flexibility for a possible no-cost extension in a fourth year. UNDP stressed the
importance to coincide project closure with the global MDG deadline of 2015 in order to
enable a comparison with what has been achieved by the Pilot Project.
3.6 Village Selection

Multi-sector development is currently being actively discussed and partially practiced by
many villages in PNG, some of which have a well organised and led development
committee. It was clear from the visits and discussions that there are many villages
throughout PNG that meet the selection criteria for the MVD pilot project. An entry point for
communities to take on multi-sector development is usually to build on one sector
development e.g. that provided by the RWSSP or improved Provincial Health Delivery
Services, or government programme with a strong Community Development (CD)
approach, with a catalyst provided by long term CBO support. An effective partnership
between the Provincial Government, CBO and individual Communities is an important
criterion as it would save time in terms of project implementation, but it avoids the issues
facing those villages having had no development support and which would represent part
of the target group of a scaled-up phase.
The main selection criteria, not in any order of priority are summarised as follows:
• CBO support over extended period, but avoid cases of over-dependence.

• A Community can already demonstrate ownership, organisation, leadership and a
self driven approach,
• Previous development through EU funded RWSSP or Province Health Programme
with strong CD approach, including Healthy Island Concept (HIC)
• Provincial government, especially in WHP and MBP pilot Health Authorities and
LLG support,
• Cohesive village/area
• Community lies within one of the Economic Corridors (focusing on poverty
alleviation) and/or Dept of Community Development target districts/CLDCs.
• Opportunities for income generation from agriculture development (considered one
of the priority developments by the Consultant).
In order to cover a range of factors to enable those that give good results to be identified,
the main criteria are considered to be the degree of remoteness, the degree of self driven
community development and/or the degree of long term CBO support that has been
received to-date, the opportunities for income generation in both subsistence areas and
market accessible areas, the degree of social cohesion (e.g. as generally found in Island
communities and sometimes lacking in Highland communities). whether a village lies in an
Economic Corridor and/or in a CLDC target district, and the degree of provincial
Government and LLG backing.
Sample villages were visited on field trips to East Sepik and the Highlands Region on the
basis of recommendations by RWSSP staff, who have an extensive knowledge of villages
undertaking community development throughout PNG, as well as by the Provincial Health
Authorities. A long list of 10 villages considered suitable as pilot villages is presented in
Table 3.3 on the basis of the above criteria and a scoring index developed by the
Consultant, details of which are presented in Table 3.4. Details of all the ten villages are
presented in the Feasibility Study Report. With the funding limitations only four can be
selected – the first four in the tables below.
Table 3.3 List of 10 Selected Villages
Village/Dist/Province Popln CBO Main Characteristics/Development

Trolga/Mul-Baiyer/ 2,000 Baptist Remote, self-driven community, poor,
WHP Union road & bridges improvement, primary
school infrastructure, livestock
development, health
Domil /Nodugl/Jikawa 1,500 ICHD Accessible, well organised/ led
Province community, main focus on income
generation through appropriate
technology for small farmers (cassava,
poultry and pig production), health
Musendai/Ambunti- 1,200 SSEC Fairly Remote, good CBO support,
Drekikir ESP community hall, primary school, health
centre, road improvement, electrification,
agric. income generation
Sibilai/Alotau/ MBP 400 MBCDFA Very remote, CBO support, island
situation, infrastructure (road)aid post,
income generation (poultry, pig cassava,
vegetables/fruit) resource centre,
tourism, LLG support, motivated
cohesive community,
Paikona/Tambul/WHP 3,000 Baptist Accessible, self driven community,
Union education infrast, community hall, water
supply upgrade, footbridges, electrif,
increased micro-credit for inc. generation
Amahup,/ESP 1,000 SSEC Remote, primary school infrastr., mobile
saw mill, income generation
Kompian/Enga 1,000 Baptist Remote, not visited by Mission, implem
Union RWSSP project, good community appr,
Income generatn, aid-post infrastructure
Bolubolu,/Goodenough n/a Catholic Remote and location of CLDC to link
Island/MBP villages with resource people/organistns
Yigai,/ESP n/a Health Very remote, water supply&sanitation,
Resources forest conservation income generation,
also location of CLDC
Hagen Central District 2,300 WHRWE Accessible, strong women leadership,
– 5 villages WHP completed RWSSP, micro-finance and
training, inc generation, health problem
Table 3.4 Selection Criteria Scores and Main Sector Developments for 10 Villages
Selection Criteria Score Main developments

Province/Village
Prov Gov sup
Infrastructure
CBO Support
Development
Water& sanit
Income Gen.
Remoteness
CLCD target
Total Score
Accessible
Self-driven
Education
Economic
Cohesion
Corridor
To-date
district
Health
WHP/Trolga 12 3 1 1 2 2 3 0 * * * * *
Jiwaka/Domil 12 1 1 3 1 3 3 0 * - - - *
ESP/Musendai 13 1 3 2 2 2 3 0 * - * * *
MBP/Sibilai 14 2 3 1 3 2 3 0 * - * - *
ESP Amahup 11 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 * * * * *
WHP Paikona 9 2 1 2 1 1 2 0 * * * * *
Enga Kompian 9 1 1 2 2 1 2 0 - - * * *
MBP Bolubolu 12 2 3 0 2 0 2 3 - - * * *
ESP Yigai* 11 1 3 1 - 1 2 3 * - ** * *
WHP Hagen Cen 8 1 1 1 1 2 2 0 . - - * *
Scale: Remoteness- 3 remote 1 accessible; Self-driven 3, CBO 1; Cohesion poor1, good 3 * Travel
time/costs too high for limited pilot project** Forest Conservation component
Even with only four villages (the minimum number considered acceptable) the selected
villages represent a range of different environments from which lessons can be learnt on
the key factors that give good development results. The four selected village are: Trolga in
WHP, Domil in Jiwaka Province, Musendiah in ESP and Sibilai in MBP, with a total
population of approx. 5,100. Those not included in the first four would form a “reserve” list
should more complementary funds be made available, or one of the four villages becomes
unsuitable by the time project implementation commences in 2012.
3.7 Replicability
The issue of replicability of the pilot project in terms of the investment required to scale-up
the approach is a key part of the MVD Pilot Project trial and the consequences for a larger
scaled up phase. A high level of investment for all villages in PNG would require a massive
national investment making replication unacceptable. To not do anything as a response to
this would be equally unacceptable. The proposed MVD Pilot Project would adopt a low
cost self-help approach to help reduce the size of a national bill, as well as provide a start
to allow identification of lessons learnt on village and government service capacity,
investment levels and the pace of development in designing a scaled up phase.
3.8 Location of Project Coordination Unit
The proposed Project Coordination Unit (PCU) should be anchored within Government as
part of government policy to take ownership of the Project and of any expanded second
phase programme and so avoid having a detached donor funded project. The main options
considered were the Department of Community Development, the Department of
Provincial & Local Governments Affairs, the Department of Implementation & Rural
Development and the DNPM. Relevant details of these institutions are covered in Section
1.5 from which the main factors for justification and recommendations to anchor the
Project are summarised in the following table.
Table 3.5 Summary of Institutions and their Justifications for Anchoring the PCU
Department Main Factors

Department of Promotes linkage of villages to resource people and organisations, as
Community well as monitoring and reporting on MDG status. It operates 14 target
Development provinces/districts in which focal points are established in the form of
Community Learning and Development Centres (CLDC). Currently
the Department mainly functions at national level with limited capacity
and resources available at District and community levels to reach and
support individual rural communities. It is therefore not considered an
appropriate institution for implementation of the Pilot Project at this
stage, though it should have a supportive role and be a member of
the Project Steering Committee. However, it may well play a larger
role in any scaled-up phase given appropriate resources and capacity
building inputs.
Department of Linkage with the decentralised local district level governance through
Provincial & Local the LLG and the JDP&BPC is a key factor to ensuring government’s
Government Affairs involvement in the project and therefore sustainability of the approach
in any scaled up government funded phase. Mainly concerned with
decentralised government structures and does not work closely with
individual communities. Not considered appropriate body to anchor
the project at this stage.
Department of Former Office of Rural Development. Responsible for DSIP grants
Implementation & allocated for rural development to all 89 districts and the DIMS district
Rural Development level data collection exercise. Strong political bias in past and risk in
immediate future. Important coordinating role for district level
investment planning. Not considered appropriate anchor point for
PCU
DNPM Is concerned with national MDGs and future government policies in
terms of adopting the MVD concept on a larger scale. Has a UN
Adviser working on MDGs. Has monitoring responsibility and
capacity, and has established regional offices (Provincial Liaison and
Monitoring Division (PLMD) undertaking monitoring activities in
various sector programmes. Has offered office and office support
facilities in POM. It is the recommended anchor point for the PCU
Thus, despite the separate funding administration conditioned by the donor, the Project
would be anchored in DNPM and demonstrate a partnership between the village/CBO,
donor and Government. It would be in line with Government’s focus on empowering and
building capacities of CBOs, communities and LLGs. This would ensure that the project
remains in government focus, since, if successful, it would pave the way to replication on a
larger scale, funded by government and other donor partners.
APPENDIX 4. Selected Village Details
4.1 Musendai Village, ESP
Size and Structure: Located some 8 km off main highway from Maprik. Ward No.9 with
two villages and total population of 1200 made up of 4 clans. Community level structure
comprises a Development Committee and following sub-committees: education (primary
and elementary), health (healthy living, aid post), infrastructure (water supply, electricity,
road and bridges) agriculture (cocoa, coffee, vanilla, livestock), economy (market, micro-
credit), law and order, home affairs (church, women, youth). The community is tidy and
well presented with trimmed hedges, cut verges and flowers – an important feature of the
Healthy Island Concept.
Development to-date from 1982-2009 has comprised: village community centre building,
aid-post building and a permanent house, road upgrading, 2 x permanent staff housing for
primary school. Cost of development to-date is a total cash value of K 273,000 paid by the
community on a self-build basis using locally sourced timber. The village has also realised
the benefits of the Health Centre situated 8 km away in Brugam operated by SSEC, incl
supply of vaccines, medicines and drugs.
The Development Plan for 2011-2015 comprises the following projects in order of priority:
(i) RWSSP funded by EU (total K 180,000 inc K18,000 cash payment made by
village;
(ii) rural power supply inc already purchased 50kva generator for K 46,000 totalling
K 300,000;
(iii) a community hall building and office with furniture and equipment K 250,000;
(iv) improving households in the village, purchase of mobile saw mill for community
to source local timber available for building materials, Total K 40,000;
(v) primary school improvement with 2 x permanent classrooms and 2 x permanent
staff houses K 387,000;
(vi) aid post staff housing x 2 and completion of Health Centre local semi-
permanent building. K 250,000.
Cost of future development. Grand total excluding donor/CBO contributions (EU) K

1.245 million. However, addition of EU funds for the water supply and SSEC funding of
equipment/furniture in the Health Centre raises total investment to about K 1.5 million or
€470,000, excluding value of CBO support, training and leadership inputs, which could
raise the total cost of the development plan to €500,000 or €420 per capita. This cost level
assumes sourcing wood from the local large teak trees in the forest, rather than buying-in
of materials, a feature not available to all villages.
Much of improvements are self build with the aim to gradually replace the present semi-
permanent structures (local bush materials) with permanent structures (using their own
timber and brought in materials) for sustainability (cost of a house approx K 50,000 instead
of K 100,000 for complete bought-in house) but it is likely that this cost could be reduced
further by self-build and appropriate design. No village houses are included in their plan as
in other villages visited. As the teak forest is depleted, the cost of building materials will
rise
No agriculture/income generation activities included in their plan, but on discussion they

identified a need for cooperative coffee marketing to improve coffee prices. Village is self
sufficient in food with main income derived from selling cocoa and coffee (previously
vanilla before prices fell). Government extension service does not visit (only once a year to
check-up) to advise on new developments. Greater priority could be attached to
agricultural development including small credit scheme and training in agriculture
techniques. Should also consider forestry project to plant teak forests using seedlings
produced by forestry propagation centre near Maprik (under EU funding). The community
would also like 8 km road upgrading from Brugam at a cost K 100,000 or less if self-build
with a hired dump truck, and training courses in artisan trades and on-the-job training.
4.2 Trolga Village, WHP

Size and Structure: Located in a fairly remote rural upland area situated some 50 km
north of Mt. Hagen, partly along a sealed road (under construction by a Road Improvement
Project) and partly along a poor gravel road with several very poor bridges making access
to the village and markets difficult and costly. Total village population is approx. 2,000 with
3 clans. The village school, health facilities and housing are “bush” self-build construction,
there is no electricity nearby and the village has a high level of needs. Typhoid and
maternity deaths are major problems.
Developments to-date has comprised (i) planning of a water supply scheme by visiting
Baptist Union who assisted in preparing a proposal for funding but no project appears to
have materialised (was not included in EU funded RWSSP);(ii) Planning an urgently
needed replacement Health Centre and submitting a costed proposal to the PHA for
funding (total K743,000 comprising a permanent building, staff houses, patients toilets and
water facility, solar for lighting and vaccine freezer and an ambulance), supported by
training and health promotion activities) and implementation by the PHA; (iii) application for
the top priority need, namely a major road and bridges upgrading project costing in the
region of K 1.0 million but this appears to have not been accepted to-date; (iv) the village is
now registered with a code number in the Education Dept. confirming that a school is
needed (which is currently lacking and urgently needed - pupils currently walk up to 2 hrs
to the nearest primary school).
Future Development (no formal written Ward Development Plan and not budgeted). The
community has a multi-sector plan comprising some 10 components in order of priority:
road and bridges improvement, the new Health Centre (as above), water supply &
sanitation, primary School buildings (on self-build basis) with Education Dept to supply
teachers and running costs, livestock development with Division of Agric & Livestock
support, village court sports facilities, religious groups, environment & conservation,
housing replacement and tourism development. In addition, the community is keen to
prepare a fully documented Ward Development Plan. They will need further consideration
of income generation particularly after road is improved allowing better market and input
access. Trolga is a central point and could be a model for the surrounding villages with a
total population of 15,000 (Health Centre will service these villages and this population).
Conclusion: Development to-date has been limited, with several setbacks. Nevertheless,
the health initiative and leadership shown (and on-going) by the Health Officers
concerned) has created a positive community self-help development approach including
accepting ownership with results that should reduce the obvious poverty and improve the
main millennium health and education indicators, More importantly it has paved the way to
building confidence and capacity to take on multi-sector development to improve the
welfare of their community. Availability of government services and funds generally poor.
It is proposed as a candidate for selection as a MVD pilot project for which the Baptist
Union would be the appropriate CBO with previous experience with community
development in the community, as well as in implementing the RWSSP projects in a
number of villages in the Highlands.
4.3 Domil Village, Jiwaka Province
Size and Structure: Located in rural upland area some 35 km east of Mt. Hagen along the
main sealed highway towards Simbu in the newly (2011) created Jiwaka Province
(formerly WHP) in Nondugl District. Population is 1,500 with 11 clans and 2 tribes, 1 ward.
Background: The concept of Integral Community and Health Development (ICHD) began
in 1992 under the umbrella of the Nazarene Church, but after 13 years it withdrew due to
the greater size of the programme and the CBO, ICHD took over and is still the major
partner/leader in the village’s development. The community is seen as a model community
with an enabling environment for community integrated multi-sector development. The
community see the government system as having failed them in terms of providing both
social services and development assistance. The LLG Ward Development Plan without
budget is seen of little value to them. As a result,, the community has set up its own
Community Government and have sought external donors for assistance that can by-pass
the government system. The result is impressive in terms of a well organised community
structure with a clear long term vision with supportive inputs provided by ICHD to
encourage self-help and income generation for the population to be able to improve their
own socio-economic condition on a self- financing sustainable basis.
Development to-date: The main developments in summary are: (i) operation of an aid-
post with Health Volunteers (ii) the just completed EU funded RWSSP, an on-going
AusAID supported NARI project to increase cassava production and establish a pilot
cassava processing plant as a source of chicken feed to increase poultry production to
diversify income generation as coffee is declining (as a spin-off of the water supply project
that will enable water to be used for development as well as domestic use); (iv)
Establishment of a Resource Centre that is a multi-purpose service centre including a
meeting hall, manager’s office and records office, accommodation facilities for visitors,
post office, shop selling seeds and small miscellaneous items, email, photocopying, trial
plots and nursery for improved varieties of cassava, cocoa etc (NARI supported) to bridge
the gap between research and farmers; storage of materials for purchase and tools for hire
(e.g. saw mill and pumps that removes ownership issues), an information library with
newspapers, reports, brochures and Fresh Produce Newsletters: and (v) a just
commenced banking scheme implemented by the National Development Bank to provide
small short term loans to promote agricultural development.
The community has adequate school buildings, good road access (or rather after
completion of some work to improve a steep part of the road) and electricity is available
(only the office and 20 HHs connected) – income generation is aimed to enable families to
pay for the cost of connection etc. it is also concerned about youth issues and actively
promotes gender equality, especially in the new cassava/poultry enterprise.
Future Development: Domil is seeking funding for further income generation plans which
could enable the community to self-finance social needs. The main items in its long term
development plan are:
 Improved health: increased training of health workers and more drug/medicine
supplies;
 Improved children’s education: a changed curriculum to include English teaching
(may lead to private tuition)
 Improved living standards such as housing up-grading to semi permanent
structures, electricity etc.
The income generation plan comprises a major expansion of the pilot cassava/poultry
project including a larger cassava processing plant for increased poultry production (out-
growers), a poultry processing and packing plant to add value to poultry incomes,
establishment of a hatchery to supply their own chicks to out-reach farmers, production of
pig feed from cassava waste for increased pig production (out-growers), pig slaughter and
butchery plant with freezer to add value to pig incomes. This is a large project for which
ICHD is currently seeking funding, which is at the proposal stage submitted to the NADP
for a loan (dated June 2011), but no response has yet been received from NADP. The
project is proposed as a private company with local villagers, farmers and ICHD as
shareholders, with management by ICHD. The total additional investment funds being
sought (after some sunk capital from NARI and a recent donation of K100,000 by an MP)
and including working capital during build-up, is approx K 2.6 million, with a capital
component of K 1.4 million and a working capital component of K. 1.4 million).
This is considered to be too large and risky, not least as due to its size, it is likely to be
“personalised” and could invite retaliation from other villages, and it is unlikely to attract
bank funds. The mission would propose that instead of this project, a more appropriate
technology approach at small farm level be adopted, whereby individual farmers can
process their own cassava and feed it to his/her own poultry or pig enterprises. Support to
the smallholder producers through the Resource Centre procuring day-old chicks, basic
animal drugs, vaccines and medicines, vitamin/feed supplements, provision of micro-credit
for assisting farmers to start up, and cooperative marketing of surplus poultry and pigs on
behalf of individual farmers would facilitate these enterprises and could be funded through
MVD Pilot Project funds channelled through ICHD as a donor “ seed” grant to assist in the
establishment of such support activities.
Conclusion: A well organised and successful community development to-date with CBO
support, with further plans to consolidate achievements to-date in income generation to
improve the living standards of its members in a sustainable way. It would provide a good
example of replicable multi-sector development as it lies in an accessible high population
density area. The planned large scale expansion of the cassava/poultry/pig project,
however, should be replaced with a smaller scale appropriate technology approach to
develop farm scale cassava processing and small scale poultry and pig production. It is
recommended as a candidate for the pilot MVD project.
4.4 Sibilai Village, Milne Bay Province

Although not visited by the Mission due to time constraints, information was collected from
RWSSP staff and the leader of the CBO, the Milne Bay Church Development Fund
Association (MBCDF), in Alotau. Sibilai is very remote (accessible in 4 hrs by boat from
Alotau, or longer overland). A RWSSP project was completed covering some 6 scattered
villages with a total population of 1,600 including Sibilai, with a population of 400. The
scheme and Sibilai village is supported by MBCDF, an organisation focused on bringing
services and development to communities through partnerships with communities.
Sibilai is a very motivated, organised and cohesive community showing commendable

commitment and a willingness to pay the 10% cash contribution, despite the low cash
economy of the village (subsistence agriculture and fishing). It was awarded the top prize
by the RWSSP PMU for excellence (the “High Performance Community Initiative”). A new
road has been partially constructed over the hills that separate Sibilai from Alotau. What is
needed is some road upgrading to connect SIbilai to this road, the consequences of which
would be improved market and input access and significantly greater income generation
activities would arise. Income generation activities would be cassava, poultry and pig
production. The community is also interested in construction of an aid-post and a resource
centre/meeting place for the community. Small scale tourism is another possible
development. It is recommended as a potential candidate for the Pilot Project.
APPENDIX 5. Participating CBO Analysis
Introduction
There are many CBOs and NGOs operating in PNG and they perform a crucial role in
service delivery especially in remote rural areas. Many have demonstrated capacity to
support rural communities in various sector projects and programmes, whilst some have
not been effective or well managed (as evidenced by comments from the review of EU
funded NSA Strengthening Programme), hence selection of appropriate CBOs is important
for the Pilot Project.
This analysis is based on the monitoring of all participating NSAs in the RWSSP 14 plus
observations of the Consultant on his field visits during the mission and discussions with
the CBO Project Managers. The monitoring was carried out by the RWSSP against a set
of agreed results with indicators and recorded for each NSA and is based on field visits by
the PMU to NSAs during a period 5 – 26 July, 2011 to measure progress against results
for each NSA. Scores on achievement and prediction of completion for progress in each
NSA are given against each of four sections: awareness; planning; implementation;
completion.
And marked as 0: Exceeds expectations

1: Already achieved
2: Certain to be achieved
3: Likely to be achieved
4: Unlikely to be achieved
5: Will not be achieved.
The main geographical coverage, number of RWSSP schemes implemented, or being

implemented, other comments on effectiveness and scores for the four selected CBOs are
given below. All have been commended for a good or very good CD approach, have
supported well organised community development, established cooperation and
confidence of the communities and have been active over an extended period of years.
None were identified as “of concern” requiring closer monitoring and support to ensure that
they complete contracts on time and to standard.
14
NSA Monitoring Report M&E Summary Report, RWSSP, July 2011 These NSAs have already been
screened in the RWSSP initial selection process.
Table 5.1 CBO Analysis and Scores Given by RWSSP Monitoring Report
CBO Main Geographical Coverage, RWSSP Projects
implementation
and Other Comments
Completion
Awareness
Planning
Baptist Union WHP, Mt Hagen office, 2 current RWSSP schemes: 3 3 3 3
Kuyamu (procurement infrastructure successfully
completed) and Sula (new), good CD, consulted
well with the community and community well
prepared and 10% contribution all collected,
hygiene training conducted and women awareness
stressed, wider and previous experience in
Highlands region
ICHD Jiwaka Province, Domil Village, Office in village. 2 2 2 2
Excellent evidence of on-going community
management and project supervision. Domil village
is well regarded at national level and is considered
as a model village for the 2050 vision. The CBO
project manager has been invited to present views
on policy of total community development to
Minister of Rural Development and the Prime
Ministers office. The CBO and Community have a
long history of working together and this has led to
successful implementation. The Community has
participated well in RWSSP and has developed
across all sectors, especially in income generation.
MBCDFA MBP, office in Alotau. Have implemented RWSSP 2 2 2 2
schemes in 6 scattered and remote villages.
Progress is very good. Sibilai scheme is completed.
Community involvement and motivation on this
project appear to have been very high. Especially
for such a remote village. Sibilai received RWSSP
prize for “excellence”. Training conducted and
women participation focus.
SSEC ESP, office at Brugam, Maprik District. Focus is on 2 2 3 3
improvement of social infrastructure through a multi-
sector approach involving the establishment of well
staffed and equipped Health Centres (serving
several villages) and aid posts (at village level
utilising trained health volunteers), improvement of
school infrastructure, establishment of community
office and meeting rooms, provision of water supply
and sanitation, electrification, improvement of village
housing and training/capacity building using the
SSEC’s central “learning centre”. Considerable
previous donor investment in Health Centres
serving some 100,000 people in 200 villages. A
large scale RWSSP scheme in 20 villages with a
population of 11,000 being implemented. Approach
based on Healthy Island Concept. Community
participation on the whole appears very good and
RWSSP project fits in well with the overall Healthy
Island concept. Women active and empowerment
focus. Focus on social infrastructure only – needs
income generation, accepted by SSEC.
APPENDIX 6. MDG Baseline Data, Targets and Index
Score Card
Table 6.1 Baseline and Localised 2015 MDG Targets
MDG National (localised) Targets for 2015 1990 Recent Target

estimate 2015
1. Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
- decrease by 2015 proportion of people below the 30 28 27
lower poverty line by 10%
2.Achieve Universal Primary Education
- Gross enrolment rate of 85% at primary school 74 75 85
- Retention Rate of 70% at primary level 62 62 70
- Youth Literacy Rate of 70% 61 62 70
3.Promote Gender Equality & Empower Women
- GPI students in primary education 0.96 0.90 1.0
4.Reduce Child Mortality
Reduce infant mortality rate (per 1000 births) 72 44
Reduce Under 5 Mortality Rate (per 1000 live births) 115 72
5.Improve Maternal Health
-decrease maternal mortality ratio per 100,000 births 739 733 274
6.Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Other Diseases
-Incidence rate of HIV/AIDS by 2020 N/a 0.8 Imprecise
-incidence rate of Malaria per 100,000 per year 246*
-incidence rate of TB per 100,000 per year 475* Controlled 150
7.Ensure Environmental Sustainability
- HHs with sust access to safe water sources % n/a 16 73
8 Develop a Global Partnership for Development
Source: Millennium Devel Goals, Summary Report 2009 UNDP/GoPNG+* 2008 source below
Table 6.2 Comparison of Baseline MDGs, Localised 2015 & 2030 Targets
Indicator Base Tailored 2015 Target 2030

Health Indicators
Infant Mortality 57/1000 in 2006 44/1000 <17/1000
Under 5 Mortality 75/1000 in 2006 72/1000 <20/1000
Maternal Mortality 723/100,000 274/100,000 <100/100,000
Incidence of TB 475/100,000 - 2008 TB under control 150/100,000
Incidence Malaria 246/100,000 - 2008 Has risen since <100/100,000
Education Indicat
Net enrolment rate 52.9% Low due to low affordability, 100%
primary school poor infrastructure, poor
teachers, esp. in rural areas
Completion Rates to 45.4% No improvement Close 100%
level 8
Retention Rate 30% A low transition rate 70%
Youth Literacy < 64% Low due to low enrolment and 90%
retention and weak teaching
Water & Sanitation
Access to improved 39% total pop; 30% Just 9% of population of PNG 70% of pop
water source of rural pop, 2005 have access to piped water
Access to improved 44% of population Only 5% of pop have flushing 70% of pop
sanitation toilets and 44% some form of
improved sanitation
Access to Electricity 12.4% of popln 70% of pop
Selected Indicators only Source: PNG Development Strategic Plan 2010-2030
Source: CGD MDG Progress Report Sept 2011
APPENDIX 7. Map
Location of 4 MVD Pilot Project Villages
ESP Musendai
WHP Trolga
Jiwaka, Domil
MBP Sibilai
ANNEX III
BUDGET FOR THE ACTION
Excel file ProjectBudgetwithYear1.xls to insert

Project Document MVD (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Document MVD (Final)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Project Document MVD (Final)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Millennium Village Development Pilot Project in

Papua New Guinea

November 14th 2011

Submitted by Cardno Emerging Markets Ltd. U.K.

ANNEX I Description of the Action

CAP Community Action Participation

Currency (as at September 2011)

The project would be implemented through UNDP (under a Contribution Agreement

In addition to demonstrating community capacity to implement multi-sector developments,

1.1.2 Lack of Infrastructure, Especially in Remoter Areas

1.1.3 Lack of Government Investment, Coordination and Information

Many communities complain there is no funding coordination or information on funding

1.1.4 Low Incomes from Agriculture

1.2 Millennium Village Development Concept

In addition, in PNG, many villages are already undertaking multi-sector development,

 To empower individuals, families, and community to take ownership of their own

1.3 Consistency with Government Policies

1.4 Consistency with EU Policies

1. Community Development Committees and Ward Councillors of selected villages

1.5 Linkage with Government and other EU/Donor Interventions

The Department of National Planning and Monitoring would be the contracting

The Department of Implementation & Rural Development (former Office of Rural

factor to ensuring government’s involvement in the project and therefore sustainability of

The Productive Partnerships in Agriculture Project (PPAP): a multi-donor World Bank

Other EU projects that may have a more indirect linkage include:

(i) The NSA Strengthening Programme: a second phase is being planned

2. MVD PILOT PROJECT DESCRIPTION

2.1 Summary Outline of Proposed Pilot Project

In summary, the main aims of the Pilot Project would be:

 To demonstrate community level capacity to implement multi-sector developments,

The approach would be on a self driven, self–help, appropriate technology/design basis

Project Purpose: Sustainable multi-sector development implemented in four selected pilot

2. Impact monitoring system established and operational

 Recruit/Appoint Project Coordinator

 PC discusses project implementation with selected CBOs

 CBO requests for funding in instalments as laid out in contract

 Establish an impact monitoring team and monitoring system

Under Result 3 Good Practice Manual & Lessons Learnt Identified

The project would be implemented by UNDP through a Contribution Agreement with

The main duties of the PC would be:

 Liaise and verify CBO participation in the Project

The main qualifications and experience required/preferred of the PC would be:

 PNG national, graduate

Villages and CBOs

 Trolga in West Highlands Province, the Baptist Union

Time and Implementation Schedule

Estab financ man

2.6 Project Budget and Funding Contributions

Table 1 Summary Estimated Pilot Project Budget

Table 2 Summary Funding Contributions to Pilot Project

2.7 Flow of Funds

Grants to Grant to Grant to Grant to

Village No.1 Village No.2 Village No.3 Village No.4

2.8 Assumptions and Risks

Increased income generation through improved or increased agricultural production or new

There is a risk that a community lacks capacity or labour to complete multi-sector

Cost Inflation and Exchange Rate Risks

2.9 Impact and Sustainability