My learning curve in Papua New Guinea

ADB
Muhammad Amir Ingratubun

An ADB-supported road project in PNG’s Highlands region.

When I arrived in Papua New Guinea (PNG) in 2013, I sought out to make ADB’s operations more efficient. I wanted to shake things up, and bring change. But I soon realized there would be a very steep learning curve.

Land acquisition, for instance, was a major challenge when it came to implement safeguards for ADB projects in PNG, where 97% of the land is under customary ownership. There is a common belief that land acquisition can only be resolved with finality on site, not beforehand as ADB procedures mandate. This did not make sense to me.

If we can get a new road that cuts travel time from 36 to 1 hour, connects people to markets, hospitals, schools, or airports, should it be built on our customary land? This was question we should ask the community. To me, the answer is clearly ‘yes,’ but in reality it’s not that simple.

In mid-2014 we received a complaint from an individual who claimed that his assets had been adversely affected by an ADB-funded road project and had not received compensation. Our investigation confirmed the payments were being prepared, and we decided to pay a visit to the project site in PNG’s Eastern Province.

The problem was not only the individual complainant but rather that most of the community had not been informed about the project. When we explained it to them, they told us they would accept compensation and were more than willing to allow the road to be built on their land once they understood the benefits of the project.

So, people do need these roads, and will allow them to be built on their land, because the whole community will benefit from better transport infrastructure. But we had not realized until this particular case how important it was to convey the benefits of our projects to their beneficiaries at the outset of the project, so it became part of our learning curve. Now we do know that it is critical to conduct early community outreach, clearly communicate ADB safeguards requirements, involve community members in decision-making, and focus on the shared benefits.

Another issue that shaped my learning curve in PNG was dealing with delays in project implementation. The average project delay for PNG was over 3 years when I arrived in the country, so bringing down this figure to at least 2 years became my immediate goal.

An initial survey revealed that some causes for the delays were a lack of human capital and of technical capacity to meet project demands, despite the efforts of long-term national and international consultants. Other reasons were a lack of clarity over approved procedures, inconsistencies in the interpretation of agreements, different types of contractual relationships, and confusion over costs, deadlines, safety and safeguards compliance.

I compared this problem with taking a hot shower. At home I set the shower for exactly the right temperature, but then my wife changes it; but I know how to readjust the temperature. That is not the case when I’m traveling. At a hotel it takes longer to get the temperature just right – not too hot, not too cold.

Like a hot shower, a project doesn’t immediately produce the expected outcome; sometimes there is a time lag. Modern showers have shorter time lags than old ones, but even with modern showers there can be a delay. For ADB projects in PNG, I noticed a lag pattern that can be called the 1/10 problem: if ADB takes 1 day to reply to a particular concern, executing agencies need 10 days. What if we take 10 days to reply? The time lag increases.

We decided to induce a faster response time by executing agencies through actions such as constant reminders and impromptu visits. Many issues, including technical and contracts matters, were resolved on-site. In 3 years, ADB and the PNG government together were able to halve delays.

Reducing project delays was part of our overall goal to bring change to ADB’s operations in PNG. We understood that by doing this we would probably step on a few toes, but were convinced that our good intentions would prevail in the end.

Some people were hesitant. Why change something that worked in the past? But the project was not completed on time and within the budget, we pointed out, to which they replied – well, it was completed, right? Indeed, projects were completed but with significant delays, cost overruns, and outstanding claims from contract variations, among many issues.

Contract variations seem a trivial matter, but they impact the full life cycle of a project; and cause delays as they tend to extend handover dates, raise costs, and create more red tape.

To address this issue, we decided to review the guidelines for variations, and almost immediately part of the risk of delays vanished. This move, though, was met with some resistance. This was the third and final part of my learning curve in PNG – not everyone is receptive to change, but this is fine as long as there is traction for change, and we can move forward.

In the end we implemented changes to the contract variation process, and everyone saw the bigger picture. It was a learning curve for everybody.