The document discusses the policy implications of linking food, nutrition and rural economy in Papua New Guinea based on previous research findings. It finds that agriculture is the main determinant of child growth and nutrition patterns in PNG, with rural people not consuming enough calories and nutrient-rich foods. The summary is: Agriculture policy in PNG needs to target developing provinces with poor environments and low agricultural potential in parallel with continuing the development of cash crops in more favorable areas. A dual-pronged policy approach is proposed that pursues commercial agriculture development alongside securing food and nutrition security for citizens living in harsh, remote environments through economic development programs and potentially voluntary resettlement or land settlement schemes.

1. 1
LINKING FOOD, NUTRITION
AND RURAL ECONOMY IN
PAPUA NEW GUNEA: What is
the Policy implication?
BY MATT KANUA
JUNE 2019

2. What is the main determinant of child growth
and nutrition patterns in PNG?
Muller & Smith (1999) re-analyzed the National Nutrition Survey
(1982/83) data and looked at the determinants of child growth
and nutrition patterns. They concluded that:
❑ Factors associated with child growth were related in one form
or another to differences in local subsistence agriculture, and
❑ That Agriculture is the main determinant of child growth and
nutrition patterns in PNG.
❑ This agrees with IFPRI 2018 Findings: Agriculture is linked to
nutrition outcomes. Rural people not eating enough
calories/nutrient rich calories.

3. 3
What is the Policy
Implication?

4. 4
Policy Bias on
Cash/Plantation crop
Development since 1975

5. 5
❑ Policy marginalized those that need our help most
– who live in remote inaccessible and harsh
environments.
❑ attempts have been made in past starting with
the Eight Point Plan and Directive Principles, ‘Less
Developed Area Policy’; National Public
Expenditure Plan (980’s), the LSS of 1960’s, IRDP
funded by the World Bank (1980s) – all designed
to equalize development.
❑ These efforts have either failed or had varying
degrees of success and impact – but nothing
noticeably significant

6. 6
▪ Poverty, under-development and inequality
in PNG is determined by GEOGRAPHY, NOT
by MARKET FORCES. Most agriculture
development has taken place in high
potential, high return areas.
▪ Plantation agriculture is closely associated
with better environments.
▪ Policy bias on development of cash crops in
better environments. Little effort has been
made to balance development by Policy since
1975

7. 7
▪ Development has not been uniform and never will be
– unless policy solutions are determined. The poorest
(3.8 million) are locked in isolated very harsh
geographical areas. Bridging this divide could come
from shifting/changing geography or by a innovative
Policy solution.
▪ The first line of defence against poverty,
underdevelopment and associated social ills must be
‘Economic development’. Economic growth must not
only take place, but must be of such nature and
magnitude as to permit the benefits to flow through
all strata of society, down to the poorest, across the
entire length and breath of this country.

8. Demographics
8
• The estimated mid-2018 population for
Papua New Guinea was 7.5 million. This
consisted of:
➢ 81% rural villagers (6.1 million people)
➢ 13% urban (1 million people)
➢ 6% rural non-village (0.4 million
people)
• Population growth rate is 2.7% pa
(1980-2000)

9. Rural Villagers
9
Based on cash income and other measures,
rural villagers may be sub-divided into:
•Not poor - 39% (2.1 million in mid-2008)
•Marginally poor 42% (2.2 million in mid-2008)
• Extremely poor 18% (1.0 million in mid-2008)
It is people in the first group and some in the
second group which produce most of the cash
crops and have the highest consumption rate
for imported goods.

10. LAND USE IN PNG
10
• 1975 only 26% of PNG's mass was used for agriculture
(fallows, food gardens, tree crops)
• This figure has grown to about 30% now
• The remaining 70% has never been used for
agriculture
• This is because it is too swampy, too steep, rainfall and
cloud cover are excessive, or it is too high (above 2800 m
altitude)
• Even within the 30% that can be used for agriculture,
there are often severe limitations.
• Only 7% of the total land area is classed as high or very
high quality and a further 20% is of moderate quality for

11. Why a Province-specific Policy Focus?
11
❑Each Province is unique.
Development priorities must be
based on their specific social,
economic and geographical settings,
and resource endowment.
❑Take the case of SHP/HELA –
contrasted with WHP

12. 12
SHP/HELA WHP/JIWAKA
✓ Very poor/harsh environments:
high rainfall – 3000 – 5000 mm,
heavy cloud cover (restricts crop
production), poor soils (VAS),
✓ 72 % of land is NOT used for
agriculture due to too high, too
cold, too wet, too steep, very
high cloud cover.
✓ Zero agribusiness base
✓ Poor social & economic
indicators
✓ better environments, better
climate, best soils
✓ Large tea, coffee plantation,
✓ Large private sector base,
✓ increased economic activity.
✓ Better social & economic
indicators

13. ❑POLICY MUST REALIZE THIS
SIGNIFICANT PROVINCIAL
CONSTRASTS IN DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING
❑Agriculture Policy must deliberately
target less developed provinces with
poor environments.

14. A Future Agric Policy
14
A two-pronged policy thrust should be advocated:
(a) Export cash crops and agribusinesses development in
better environments; and simultaneously,
(b) Pursue a development charter for rural communities
with less potential (poor environments) based on a
proven rural development model.
(c) Development charter between the National Government
and Provincial Governments aimed to mobilize resources
and maximize synergies to purse commercial agriculture
in parallel with food production to secure economic - food
- nutritional security of citizens living in poor
environments.

15. Some Development Concepts/Models
15
❑ “First line of defence strategy”: Increase economic
development in the less developed provinces.
(This is the most effective strategy against
poverty, unemployment, under nutrition and
associated social ills).
❑ Voluntary resettlement/move to favorable
ecological and economic environments. This is
already happening.
❑ Define a strategy and policy basis to Mobilize
People into Settlement Schemes within provinces
(a modified version of LSS (1960s).

16. Do nothing about it, expect a miracle!
16
❑ The larger risk is the alarming population growth
rate. By 2050 = 16 million people
❑ Add Climate change to the mix …
❑ Risks are compounded if we allow the growing
populations to continue to occupy marginal/ poor
environments
❑ Whether they are helped now or not, they will be
forced to move out when the carrying capacity of
the environment has broken down.

17. Land settlement scheme Model
17
Major
Generational
Impact 50 years
later = significant