people’s survey 2011
ANU Enterprise People’s Survey 2011 Published February 2012 Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands
Cover photo: Pirumeri village, Pirumeri Island, Shortland Islands, Western Province. (Tom Perry, RAMSI Public A!airs)
Acknowledgements "e organisers of the People’s Survey warmly thank all who worked on the survey. "e interviewers and facilitators undertook classroom training and then several weeks of hard #eldwork throughout Solomon Islands. "e data entry sta! worked tirelessly to accurately computerise the vast amounts of data collected. We would also like to thank the Solomon Islands National Statistics O$ce for providing the maps that were essential for the #eldwork.
Most of all we would like to thank the 4,972 men and women who generously gave their time to answer questions and many others who participated in more than 70 focus group discussions and in-depth interviews. "e insights you have provided on important community
The People’s Survey 2011 ANU Enterprise Building 95, Fulton Muir Building The Australian National University Canberra ACT 0200 AUSTRALIA Executive Summary The 2011 People’s Survey was the fifth national survey of perceptions of economic conditions, governance and law and order in Solomon Islands. The People’s Survey is a research and advocacy tool for all Solomon Islanders, especially for Solomon Islands Government (SIG) policy development and civil society advocacy groups. The project design states that each year the four core areas of Honiara, Malaita, Guadalcanal and Western Province will be surveyed, plus a rotating sample of the smaller provinces. The 2011 fieldwork was carried out in the four core areas plus Choiseul, Isabel and Temotu. A total of 4,972 people completed the questionnaire. Many others participated in more than 70 focus group discussions (FGDs) and face to face interviews. Survey respondents and focus group participants comprised approximately equal numbers from four age/gender groups: Men and Women (aged 30 and over) and Young Men and Young Women (aged 18 to 29). An important feature of the People’s Survey is that most of the questions are about perceptions rather than about ‘hard facts’. The findings reflect how respondents feel about local and national concerns, about their own experiences and about how their own lives have been affected, or not affected, by changes during 2011. The People’s Survey thus provides insights into how economic, social and policy changes impact on the people and communities of Solomon Islands, and into what the people perceive as their main needs and the priorities for improving their lives. Compared with previous years, the 2011 People’s Survey included expanded sections on ‘Access to Services and Information’, and ‘Household and Business Finances’ and new questions about national priorities and needs. A continuing theme throughout this report is the need for Solomon Islands to build capacity, both physical infrastructure and human resources development. Widespread community awareness and concern about the need for capacity building is especially evident in FGDs about what more Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and SIG need to do before RAMSI can leave Solomon Islands. Question F.10 in the questionnaire asked what SIG should be doing, or doing more of, to improve Solomon Islands. Many participants and respondents mentioned the importance of improving the quality of and access to education, to facilitate employment and the augmentation of livelihoods. Improvements to transport infrastructure were also perceived as essential to increase income earning opportunities as well as access to basic services. A key finding in relation to what RAMSI and SIG need to do before RAMSI leaves Solomon Islands is that respondents and participants tend not to make a clear distinction between RAMSI’s mandate and the responsibilities of national and provincial government. Many things they expect RAMSI to do are responsibilities of national or provincial government. RAMSI is perceived as more capable, however, and there is considerable dissatisfaction with government performance in delivering services (Tables F.9.a and F.9.b). Some people have unrealistic expectations that RAMSI should take on additional roles such as development of infrastructure. As in previous People’s Surveys, the data presented here contain many references to problems with accountability and corruption, expressed especially in the FGDs. Although people are quick to complain about such things, it seems they are often reluctant to do anything about them, either because they do not know how to lodge a complaint, or because they fear reprisals if they do. This is particularly true in the case of problems with the Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) (Section D), but also applies to public officials in general. Section G shows a mismatch between what people say they would do if they encountered a problem of mismanagement or dishonesty and what they actually do. Some new questions on what participants think are the good and bad qualities of a Member of Parliament (MP) and why respondents voted as they did in the last election (Section H) provide some interesting insights into how people perceive their representatives. The qualities listed were generally what would be expected of good and bad parliamentary performers anywhere. On the other hand, many respondents and
1 participants appeared to take an opportunistic approach and vote in a way that is most likely to bring immediate benefits to them and their families rather than taking a long term or national view. This is probably a reflection of generally low expectations of government and a lack of capacity to ensure government delivers basic services and provides economic opportunities. It points to the need for continuing awareness raising about government and official responsibility. One aspect of this is the need for awareness raising on the nature and purpose of the taxation system. Questions and discussions on tax (Section C) show not only a very small taxation base, but also very little knowledge of the nature of tax and how taxes should be used. As in previous years, the survey data reveal some consistent differences between male and female respondents, but there are few surprises. Comparing People’s Surveys over time suggests that Women and Young Women are increasingly confident to speak out about their needs and about things they are not happy with. There is also evidence that, overall, the education gap between males and females is closing, with the mean years of education of Young Women only a little less than that of Young Men, whereas in this respect there is a substantial difference between Men and Women (Figure A.7). What is clear, moreover, is that there are still considerable differences between provinces and between rural and urban areas in the status of women. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings are generally consistent with previous People’s Surveys. Most of the changes reported were small and in the expected direction, and there were no real surprises in the findings. Results should provide valuable insights for policy makers and the community.
2 Key results from the 2011 People’s Survey1 Access to health services Sixty seven per cent of respondents could reach a health facility in less than one hour, and a further 29% could reach a health facility in one or two hours. Seventy one per cent had visited a health facility in the past year, of which 58% were satisfied with the services they received (Tables B1 to B.4). Access to education Eighty per cent of respondents had attended primary school for five years or more, 53% had never attended secondary school and less than 10% had any formal post secondary education (Tables A.4 to A.6). Eighty three per cent of respondents could reach a primary school within one hour. Respondents in Guadalcanal were most likely to report long travelling times. Forty one per cent of respondents had at least one child currently enrolled in a primary school (Tables B.5 and B.6). Fifty three per cent of respondents with at least one child attending primary school were satisfied with the school. The main problems reported by the rest were problems with teachers, followed by problems with buildings and resources (Tables B.7 and B.8). FGD participants commented on the poor quality of some school and clinic infrastructure in rural areas. They were also concerned that rural communities had very limited capacity to deal with problems such as poor performance or absenteeism of health and school personnel. Transport Sixty four per cent of respondents use small boats for transport, 41% use road transport, 26% use large boats, less than 1% use air transport and 3% said they never use any form of transport (Table B.9). Sixty one per cent use transport to access markets, 50% use transport to access schools, health facilities and for social purposes and 30% said they use transport for fishing or food production. Sixty four per cent were satisfied with the transport available to them. (Tables B.10 and B.11). Forty four per cent of those who were not satisfied with the available transport said cheaper fares and fuel are needed, 38% wanted better roads, 33% wanted more frequent public transport and 23% wanted new or better wharfs. A large number of other improvements were also suggested (Tables B.12.a and B.12.b). Household water supply The main source of drinking water for 59% of respondents was community tap or standpipe, while 31% rely on surface water such as river, spring or stream, and 18% use rainwater tanks. Standpipe was mentioned twice as often in rural areas (64% compared with 36% for urban areas). Fifty one per cent of respondents in Honiara had water piped to their houses, as did 6% of those living outside Honiara (Tables B.13.a and B.13.b). Fifty one per cent of respondents said they always had clean drinking water available and 16% did not. The main problems mentioned were inadequate supply (53%), broken tanks and pipes (41%) and pollution (40%) (Tables B.15.a and B.15.b). Access to electricity Solar power was the most common source of electricity (43%), followed by mains supply (12%) and generators (7%) while 42% of respondents had no electricity (Table B.16).
1 Tables with parts a and b refer to multiple response questions, so percentage totals may exceed 100 and number of responses may not equal 4,972.
3 Access to communications Seventy five per cent of respondents said they had access to a mobile phone, compared with 23% in 2009. Four per cent had access to a landline, 5% could only access 2 way radios and 19% had no access to any form of communications (Table B.17 and Figure B.17). Focus group participants said that while the improvement to communications was a huge advantage, especially in rural areas, there were some problems associated with increased phone coverage, including high expenditure on phone services and use of phones for illicit purposes. Household finances Twenty eight per cent of respondents said their household financial situation had improved in the past two years, 37% said it was the same and 34% said it was worse (Table C.1). The most common source of earnings was informal selling (78%), while 16% of respondents obtain money from paid work and 1% of respondents obtain income from royalties and logging operations (Tables C.2.a and C.2.b). Focus group discussions mentioned a wide range of income earning activities in rural communities but very little paid employment. Sixty three per cent of respondents perceived ‘sell more’ as the main avenue for increasing their income, while 35% suggested starting their own business (Tables C.3.a and C.3.b). Respondents did not have many ideas about obstacles to increasing their income, with 10% mentioning lack of access to land and 10% mentioning family obligations (Table C.4.a and C.4.b). Participants in focus groups saw the high cost of transport and limited access to markets as major obstacles. Twenty eight per cent of respondents had tried to start a business in the preceding two years (Table C.5). Of these, 73% had faced problems with customers and wantoks not paying for goods, 35% mentioned insufficient cash flow and 25% mentioned insufficient management skills (Tables C.6.a and C.6.b). Taxation Less than three per cent of respondents knew the threshold amount for paying income tax, another 7% made incorrect guesses and 89% had no idea. Sixteen per cent of respondents said they had paid income tax at some time, and 22% said they had earned more than $7,800 in one year (Tables C.8 to C.10). FGDs revealed considerable confusion about and misunderstanding of the taxation system. Access to banks Twenty five per cent of respondents had an account at a bank or other financial institution (Table C.11) but only 12% of all respondents would approach a bank if they needed money to start a business, because they lack collateral, do not understand the process or fear high interest rates (Tables C.12, C.13.a and C.13.b). FGDs confirmed this and described very limited access to banks in rural areas. Access to agricultural information Twenty nine per cent of respondents rely on their family or community for agricultural information and 22% get information from agricultural extension officers. Male respondents were almost twice as likely as female respondents to receive information from an agricultural extension officer. More than half of respondents had not received any information on growing crops in the preceding year (Tables C.14.a, C.14.b and C.15). Absentee workers and remittances More than 50% of respondents said someone in their family was an absentee wage worker, more than in the 2007 2009 People’s Surveys. Seventy five per cent said the absentee worker sends money to their household (Tables C.16 and C.17).
4 Safety Perceptions of the law and order situation in communities were similar to 2010, with 31% of respondents saying their community was safe and peaceful, 54% saying there were some problems and 13% saying there were many problems (Table D.1). Fifty nine per cent of respondents said they always feel safe in their community, 36% said ‘sometimes’ and 5% said ‘rarely’ (Table D.2). Forty eight per cent said they feel safer during the day than at night, 2% said they feel safer at night and 49% said there was no difference (Table D.3). Eighty eight per cent of respondents said they always feel safe in their household, 11% said ‘sometimes’ and 1% said ‘rarely’ (Table D.4). Seventeen per cent said they always feel safe in Honiara, 42% said ‘sometimes’ and 33% said ‘rarely’. Respondents from outer provinces were least likely to feel safe in Honiara (Table D.5). Royal Solomon Islands Police Force (RSIPF) Thirteen per cent of respondents had asked the RSIPF for help in the past year, which is almost the same as in 2010 (Table D.6). The main problems were disturbances (38%), violence and assault (28%), theft (26%) and community disputes (14%) (Tables D.7.a and D.7.b). Focus group participants emphasised the importance of alcohol as a cause or underlying factor in many disturbances and disputes. Forty four per cent of respondents were satisfied with the help received from police and 55% said they were not satisfied (Table D.8). The most common reason for being dissatisfied was that the police didn’t do anything to help (82%), while the only other reason given was that the police were too slow to respond (16%) (Table D.9). Thirty one per cent of respondents said that the RSIPF treats people well, while 36% said ‘sometimes’ and 27% said ‘no’ (Table D.10). Twenty four per cent thought the RSIPF had improved in the past five years, while 24% said it had improved in some ways and 40% thought the RSIPF had not improved (Table D.11). FGDs with communities revealed considerable dissatisfaction with police performance, but there was also awareness that resource constraints may prevent police from responding to calls. RSIPF officers interviewed provided more details of these constraints and said it was discouraging that they were unable to deliver better services and so had to face community criticisms. Sixty one per cent of respondents said the main cause of conflict and problems in Solomon Islands is ‘land disputes’, followed by ‘alcohol and drugs’ (40%) and arguments outside and within the family (40%). Criminal activity (17%) and performance of government and politicians (11%) were also seen as important, while a wide range of other factors were mentioned by less than 10% of respondents (Tables D.12.a and D.12.b). Focus group discussions provided further insights into underlying causes of problems. RAMSI Eighty six per cent of respondents supported the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands, 9% did not support RAMSI and 6% were undecided. This is a slight increase in support compared with 2010 (Table D.13). Nineteen per cent of respondents thought Solomon Islands is ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities, 65% said ‘no’ and 15% were undecided. Of those who thought it is not yet ready, 58% thought it would be more than five years before Solomon Islands will be ready (Tables D.14 and D.15). Focus group participants discussed what more RAMSI needs to do before it is ready to leave. Most thought there was much to be done and mentioned a range of responses covering social needs and strengthening law and order and infrastructure. Focus group participants also discussed what the Solomon Islands Government needs to do before RAMSI can leave Solomon Islands. Their suggestions included more open government, learning from RAMSI’s
5 achievements, reconciliation, building more police posts, strengthening national and customary (kastom) laws, reviving traditional law and order, ending corruption in the public service and improving infrastructure and access to services. Most significant change Forty one per cent said there had been no significant change in their own lives in the preceding year. The next most common response (23%) was a change to phone or internet communications. Forty two per cent said there had been no change to community facilities, while 17% mentioned a change to a school. Other significant changes to communities mentioned by 14% were additional changes in facilities and changes with respect to community relations (Tables E.1 to E.6). Leadership Sixty six per cent of respondents thought honesty was a key quality of a good leader, 36% mentioned community consultation, 17% said a good leader should focus on social issues and 17% mentioned equitable funds distribution (Tables F.1.a and F.1.b). Ninety per cent of respondents said that women make good leaders (Table F.2). Thirty two per cent of respondents were satisfied with their current representative in the national Parliament, 14% were partially satisfied and 49% were not satisfied (Table F.3).Sixty per cent of respondents were not satisfied with their representative in provincial government or the Honiara Town Council (Tables F.3 and F.4). Sixty one per cent of respondents said their national MP had not visited their community in the past year, 20% said there had been one visit and 10% said more than one visit. (Table F.5). Sixty eight per cent said their local government representative had not visited their community in the past year, 15% said there had been one visit and 8% said more than one visit (Table F.6). Focus group participants discussed the qualities of a good and bad representative. The qualities of a good MP mentioned were being helpful, fair, honest, trustworthy and transparent in their dealings, visiting communities, assisting with school and clinic needs, providing communities with facilities such as solar power, upgrading local access roads, having vision and action plans for their constituency and understanding the needs of their people. The qualities of a bad MP mentioned in focus group discussions included: dishonesty, misuse of funds, especially the Rural Community Development Fund (RCDF), making false promises, ‘sweet talking’, lying to voters, not visiting communities, lacking education, not helping rural development and generally practising favouritism and supporting their wantoks at the expense of their constituency. Women in parliament As in previous years, more than 85% of respondents supported the concept of women in parliament. Of the 89% who said there should be women in parliament, 91% also supported the concept of special reserved seats for women. (Tables F.7 and F.8). Performance of national and local government Eight per cent of respondents thought national government is performing very well as regards providing basic services to the community and improving the economy, 44% said ‘satisfactory’ and 37% said not well. Three per cent of respondents said local government was performing very well, 29% said satisfactory, and 54% said performance was not good (Tables F.9.a and F.9.b). Respondents made a wide range of suggestions about what more government should be doing. The core concerns included ‘focus on rural development’ (35%), ‘economic programs and job creation’ (26%), ‘make good policy’ (17%) and ‘improve schools and education’ (17%) (Tables F.10.a and F.10.b).
6 Seventy per cent of respondents said they would report an instance of misuse of power or public money by an official, 22% said they would not report and 9% didn’t know whether or not they would report. Of these, 59% said they would report to the police and 19% said they would report to the offender’s superiors. Twenty three per cent of respondents had firsthand knowledge of incorrect behaviour by an official, but, of these, only 14% had reported it. Forty five per cent of these reports were to the RSIPF, 14% to church or community leaders, 13% to the Leadership Code Commission (LCC) and 11% to the Ombudsman. The main reasons for not reporting were fear of reporting (46%), not knowing who to report to (25%) and ‘the offender was a wantok’ (10%) (Tables G.3 to G.6). MPs and elections Eighty five per cent of respondents said the main job of an MP is to ‘represent or get better conditions for their constituency’, 35% said ‘govern the country or make laws’ and 28% said ‘assist those who voted for them’. All other suggestions were made by fewer than 8% of respondents (Tables H.1.a and H.1.b). Most respondents said they obtain information about candidates directly from the candidates (63%), 36% said from community leaders, 35% said from their family, 17% said from the radio and 16% mentioned newspapers and other printed material (Table H.2.a and H.2.b). Thirty four per cent of respondents chose to vote for a candidate because they were a good or trusted person or they liked them, 19% said the candidate made good promises, 18% said they had done good work in the community, 18% said the candidate is a good leader or MP and 11% and 7% respectively mentioned family or church affiliations (Tables H.3.a and H.3.b). Focus group comments suggested that participants analyse and discuss campaign strategies and the known personal characteristics of candidates in national elections. While some participants openly stated that they supported a candidate because they were a family member or had some tribal affiliation, the majority of responses indicated that the campaign strategies and possible long term support by members were the main influences on their choice. Resolution of disputes Eighty five per cent of respondents said they had been involved in a major argument (bigfala raoa) or dispute with another person in the past year (Figure I.1). Sixty per cent of respondents said they would seek help from a chief to resolve a dispute in their family or community, 20% said from the church and 15% said from the RSIPF. Urban respondents were more likely to mention the police, and rural respondents more likely to mention their chief. Thirty six per cent of respondents said they would expect to pay for help to resolve a dispute in their family or community (Tables I.2.a, I.1.b and I.3). Chiefs were the main source of assistance with land disputes (71%) with 14% of respondents mentioning government or land courts. Sixty three per cent said they would expect to pay for assistance to resolve a land dispute (Tables I.4.a, I.4.b and I.5). Sixty seven per cent of rural respondents would turn to chiefs to resolve disputes outside their community (67%) compared with 34% of urban respondents. On the other hand, 54% of urban respondents would seek help from the police, but only 19% of rural respondents would. Forty six per cent of respondents would expect to pay for help to resolve a dispute outside their community (Tables I.6, I.6.b and I.7). Satisfaction with dispute resolution Eighty three per cent of respondents were satisfied with the methods of dispute resolution available to them and 14% were not satisfied (Table 1.8). The main improvements suggested by those who were not satisfied were ‘fairer local justice and no favouritism or nepotism’ (50%), ‘strengthen kastom laws and chiefs’ (24%) and ‘improve access to the RSIPF’ (16%) (Tables I.9.a and I.9.b).
7 Extensive focus group discussions on dispute resolution suggest dissatisfaction with the modern justice system and widespread reliance on traditional justice, even though it is sometimes perceived as needing improvement or increased powers. Participants also mentioned various payments made during dispute resolution, including payments in kind. Participation of women in dispute resolution Sixty five per cent of respondents said women may help to resolve family disputes, 24% said they help to resolve community disputes and 12 % said they help to resolve disputes about money and disputes about land. Twenty nine per cent said women do not participate in dispute resolution (Table I.10.a and I.10.b). Female respondents were asked if they would prefer to seek help with arguments or disputes from a male or female helper. Seventy per cent said they would prefer a man, 20% said a woman and 10% said either.
8 Acknowledgements The organisers of the People’s Survey warmly thank all who worked on the survey. The interviewers and facilitators undertook classroom training and then several weeks of hard fieldwork throughout Solomon Islands. The data entry staff worked tirelessly to accurately computerise the vast amounts of data collected. We would also like to thank the Solomon Islands National Statistics Office for providing the maps that were essential for the fieldwork. Most of all we would like to thank the 4,972 men and women who generously gave their time to answer questions and many others who participated in more than 70 focus group discussions and in depth interviews. The insights you have provided on important community concerns are of immense value and can be used to benefit everyone in Solomon Islands.
9 List of Acronyms AGO Auditor General’s Office (normally referred to as Office of the Auditor General (OAG) ATM Automatic teller machine CBSI Central Bank of Solomon Islands COC Code of Conduct (Solomon Islands Public Service) EA Enumeration Area FGD Focus group discussion IFI Informal interview LCC Leadership Code Commission LGD Large group discussions MOU Memorandum of Understanding MP Member of Parliament (national) NSO National Statistical Office OBM Outboard motor (small motor boat) QL Qualitative survey QN Quantitative survey RAMSI Regional Assistance Mission to the Solomon Islands RCDF Rural Constituency Development Fund RSIPF Royal Solomon Islands Police Force SBD Solomon Islands Dollar SDA Seventh Day Adventist Church SICHE Solomon Islands College of Higher Education SIG Solomon Islands Government SSI Semi structured interview USP University of the South Pacific
10 Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1 KEY RESULTS FROM THE 2011 PEOPLE’S SURVEY...... 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS...... 9 LIST OF ACRONYMS...... 10 INTRODUCTION...... 17 SECTION 1: SURVEY METHODOLOGY...... 18 1.1.1 Sample Design...... 18 1.1.2 Selection of respondents within each EA ...... 20 1.1.3 Survey instruments...... 23 1.1.4 Pilot testing and refinement of the questionnaire...... 23 1.1.5 Recruitment of interviewers and facilitators...... 23 1.1.6 Interviewer training...... 23 1.1.7 Fieldwork ...... 24 1.1.8 Data processing...... 24 1.1.9 Data cleaning, analysis and report preparation...... 24 1.2.1 Sample design ...... 24 1.2.2 Survey Instruments...... 26 1.2.3 Selection and training of facilitators...... 26 1. 2.4 Qualitative survey fieldwork ...... 26 1.2.5 Qualitative data processing...... 26 PEOPLE’S SURVEY SECTION A: RESPONDENTS’ CHARACTERISTICS...... 29 SECTION B: ACCESS TO SERVICES AND COMMUNICATIONS...... 34 SECTION C: HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS FINANCES ...... 56 SECTION D: SAFETY...... 79 SECTION E: MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE ...... 102
11 SECTION F: LEADERSHIP...... 109 SECTION G: ACCOUNTABILITY ...... 125 SECTION H: ELECTIONS...... 131 SECTION I: RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES ...... 139 SECTION 2: CROSS CUTTING ISSUES ...... 158 CONCLUDING REMARKS ...... 160 ANNEX ONE: TABULATION OF FGD RESPONSES...... 161 ANNEX TWO: QUESTIONS ON THE QUALITATIVE GUIDE SHEETS ...... 181 ANNEX THREE: PEOPLE’S SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE...... 182
12 List of Figures and Tables Figure A.1: Provincial distribution of respondents (number)...... 19 Figure A.2: Age/gender distribution of respondents (number) ...... 19 Figure A.3: Distribution of respondents by five year age groups ...... 20 Map One Key: Sample Distribution by Enumeration Area (EA) ...... 21 Map One: Surveyed Enumeration Areas (EAs)...... 22 Figure A.4: Years of primary education...... 29 Table A.4: Years of primary education ...... 30 Figure A.5: Years of secondary education ...... 30 Table A.5: Years of secondary education ...... 31 Figure A.6: Years of post secondary education...... 31 Table A.6: Years of post secondary education...... 32 Figure A.7: Average years of education by province and age/gender group (2011) ...... 33 Figure A.8: Comparison of average years of education (all respondents, 2008 2011)...... 33 Figure B.1: Time taken to reach nearest health facility (2007 2011)...... 34 Table B.1: Time from respondent’s community to the nearest health facility ...... 35 Figure B.2: Has respondent visited a health facility in the past year? ...... 35 Table B.2: Has respondent visited a health facility in the past year? ...... 36 Figure B.3: Were you satisfied with the health services you received?...... 36 Table B.3: Was respondent satisfied with health services received? ...... 37 Figure B.4 Problems with health services received...... 37 Figure B.5: Time taken to reach nearest primary school ...... 38 Table B.5: Time taken to reach nearest primary school...... 39 Figure B.6: Number of children attending primary school...... 39 Table B.7: Satisfaction with children’s primary school...... 40 Figure B.8: Problems with children’s primary school...... 40 Figure B.9: Types of transport used ...... 42 Table B.9: Types of transport used...... 43 Figure B.10: How transport is used...... 43 Figure B.11: Are you satisfied with the transport available to you?...... 44 Table B.11: Are you satisfied with the transport available to you? ...... 45 Table B.12.a: What would make transport better for you? (by residence) ...... 46 Table B.12.b: What would make transport better for you? (by gender) ...... 46 Figure B.13 Source of drinking water, 2010 and 2011 ...... 48 Table B.13.a: Source of drinking water (by residence)...... 48 Table B.13.b: Source of drinking water (by gender)...... 49 Figure B.14: Is clean water always available? ...... 49 Table B.14: Is clean water always available?...... 50 Table B.15.a: Problems with water supply (by residence) ...... 51 Table B.15.b: Problems with water supply (by gender) ...... 51 Figure B.16: Access to electricity, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010...... 52 Table B.16: Sources of electricity ...... 52 Table B.17: Access to communications in home community...... 54 Figure C.1: Household financial situation, 2007 2011 ...... 56 Table C.1: How is your household’s financial situation compared with two years ago?...... 57 Table C.2.a: How do you usually get money? (by residence)...... 58 Table C.2.b: How do you usually get money? (by gender)...... 59 Figure C.2: How do you usually get money? ...... 59 Table C.3.a: Opportunities for respondents to increase income (by residence) ...... 61 Table C.3.b: Opportunities for respondent to increase income (by gender) ...... 62 Figure C.3: Opportunities to increase income, 2010 and 2011...... 62 Table C.4.a: Is anything preventing you from increasing your income? (by residence) ...... 63 Table C.4.b: Is anything preventing you from increasing your income? (by gender) ...... 63 Figure C.5: Percentage of respondents starting a business in preceding 2 years...... 66 Table C.5: Have you tried to start a business in the preceding two years? ...... 66
13 Table C.6.a: Did you experience any problems starting your business? (by residence) ...... 67 Table C.6.b: Did you experience any problems starting your business? (by gender) ...... 67 Table C.7: Do you do any business now? ...... 68 Table C.8: How much can you earn in one year before you must pay tax?...... 68 Table C.9: Have you ever paid tax? ...... 69 Figure C.9: Have you ever paid tax? (2007 2011) ...... 69 Table C.10: Have you ever earned $7,800 or more in one year?...... 70 Table C.11: Do you have an account with a financial institution? ...... 71 Figure C.11: Account with any type of financial institution (2007 2009, 2011)...... 72 Table C.12.a: Where would you seek money to start a business? (by residence)...... 72 Table C.12.b: Where would respondent seek money to start a business (by gender) ...... 73 Table C.13.a: Why respondent wouldn’t apply for a bank loan (by residence) ...... 73 Table C.13.b: Why respondent wouldn’t apply for a bank loan (by gender) ...... 73 Table C.14.a: Where do you get information about growing crops? (by residence) ...... 75 Table C.14.b: Source of information about growing crops (by gender)...... 75 Table C.15: When did you last receive any agricultural information from that source? ...... 76 Figure C.16: Family member in wage job away from home (2007 2011)...... 76 Table C.17: Does this person send money to your household?...... 78 Figure D.1: How is the law and order situation in your community? (2007 2011)...... 79 Table D.1: How is the law and order situation in your community?...... 79 Figure D.2: Do you feel safe in your community? (2010 and 2011)...... 80 Table D.2: Do you feel safe in your community? ...... 80 Figure D.3: Do you feel safer in the day or at night? (2010 and 2011) ...... 81 Table D.3: Do you feel safer in the day or at night?...... 81 Figure D.4: Do you feel safe in your household? (2010 and 2011) ...... 82 Table D.4: Do you feel safe in your household?...... 82 Figure D.5: Do you feel safe in Honiara? (2010 and 2011)...... 83 Table D.5: Do you feel safe in Honiara? ...... 83 Figure D.6: Have you asked the RSIPF for help in the past year?...... 84 Table D.6: Have you asked the RSIPF for help in the past year?...... 84 Table D.7.a: What was this request for help from RSIPF for? (by residence) ...... 85 Table D.7.b: What was this request for help from RSIPF for? (by gender) ...... 85 Figure D.8: Were you satisfied with the help you received from RSIPF?...... 87 Table D.8: Were you satisfied with the help you received from RSIPF? ...... 87 Table D.9: Why weren’t you satisfied with the help received?...... 88 Figure D.10: Does the RSIPF treat people fairly and with respect? (2007 2011)...... 88 Table D.10: Does the RSIPF treat people fairly and with respect?...... 89 Figure D.11: Has RSIPF improved in the last five years? ...... 89 Table D.11: Has the RSIPF improved in the past 5 years?...... 90 Table D.12.a: What are the main causes of problems and conflict in Solomon Islands? (by residence)...... 92 Table D.12.b: What are the main causes of problems and conflict in Solomon Islands (by gender)...... 92 Figure D.12: Main causes of problems and conflict in Solomon Islands ...... 93 Figure D.13: Do you support the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands? (2007 2011)...... 94 Table D.13: Do you support the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands?...... 94 Figure D.14: Is Solomon Islands ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities?...... 95 Table D.14: Is Solomon Islands ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities? ...... 95 Figure D.15: When will it be time for RAMSI to scale back its activities? ...... 96 Table D.15: When will it be time for RAMSI to scale back its activities? ...... 96 Table E.1: What was the most significant change in your life in past year? ...... 102 Table E.2: What was the most significant change in your life in the past year? (by residence and gender) 103 Table E.3: What was the most significant change in the facilities in your community in the past year? ..... 104 Table E.4: What was the most significant change in the facilities in your community in the past year? (by residence and gender)...... 105 Table E.5: What was the most significant other change in your community in the past year?...... 106 Table E.6: What was the most significant other change in your community in the past year? (by residence and gender) ...... 107 14 Table F.1.a: What makes a good leader (by residence) ...... 109 Table F.1.b: What makes a good leader (by gender) ...... 110 Figure F.1: What makes women good leaders (2010) and what makes a good leader (2011)...... 110 Figure F.2: Do women make good leaders? (2010 and 2011)...... 111 Table F.2: Do women make good leaders? ...... 111 Table F.3: Is respondent satisfied with their national MP?...... 112 Table F.4: Are you satisfied with your provincial member or city councillor?...... 112 Figure F.4: Comparison of satisfaction with national and local government politicians, 2011 ...... 113 Table F.5: How many times has your national MP visited your community in the past year?...... 113 Figure F.5: Comparison of ‘has MP consulted with community’ (2007 2009) and ‘has MP visited community’ (2010 2011) in past year?...... 114 Table F.6: How many times has your provincial member visited in past year?...... 114 Figure F.6: How many times have your national and provincial members visited in the past year? (2011) 115 Figure F.7: Comparison of support for women in Parliament (2007 2011)...... 118 Table F.7: Should there be women in Parliament? ...... 118 Figure F.8: Should there be special reserved seats for women? (2010 and 2011) ...... 119 Table F.8: Should there be special reserved seats for women?...... 119 Table F.9.a: How is national government performance in providing basic services and improving the economy? ...... 120 Table F.9.b: How is local government performance in providing basic services and improving the economy? ...... 120 Figure F.9: Comparison of satisfaction with national and local government (2011) ...... 121 Figure F.9.a: Satisfaction with national government performance (2007 2011)...... 121 Figure F.9.b: Satisfaction with local government performance (2007 2011) ...... 122 Table F.10.a: What should government be doing more of? (by residence)...... 123 Table F.10.b: What should government be doing more of? (by gender)...... 124 Figure F.10: What should government be doing more of? (4 categories) (2011)...... 124 Table G.1: Would you report misuse of power or public money? ...... 125 Figure G.1: Would you report misuse of power or public money? (2011) ...... 126 Table G.2.a: Who would you report to? (by residence) ...... 126 Table G.2.b: Who would you report to? (by gender) ...... 127 Table G.3: Have you ever known an official was behaving incorrectly? ...... 127 Table G.4: Did you report the official’s incorrect behaviour?...... 128 Figure G.4: Comparison of percentages who ‘would report’ and ‘did report’ (2011) ...... 128 Table G.5.a: Who did you report to? (by residence)...... 129 Table G.5.b: Who did you report to? (by gender) ...... 129 Table G.6.a: Why didn't you report the incorrect behaviour you witnessed? (by residence) ...... 130 Table G.6.b: Why didn't you report the incorrect behaviour you witnessed? (by gender) ...... 130 Table H.1.a: What do you think is the main job of an MP? (by residence)...... 131 Table H.1.b: What do you think is the main job of an MP? (by gender)...... 131 Figure H.1: What is the main job of an MP? (2007 2011)...... 132 Figure H.2: Where do you get information about candidates before elections? ...... 133 Table H.2.a: Where do you get information about candidates? (by residence) ...... 133 Table H.2.b: Where do you get information about candidates? (by gender) ...... 133 Table H.3.a: Why did you choose the candidate you voted for? (by residence) ...... 135 Table H.3.b: Why did you choose the candidate you voted for? (by gender)...... 136 Figure H.3: Comparison of factors influencing male and female voters (grouped) (2011)...... 137 Figure I.1: Have you been involved in a major argument or dispute in the past year? ...... 139 Table I.1: Have you been involved in a major argument or dispute in the past year? ...... 139 Table I.2.a: Where would you seek help to resolve a major argument in your family or community? (by residence) ...... 140 Table I.2.b: Where would you seek help to resolve a major argument in your family or community? (by gender) ...... 141 Figure I.2: Source of help to resolve a major family or community argument (by residence and gender) .. 141 Table I.3: Would you expect to pay for assistance to resolve an argument in your family or community?. 142 Table I.4.a: Who would you ask to help you resolve a land dispute? (by residence) ...... 143 15 Table I.4.b: Who would you ask to help you resolve a land dispute? (by gender) ...... 144 Figure I.4: Source of help to resolve a land dispute (by residence and gender)...... 144 Table I.5: Would you expect to pay for assistance to resolve a land dispute? ...... 145 Table I.6.a: Who would you ask to help resolve a major argument with people outside your community? (by residence) ...... 146 Table I.6.b: Who would you ask to help resolve a major argument with people outside your community? (by gender) ...... 146 Figure I.6: Help to resolve a major argument with people outside community (by residence and gender) 147 Table I.7: Would you expect to pay for assistance to resolve a major argument with people dispute outside your community? ...... 148 Figure I.7: Would you expect to pay for help to resolve different types of dispute? ...... 148 Table I.8: Are you satisfied with the methods of resolving major arguments and disputes available to you? ...... 149 Figure I.8: Are you satisfied with the methods of resolving major arguments and disputes available to you? ...... 149 Table I.9.a: What would make resolution of major arguments and disputes better for you? (by residence)150 Table I.9.b: What would make resolution of major arguments and disputes better for you? (by gender).. 151 Figure I.9: Suggested improvements to traditional and modern justice...... 151 Table I.10.a: Do women help to resolve disagreements in your community? (by residence)...... 155 Table I.10.b: Do women help to resolve disagreements in your community? (by gender)...... 156 Figure I.10: Participation of women in resolution of disagreements in rural and urban areas ...... 156 Table I.11: If you needed help, would you prefer to ask a man or a woman?...... 157 Figure I.11: If you needed help, would you prefer to ask a man or a woman? (2011)...... 157 Annex One Table 1A: Rural income sources...... 161 Annex One Table 1B: Urban income sources ...... 161 Annex One Table 2A: Rural obstacles to increasing income ...... 162 Annex One Table 2B: Urban obstacles to increasing income...... 162 Annex One Table 3: Obstacles to marketing ...... 163 Annex One Table 4: Improvements to be made for marketing ...... 163 Annex One Table 5: Access and barriers to credit...... 164 Annex One Table 6: Types of taxes...... 164 Annex One Table 7: Facilities understood to be supported/strengthened by taxes ...... 165 Annex One Table 8: Problems with health services and infrastructure...... 166 Annex One Table 9: Problems with education services and related infrastructure ...... 167 Annex One Table 10: How services and infrastructure could be improved...... 168 Annex One Table 11: What do you do when you have a problem with services and infrastructure?...... 169 Annex One Table 12: Responses to problems with the performance of a government worker ...... 169 Annex One Table 13: What makes a good MP? ...... 170 Annex One Table 14: What makes a bad MP? ...... 171 Annex One Table 15: Why did people vote for their MP in the last election?...... 172 Annex One Table 16: What more should RAMSI do before leaving?...... 173 Annex One Table 17: What does the Solomon Islands Government need to do before RAMSI is ready to leave?...... 174 Annex One Table 18: What kinds of disputes do you have in your community? ...... 175 Annex One Table 19: Who deals with/solves these disputes?...... 177 Annex One Table 20: Types of disputes resolved by chiefs and churches...... 177 Annex One Table 21: What payments are made to each side and to the mediator?...... 178 Annex One Table 22: What disputes are taken to the police or court?...... 179 Annex One Table 23: Why are disputes not taken to the police or court?...... 179 Annex One Table 24: How police could be improved ...... 180
16 Introduction The 2011 People’s Survey was the fifth in a series of surveys conducted each year since 2007. The five surveys were preceded by The Pilot People’s Survey in 2006. The original purpose of the People’s Surveys was to provide quantitative and qualitative data to help monitor the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) and to provide insights for the Solomon Islands Government (SIG) and the people of Solomon Islands. Until 2010 the surveys focused on the three RAMSI pillars: Economic Governance, Machinery of Government and Law and Justice. Since then, the purpose of the survey has broadened. While still funded by RAMSI, it is now a survey about Solomon Islands. The intention now is that it should be a research and advocacy tool for all Solomon Islanders, especially for SIG policy development and civil society advocacy groups. It provides information that can be used by groups and leaders from all sectors of the Solomon Islands community. A key feature of the People’s Survey is that most of the questions are about perceptions rather than about ‘hard facts’. The findings reflect how respondents feel about local and national concerns, about their own experiences and how their own lives have been affected, or not affected, by changes. The People’s Survey thus provides insights into how economic, social and policy changes impact on the people and communities of Solomon Islands and what the people perceive as the main needs and priorities to improve their lives. The 2011 People’s Survey included more questions in the sections on ‘Access to Services and Information’, and ‘Household and Business Finances’ than in previous years. It retained substantial sections on ‘Safety’ and ‘Law and Justice’, and a shorter section on ‘Machinery of Government’. Where questions specifically on RAMSI were included, the main focus was on people’s perceptions of the underlying causes of problems in Solomon Islands, what more needs to be done before RAMSI leaves Solomon Islands and when Solomon Islands will be ready for RAMSI to leave. As in previous years, survey implementation was managed by a small team from ANU Enterprise (Canberra) that was based in Honiara during July and August. Around 80 Solomon Islanders were contracted locally to undertake the fieldwork and data entry. This report is the overarching report, comprising an overview of the survey methodology, a simple analysis of all data by province and age/gender group, an analysis of the qualitative data collected and comparisons with previous People’s Survey findings where possible.
17 Section 1: Survey Methodology The People’s Survey collected two types of data: quantitative and qualitative. The quantitative component uses a questionnaire to ask the same set of questions of a statistically representative sample of respondents. Respondents give short answers to these questions and interviewers record the answers by ticking boxes or writing a few words. The qualitative component uses discussion techniques to allow small groups or individual participants to give more expansive answers and explain events and how they feel about them. The qualitative component is not intended to be statistically representative but to provide more insights about perceptions and experiences. While there is some similarity in the topics covered, the qualitative component goes further than the questionnaire, inviting participants to raise new issues and explain processes and interactions. 1.1 Collection of Quantitative data (questionnaire based) 1.1.1 Sample Design The 2010 Review of the People’s Survey recommended that four core geographical areas should be surveyed each year Guadalcanal, Honiara, Malaita and Western Province while other provinces should be surveyed in alternate years. The 2011 survey was therefore carried out in the four core areas plus Choiseul (alternating with Central Province in 2010), Isabel (alternating with Makira/Ulawa in 2010) and Temotu (alternating with Rennell and Bellona in 2010). As in previous years, some interviews were also conducted in the settlements adjacent to the Honiara town boundary or on crown land. These settlements, some of which are well established and provided with services, are referred to as ‘Honiara Settlements’, while residential areas within the town boundary are referred to as ‘Honiara’. The sampling frame for the quantitative questionnaire was the 2009 Solomon Islands Census and the first stage of sampling was done by the Solomon Islands National Statistical Office (NSO). Enumeration Areas (EAs) were randomly selected from the census database by statistical software, with the number and size of the EAs selected for each province proportional to the size of that province. The selected EAs represented approximately 10% of the total population. The second stage of sampling was applied in the provinces and Honiara but not Honiara Settlements. The first step was to exclude EAs that had been surveyed in 2010 to avoid survey fatigue. From two to seven EAs in each province or town area were then randomly selected from the rest of the first stage listing, with the number of EAs selected proportional to the total population of the province or town area. In addition, two large Honiara settlements that had not been surveyed in 2010 were purposely selected to complete 280 questionnaires. In each selected EA, interviewers were required to interview equal numbers of the four age/gender groups: Men and Women aged 30 years and over and Young Men and Young Women aged 18 to 292. The next section of this report describes how respondents were selected within EAs. The final target sample for the quantitative survey was 5,012 questionnaires, representing around 2% of the estimated adult population in the selected provinces and town area. All teams achieved their quota except in Honiara, where one team was 32 interviews short because of a miscommunication. Eight questionnaires had to be discarded because they were only partially completed or clearly inconsistent. The final count was 4972 usable questionnaires, with a distribution approximately proportional to the estimated total population of the selected provinces. Section 1.5 below discusses how differences in the sample affect comparability of People’s Surveys over time.
2 Age/gender groups are capitalised throughout this report to distinguish findings relating to selected survey respondents from comments about men and women in general. To clearly distinguish qualitative and qualitative findings, people interviewed with the questionnaire are always referred to as ‘respondents’ while those who gave in depth interviews or joined focus group discussions (FGDs) are always referred to as ‘participants’.
18 Figure 1 shows the provincial distribution of the 2011 sample. EAs are identified by number only, as this year NSO was unable to supply a list of EA names or named maps. Figure 2 shows the age/gender group distribution and Figure 3 shows the age distribution of respondents by five year age group. Figure A.1: Provincial distribution of respondents (number)
1472
980
816
638
280 278 282 226
Figure A.2: Age/gender distribution of respondents (number) 1400 1267 1251 1239 1215 1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0 Man Woman Young Man Young Woman
19 Figure A.3: Distribution of respondents by five year age groups
1112
922
577 535
420 409 338 281 230 148
1.1.2 Selection of respondents within each EA Interview teams were given a target number of respondents to interview in each EA, comprising equal numbers from the four age/gender groups. They were instructed to ensure respondents were dispersed throughout all settlements in the EA. In all but the largest EAs in Malaita and Temotu the target was around half of the estimated actual population over 18 years in the selected EA. Allowing for absenteeism and respondents’ other commitments, in practice teams needed to interview almost every available person in those EAs. Interviewers were told that if they were unable to find sufficient numbers to meet their overall target or the age/gender distribution in the selected EA, they should proceed to the next village in the adjacent EA until they had completed their quota of interviews. All previous People’s Surveys have used the same sampling method, and, despite the use of updated population information since 2010, the provincial distribution of respondents has remained fairly constant. Map One shows the distribution of the EAs selected for the 2010 survey.
20 Map One Key: Sample Distribution by Enumeration Area (EA) Province/EA number Location Surveyed respondents CHOISEUL 1 10706 West of Taro 140 2 10802 East of Taro 140 WESTERN 3 21505 West of Munda 136 4 21702 East of Munda 136 5 22103 North of Seghe 136 6 22204 Near Seghe 136 7 22301 West of Chea 136 8 22405 East of Chea 136
ISABEL 9 30902 South Isabel, near Buala 140 10 31104 Southern Isabel 142 GUADALCANAL 11 60209 North western, Guadalcanal 326 12 61202 South eastern, Guadalcanal 163 Province/EA number Location Surveyed respondents 13 61608 East Guadalcanal, near Adeade 164 14 61506 East Guadalcanal, near Rere 163 15 62004 East Guadalcanal, near Tenaru 163 HONIARA 16 100512 Koahill 222 17 100804 Tanuli 222 18 100825 West Kola 194 HONIARA SETTLEMENTS 101209 Gilbert Camp 140 101222 Fulisango 139 MALAITA 19 71706 East Malaita, near Foundare 368 20 72106 Northern Small Malaita 184 21 72209 Southern Small Malaita 184 22 72401 South of Hauporo 184 23 72507 Near Hauporo 184 24 72807 South of Auki 184 25 72908 Near Auki 184 TEMOTU 26 91204 South east Lata 113
27 91701 North west Lata 113 Total sample 4972
21
Map One: Surveyed Enumeration Areas (EAs) 1
9 3 4 10 5 6 7 8 19 25
24
11 23 16, 17, 18 20 15 22 14 21 13
12
TEMOTU 26 & 27 Scale 1:3,200,000 (approx.)
1.1.3 Survey instruments The main survey instrument for the quantitative components of the survey was a 19 page questionnaire (see Annex Three). The questionnaire was based on that used in 2010 and revised to reflect current concerns and increase comparability with previous years. The Survey Director met with SIG and RAMSI personnel from key government departments and representatives of the World Bank Rural Development and Justice for the Poor Programs. The draft questionnaire was revised in light of these meetings, and was then circulated to these stakeholders for comment. The draft questionnaire was then adjusted in response to comments and then given to a translator for translation into Solomon Islands Pijin before pilot testing. The questionnaire was divided into nine sections: Section A: Background Information (6 questions) Section B: Access to Services and Information (17 questions Section C: Household and Business Finances (17 questions) Section D: Safety (15 questions) Section E: Most Significant Change (6 questions) Section F: Leadership (10 questions) Section G: Accountability (6 questions) Section H: Elections (3 questions) Section I: Resolution of disputes (11 questions) 1.1.4 Pilot testing and refinement of the questionnaire Four experienced interviewers were familiarised with the new questionnaire and type of data required by each question, then sent into the field to conduct test interviews with respondents in each of the four age/gender groups. After pilot testing, the Survey Director reviewed the completed interviews and debriefed the pilot interviewers. Generally the draft questions proved satisfactory, needing only a few small changes to remove possible ambiguities. The draft bilingual questionnaire was then revised and laid out for printing, before being submitted to RAMSI for final approval. 1.1.5 Recruitment of interviewers and facilitators As in 2010, interviewers were recruited by advertisement in the media. Around 350 people applied to work as interviewers. Applicants were short listed on the basis of experience and then tested for aptitude. Selected applicants needed to have census or survey experience and be able and willing to undertake fieldwork. They were also required to have the right combination of age/gender and provincial experience to fit into survey teams. Approximately 120 applicants were short listed and, after testing, 80 were selected for training. 1.1.6 Interviewer training Interviewers were trained in two batches, the first comprising 21 males and 23 females and the second comprising 22 males and 18 females. These numbers included a few reserves to allow for drop outs and those who could not pass in class tests during training. Each batch of training spanned approximately four days, with an additional day for deployment of teams. The training was based on a comprehensive manual, which interviewers were able to take to the field as a reference. Emphasis was placed on understanding the questions and code boxes, fluency in reading the Pijin translations of questions, practice of good interview technique and correct completion of practice questionnaires. Training strategies included familiarisation with the questionnaire, using role play to demonstrate good and bad ways of making an initial approach to communities, and practice interviewing by reading out questions to respondents and writing their answers. Trainees were taught that all questions must be asked as open questions in face to face interviews, and respondents could give any answer they chose. Answers were to be recorded by ticking a relevant coding box, where possible, or writing the answer in full so it could be coded later during data processing. There were several in class tests to assess how much was being absorbed by trainees and to help with the selection of interview teams.
23 There was a high level of engagement during training, with trainees studying the questionnaire closely and asking many questions. Experienced interviewers also acted as tutors and evaluators. They advised other trainees on the conditions and situations they were likely to encounter during fieldwork and helped to supervise practice sessions. Trainees were also briefed on field procedures and etiquette, health risks including HIV/AIDS, and correct conduct during fieldwork. When training was complete, the trainees were ranked according to their test results and their demonstrated aptitude for interviewing. Teams were then formed, each comprising two men to interview Men and Young Men, and two women to interview Women and Young Women. The gender of the interviewers always matched the respondent they were to interview. Their age group also matched as closely as possible. On the basis of their performance during training and demonstrated personal qualities, one member of each team was made responsible for finances in the field and for making initial contact with target communities. Another was made responsible for checking the work of other team members. Approximately equal numbers of males and females were selected for these responsible positions, which carried an additional salary loading. The number of teams needed for each target area varied according to accessibility and the estimated time needed to complete the required number of interviews. Trainees who had not been selected for teams were placed on standby to serve as replacements should any team members be unable to complete their work. 1.1.7 Fieldwork Teams of interviewers were equipped and deployed to their target areas as soon after training as transport could be arranged. Equipment included sufficient questionnaires to cover the target population, pens, clipboards, plastic bags and tape, backpacks, raincoats, torches and a first aid kit. Each team was provided with a ticket for their main travel, a per diem advance to cover the number of days they were expected to be in the field, and contingency funds for local travel such as boat hire. For some teams the main travel was by plane, for others passenger boat or truck. Most used small boats and/or truck transport for local travel within their target areas. Interviewer teams spent from two to four weeks in the field. 1.1.8 Data processing The media advertisements had called for applicants for data processing as well as interviewing positions. Around 35 people sought employment as data entry operators. All applicants were tested and six, plus one reserve, were selected. The Survey Director designed a Microsoft Excel data entry template that incorporated range checking macros. Two experienced coders, who had helped to code previous People’s Surveys, checked each questionnaire and coded any open ended answers. A coding sheet was developed by the Survey Director in collaboration with the coders and extra codes were added as necessary when new responses were found. The data entry team was first trained in the use of the data entry template, and then worked in a supervised computer room to enter completed questionnaires. Quality control was maintained by the interactive data entry template, which would not accept out of range values, and by core team members who carried out spot checks on data entry. The data were also checked electronically for consistency by the Survey Director. Any errors found were checked against the questionnaires. 1.1.9 Data cleaning, analysis and report preparation When all questionnaires had been entered, the dataset was re checked and cleaned by the Survey Director. Frequency distributions and tabulations were prepared by the Survey Director using the analytical statistical software package IBM SPSS Statistics 19. 1.2 Qualitative data collection and processing 1.2.1 Sample design The 2011 survey collected qualitative data through group discussions (focus group discussions [FGDs], and large group discussions [LGDs]) and interviews (semi structured interviews [SSIs] and informal interviews [IFIs] in Honiara and in Guadalcanal, Isabel, Malaita, Temotu and Western Provinces.
24 The qualitative component (QL) used purposive sampling. The aim was to have at least two locations and two participants (but often more) in each area for triangulation and comparison. In Honiara, three residential areas and three settlements east, central and west of the city were chosen by the QL research team. Outside Honiara, a total of 15 bush and 18 coastal locations were visited by the QL survey facilitators. In each of the five provinces, two locations were chosen to represent bush areas and coastal areas; the latter included provincial centres and sub centres, where government services, businesses, and infrastructure could be expected to operate. A total of 54 FGDs and 20 LGDs were held. As in previous surveys, discussions with groups of government and business representatives in Honiara proved difficult to coordinate. These people are often busy or have other commitments. It was possible to organise FGDs, defined as a discussion with 6 12 people, with the Police, and with staff in the Leadership Code Commission and Parliamentary Library. The QL survey team therefore conducted more interviews with individuals and pairs of participants from government departments, business, NGOs and members of the public. Fifty four SSIs (38 in Honiara) were based on the question guide or similar questions with responses noted down during the interview. Interviews were also recorded if the respondent gave their permission. Twenty three IFIs were also held, mostly in Honiara. IFIs were usually conversations where the responses were recalled and noted down afterwards. While less reliable in terms of the quantity and quality of data recorded, informal interviews allowed for information from brief, spontaneous, or public conversations to be captured, particularly where note taking would have been too obtrusive or might deter informants. When possible, topics were discussed by separate gender and age groups, but this often proved difficult in the field. LGDs were held in communities where numbers were limited to 12 or separating men and women, young men and young women from their elders was difficult or would create disappointment. Most discussions and interviews were with men and woman aged 30 years and above rather than youth as the facilitators found it difficult or impractical to separate people aged 18 to 30 years from their elders. Facilitators also found it harder to engage with or obtain meaningful responses from younger people on some of the economic and governance topics. Initially, it was intended that FGDs would be held with separate groups of Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women participants, but field teams reported that in many communities large meetings were called and these contained participants from all four groups. In other communities separate FGDs were held. Teams have therefore reported two categories of FGDs: LGDs and separate, gender specific FGDs. IFIs and SSIs were held in all areas. The areas visited by the QL teams were: Guadalcanal Inland: Ao, Komukama, Luluga, Magia, Paokalia Coastal: Bebe, Bulokalae, Kobito, Mbalo Honiara Residential: Koloale, Tuvuruhu, Gwaimaoa Settlement: Burns Creek, Mamana Water, Karina Isabel Provincial centre: Buala Inland: Ghuguha, Gnulahage, Kolosori Coastal: Jejevo, Kubolota, Maglau, Nareabu Malaita Provincial centre: Auki Sub centre: Afio Inland: California, Fausadio, Gwe’ano, Siubongi Coastal: Daolusu, Oibola (Langalanga Lagoon), Koropua (South Malaita) Temotu Provincial centre: Lata Inland: Noli, Noipe (Nende) Coastal: Luava, Malo, Neo, Wea (Nende) Western Sub centre: Munda, Seghe Coastal: Biche, Kavolavata, Peava (Marovo Lagoon)
25 1.2.2 Survey Instruments Topics for the qualitative survey were agreed in advance with SIG and RAMSI personnel. Question topics were developed, tested and refined by the Survey Manager and facilitators during training. The draft guide sheet comprised around 20 key questions (plus prompts) on the agreed aspects of Law and Justice, Machinery of Government and Economic Governance. Pilot testing in Guadalcanal field sites showed that it would take too long to ask all questions of any one group or individual, so the guide questions were grouped into two sets: Law and Justice and Economic Government. Both groups included some questions on Machinery of Government and RAMSI. The questions used on the guides are listed in Annex Two. 1.2.3 Selection and training of facilitators Effective FGD facilitation is a highly specialised activity and requires special skills. Experienced facilitators of the right age and gender who had already worked on other surveys were recruited by word of mouth. Ten facilitators (six women and four men), eight of whom had experience in surveys and evaluation, were recruited and received orientation and training over three days, followed by a day of pilot testing the question guides. Facilitators learned how to refine questions and question guides, to facilitate discussions and conduct interviews effectively, to use different methods (semi structured and informal interviews, group discussions, World Cafe3, memos) and how to record QL data accurately. They were also briefed on health risks, ethics, field etiquette and teamwork. In conjunction with the QL Survey Manager, they planned the field sites and organised their logistics in teams of three people. Each team included both men and women, and an experienced team leader. 1. 2.4 Qualitative survey fieldwork After training, teams were deployed to the field, taking it in turns to spend a week in Honiara with the QL Survey Manager to conduct interviews, discussions, and to type up notes. Almost all discussions and interviews were conducted in Pijin. All participants were given a verbal and written explanation of the survey prior to interviews and discussions. Participants gave their informed consent and were guaranteed anonymity, unless they expressly gave their consent for their name to be used. Facilitators and note takers wrote down responses and digitally recorded interviews and discussions if participants gave their permission and if acoustics were suitable. 1.2.5 Qualitative data processing After completing each FGD, the FGD facilitator and the note taker translated and transcribed their notes. On their return to Honiara team members were debriefed, then spent time expanding and typing up their notes. Three facilitators had to leave early but the remaining seven spent seven more days typing up notes, expanding them, adding contextual information and giving data items unique identifier codes so they could be consolidated for analysis. Facilitators then used the World Cafe technique to summarise their own data and produce summary displays, which they presented and discussed with members of the QN survey team. The QL survey process in country took six weeks in all. The FGD transcripts were reviewed, categorised and analysed by the Survey Manager using Microsoft Excel spreadsheets and NVivo analysis software, and key themes were identified. The Survey Manager (data collection) and Survey Manager (analysis) wrote up the results so they could be integrated with the quantitative analysis. 1.3 Contribution of the People’s Survey to capacity building The People’s Survey is a substantial exercise. Between 80 and 100 people are employed to work on the People’s Survey in Solomon Islands each year and around 5,000 respond to the survey questionnaire or
3 World Cafe is a qualitative technique for identifying key themes and ideas. Initially participants form small groups to identify key themes and ideas. Each small group then reports on its discussions and recurring themes and ideas are identified and consolidated in a large group discussion of all participants. Full details can be found at http:// www.theworldcafe.com/method.html.
26 participate in FGDs. The People’s Survey is unlike any other large survey conducted in Solomon Islands in that it asks respondents for their opinions and evaluation of conditions rather than simple facts. Even people with prior interviewing experience need in depth training in the special nature of the survey, and special interviewing techniques are required to obtain unbiased data. Some of the many ways in which the People’s Survey builds capacity include the following: Interviewers Interviewers include retired and retrenched workers, Solomon Islands College of Higher Education (SICHE) and University of the South Pacific (USP) students, and other men and women who are not currently in fulltime work. Equal numbers of men and women are employed. Interviewers receive a week of intensive training followed by up to a month of fieldwork. This builds skills in reading and comprehension, interacting with the public, interpretation of body language, record keeping, self confidence and resourcefulness. A key part of training is learning to ask questions without influencing respondents’ answers. In 2011 around 60 % of those employed had worked with the People’s Survey in previous years, with the balance being newly selected. A substantial proportion of those employed in 2011 have been employed to work on other surveys after receiving People’s Survey training. Others who have worked on previous People’s Surveys have found full time employment elsewhere, with NGOs or in the public or private sector. FGD facilitators The People’s Survey has recruited and trained facilitators to a level where they have advanced facilitation skills, as well as skills in translation and keyboard work. Several members of this group have worked on from three to five People’s Surveys. One won a competitive international scholarship and several others have obtained full time work following their People’s Survey experience. Respondents and FGD participants Many Solomon Islanders, especially in rural areas, have not been accustomed to evaluating and commenting on current affairs. In traditional society women and young people were rarely given an opportunity to express opinions about affairs outside their immediate family and were often poorly informed. The People’s Survey provides an opportunity for respondents and participants to speak out on community issues. It is notable how readily all age/gender groups have taken up this opportunity. The People’s Survey has never found evidence that the traditionally less vocal groups have not wanted or not been able to express their opinions. Moreover, comparison of survey data over time show that as awareness of the People’s Survey increases there is a growing willingness in communities to express definite opinions, with fewer ‘don’t know’ responses. Data entry staff Each year the People’s Survey trains a small group of people in the special skills needed to enter data into computerised templates. Some have prior experience with the National Statistics Office (NSO) while others are SICHE or USP students or have office experience. Several have returned in successive years, while others have gone on to full time office work following this computing experience. Five out of the six data entry staff appointed in 2011 were new appointments recruited by advertisement and testing. Their performance was exceptional, with a high level of accuracy, speed, a good understanding of their task and enthusiasm to undertake further work with data. Technical capacity in survey research and data management The NSO already has a high level of expertise and experience in survey research and data management as well as a full program of implementing surveys and censuses. NSO has designed the People’s Survey samples since 2007 and has provided advice and assistance with logistics in each year of the survey. Limited staff numbers and heavy commitments to other large projects have so far prevented NSO’s involvement in the day to day implementation, management and analysis of the People’s Survey. In 2011 the NSO delegated one officer to observe some aspects of the People’s Survey including some of the QL and quantitative training, but he was able to attend only a few training sessions and did not observe
27 deployment, fieldwork or data processing. The feasibility of extending the NSO’s role as a partner in future People’s Surveys will depend on workloads and staff availability. 1.4 How to interpret data and tables This report presents the findings of the quantitative and QL surveys in the form of tabulations of responses, commentary and quotes from FGDs and in depth interviews. When reading the tables it is important to keep in mind that multiple choice questions are not used in the People’s Survey. All questions in the questionnaire are asked by interviewers as open questions in face to face interviews. Respondents are free to give any answer they choose. Interviewers record answers by ticking a relevant pre coded box if available, or writing the answer in full so it can be coded later. Interviewers and facilitators never provide any information on the topics covered, e.g. they do not explain the mandate of RAMSI or the role of courts. If respondents request information, explanations can only be provided after the questionnaire or discussion has been completed. Interviewers and facilitators never correct respondents or participants who say things they know are incorrect. All answers are thus spontaneous responses without the influence of any suggestions or information from interviewers or facilitators. Each year the People’s Survey is carried out in four main areas plus a rotating selection of smaller provinces. Within each area or province the EAs selected for interview also differ from year to year. The relatively large number of respondents who complete the questionnaire and the random selection of EAs mean that the findings at the whole of survey and provincial levels can be compared with previous People’s Surveys findings for the same provinces. The findings should not be treated as nationally representative because sample rotation could potentially account for up to 15% of any differences at the whole of survey level. In practice, however, there has been only small percentage differences at the whole of survey level for most questions, regardless of the provinces selected in any particular year. This suggests that, for the topics surveyed, this method of sampling captures most of the variation in Solomon Islands. The report follows the order of questions in the questionnaire, and all sections, tables and figures are numbered to reflect the questionnaire. Except where questions yield large numbers of responses, the overall percentages for the sample as a whole (i.e. the last line of each table) are shown in the form of a bar chart with the same number as the source table. Where the same questions have been asked in previous years these charts also show comparisons with those years or with other closely related questions. All bar charts are colour coded. Various shades of yellow are used for the 2011 data and other years are always represented by the same colour (2007=purple, 2008=red, 2009=green, 2010=blue). A hollow (white) bar is used where the questions asked were similar but are not exactly comparable. Most tables show only valid responses, with ‘no answer’ and ‘don’t know’ excluded, except where these answers are of interest or comprise more than a few cases. Tables are generally based only on valid responses, and the number of cases may vary slightly. Where questions follow filter questions, the number of cases may be substantially fewer than the total useable sample size of 4,972. ‘Not specified’ is usually included because it means the respondent has given a definite answer but with insufficient detail to be allocated to another category. Findings from the FGDs are interspersed in the appropriate sections. Generally the QL findings are presented as discussion and quotes and not quantified in the text. Annex One provides a tabulation of the QL data showing how many participants gave each response. This quantification must be used with care, however, as QL research is not intended to be statistically representative and Annex One does not reflect national or provincial distributions.
28 Section A: Respondents’ characteristics The first questions in the survey relating to age, gender and usual place of residence are used to refine interviewers’ classification of respondents into age/gender groups and province. The final distribution between province and age groups is shown in Figures A.1 to A.3 above. The remaining questions in Section A of the questionnaire relate to respondents’ education. Figure A.4 shows that by far the majority of respondents had attended primary school for at least five years (80%). Most respondents actually had six years of primary education, implying that they probably completed primary school. Table A.4 shows that respondents in Choiseul were most likely to have five years or more of primary education, followed closely by respondents in Western (both 91%). Respondents in Isabel and Malaita were most likely to have no education (both 12%), while respondents in Choiseul were least likely (2%). Young Men were more likely than other age/gender groups to have five years or more of education (88%) while Women aged 30+ were most likely to have no education (15%). However, Young Women were only a little less likely than Young Men to have five years or more of primary schooling (87%). Figure A.4: Years of primary education 100 90 80 70 n=4972 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 None 1 4 yrs 5+ yrs
29 Table A.4: Years of primary education None 1 4 yrs 5+ yrs (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 1.8 7.1 91.1 280 Guadalcanal 5.9 14.9 79.2 980 Honiara 3.9 14.6 81.5 638 Honiara Settlements 6.8 11.5 81.7 278 Isabel 12.4 13.8 73.8 282 Malaita 11.9 14.6 73.5 1472 Temotu 5.8 10.6 83.6 226 Western 3.8 5.5 90.7 816
Age/gender group Man 7.4 11.3 81.3 1267 Woman 14.8 19.9 65.3 1251 Young Man 3.8 8.2 88.0 1239 Young Woman 2.9 9.9 87.2 1215 All respondents 7.3 12.3 80.4 4972 Figure A.5 shows that, in contrast to the high levels of primary education, more than half of respondents had not received any secondary education (53%), while 28% had from one to three years of secondary education and 19% had four years or more. Figure A.5: Years of secondary education 100 90 80 n=4972 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 None 1 3yrs 4+ yrs Table A.5 shows that respondents in Choiseul were most likely to have no secondary education, even though Table A.4 showed they were most likely to have six years of primary schooling. Respondents in Honiara and Honiara Settlements were most likely to have four years or more of secondary education (33% and 32%).
30 Of the age/gender groups, Young Men were most likely to have four years or more of secondary education (30%), but Young Women were more likely than Men and Women aged 30 or more (24%). Table A.5: Years of secondary education None 1 3yrs 4+ yrs % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 62.9 27.9 9.3 280 Guadalcanal 57.2 30.0 12.8 980 Honiara 42.8 24.1 33.1 638 Honiara Settlements 45.3 22.7 32.0 278 Isabel 56.0 30.5 13.5 282 Malaita 57.2 27.5 15.3 1472 Temotu 41.2 34.5 24.3 226 Western 48.2 30.6 21.2 816 Age/gender group Man 62.0 23.1 14.9 1267 Woman 71.0 21.6 7.4 1251 Young Man 36.5 33.4 30.1 1239 Young Woman 40.9 35.5 23.6 1215 All respondents 52.7 28.3 18.9 4972 Figure A.6 shows that less than 10 % of respondents had any formal post secondary education. Figure A.6: Years of post secondary education 100
90 80 n=4972 70 60 % 50 40
30 20 10
0 None 1 3 yrs 4+ yrs Table A.6 shows that respondents in Honiara Settlements (15%) and Honiara (14%) were most likely to have from one to three years of post secondary education. Respondents in Honiara and Western were most likely to have four years or more (both 1%). Young Men (11%) and Men (9%) were most likely to have one to three
31 years of post secondary education, while the percentage for Young Women (8%) was closer to that for Women (6%). Table A.6: Years of post secondary education None 1 3 yrs 4+ yrs % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 96.1 3.9 0.0 280 Guadalcanal 93.4 6.4 0.2 980 Honiara 84.3 14.3 1.4 638 Honiara Settlements 84.5 15.1 0.4 278 Isabel 94.3 5.0 0.7 282 Malaita 91.2 8.2 0.6 1472 Temotu 92.9 6.2 0.9 226 Western 90.8 8.0 1.2 816 Age/gender group Man 89.7 9.2 1.1 1267 Woman 93.0 6.3 0.7 1251 Young Man 88.6 10.6 0.8 1239 Young Woman 92.2 7.7 0.2 1215 All respondents 90.8 8.4 0.7 4972 Figure A.7 shows the average total number of years of education for all respondents. Highest were Honiara and Honiara Settlements (8.1 years), followed by Temotu and Western (7.7 years). The average was lowest in Isabel (6.4 years) and Malaita (6.5 years). Young Men had the highest average years of education (8.2 years) and Women the lowest (5.6 years).
32 Figure A.7: Average years of education by province and age/gender group (2011) 10.0 9.0 n=4972 8.0
7.0
Yrs 6.0 5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0 1.0
.0
Figure A.8: Comparison of average years of education (all respondents, 2008 2011) 8
7
6
5
Years 4
3
2
1
0 2008 2009 2010 2011
33 Section B: Access to Services and Communications Access to health services Figure B.1 shows the time needed to travel from the respondent’s community to the nearest health facility. Responses are expressed only as time, regardless of the usual method of travel. Overall 67% reported having a health facility in their community or being able to reach one in less than one hour, and a further 29% could reach a health facility in one to two hours. The remaining 4% needed half a day or more to travel to a health facility; of these only nine respondents reported needing more than half a day. Reported access times were significantly shorter in 2011, but it must be remembered that the provinces, EAs and respondents selected vary between surveys (see Section 1.2.1). Figure B.1: Time taken to reach nearest health facility (2007 2011) 100
90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2010 % 50 2011 40
30
20
10
0 Same < 1 hour 1 4 hours Half a day + community Table B.1 shows that respondents in Temotu were most likely to have a health facility in their own community or accessible within an hour (96%), followed by Honiara and Honiara settlements (around 90%) and Western (85%). Respondents in Guadalcanal had least access, with only 35% able to reach a health facility within one hour and 62% needing one to two hours. Respondents in Malaita were most likely to report half a day or more (9%). There were no marked differences by gender, although Men and Young Men were more likely to estimate half a day or more, whereas Table B.2 below shows that they were less likely to have visited a health facility recently.
34 Table B.1: Time from respondent’s community to the nearest health facility Same < I hour 1 2 hours Half day community or more % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 3.9 58.2 35.7 2.1 280 Guadalcanal 5.3 30.1 61.8 2.8 976 Honiara 2.2 88.4 9.4 0.0 636 Honiara Settlements 3.2 88.8 7.6 0.4 278 Isabel 23.0 43.6 25.5 7.8 282 Malaita 11.7 47.5 32.1 8.7 1467 Temotu 43.1 52.9 4.0 0.0 225 Western 9.8 75.1 13.7 1.3 815 Age/gender group Man 11.5 56.5 26.3 5.8 1264 Woman 10.3 54.4 31.8 3.4 1249 Young Man 9.3 59.8 25.2 5.7 1236 Young Woman 9.1 56.5 33.6 0.7 1210 All respondents 10.1 56.8 29.2 3.9 4959 Don’t know = 13 respondents All respondents were asked if they had visited a health facility in the past year. Figure B.2 shows small variations but no marked differences between successive People’s Surveys. Table B.2 shows lower percentages of Honiara residents visiting a health facility, which probably signifies better access to pharmacies and more knowledge of how to treat and manage minor conditions. Figure B.2: Has respondent visited a health facility in the past year? 100
90 2007 2008 80 2009 70 2010 60 2011 % 50
40
30
20
10
0 No Yes
35 Table B.2: Has respondent visited a health facility in the past year? Yes No (No.) % % Province Choiseul 79.6 20.4 280 Guadalcanal 74.7 25.3 979 Honiara 61.3 38.7 638 Honiara Settlements 64.4 35.6 278 Isabel 69.9 30.1 282 Malaita 69.6 30.4 1472 Temotu 71.2 28.8 226 Western 76.7 23.3 816
Age/gender group Man 71.6 28.4 1267 Woman 79.4 20.6 1251 Young Man 60.9 39.1 1239 Young Woman 72.3 27.7 1214 All respondents 71.1 28.9 4971 No answer = 1 case Figure B.3 shows that 58% of respondents who had visited a health facility in the preceding year were satisfied with the services they received. There is limited comparability with the 2010 People’s Survey, which asked only about satisfaction with staff skills; nonetheless, Figure B.3 shows that satisfaction with health services was higher in 2011 than in any previous year. Figure B.3: Were you satisfied with the health services you received? 100
90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2010 % 50 2011 40
30
20
10 0 Yes Sometimes No Note: 2010 data are not exactly comparable (see text)
36 Table B.3 shows that respondents in Choiseul (72%) and Malaita (68%) were most likely and respondents in Isabel (45%) least likely to say they were satisfied with health services received. Compared with other age/gender groups, Young Men were least likely to say they were satisfied. Table B.3: Was respondent satisfied with health services received? Yes Sometimes No (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 71.7 17.0 11.2 223 Guadalcanal 50.2 33.8 16.0 725 Honiara 52.7 26.5 20.8 389 Honiara Settlements 49.4 33.0 17.6 176 Isabel 44.7 20.3 35.0 197 Malaita 68.3 19.8 11.8 1014 Temotu 58.4 23.6 18.0 161 Western 54.7 34.5 10.8 623
Age/gender group 54.1 31.5 14.4 905 Man 58.5 27.0 14.6 987 Woman 46.5 30.9 22.6 752 Young Man 71.2 17.9 10.9 864 Young Woman All respondents 57.9 26.7 15.3 3508 There is limited comparability with previous surveys because the 2010 People’s Survey asked only about respondents’ satisfaction with the skills of medical staff and the 2007 2009 People’s Surveys allowed only one response per respondent. Nonetheless, the problems mentioned in Figure B.4 and their relative frequency in 2011 was roughly the same as in previous years. Figure B.4 Problems with health services received 100 90 80 70 n=1473 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0
Note: Multiple response chart. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
37 Access to primary education Figure B.5 shows that access to primary schools as reported by People’s Surveys has tended to improve over time, although this could be partly due to differences in the choice of EAs. Overall, 83% of 2011 respondents lived within an hour of a primary school. Most of the remainder could reach one in less than two hours. Seven respondents claimed to live more than half a day from a primary school. Figure B.5: Time taken to reach nearest primary school 100 90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 % 50 2010 40 2011 30 20 10 0 Same < 1 hour 1 2 hours Up to half a day community Table B.5 shows that, as for health facilities, respondents in Guadalcanal were most likely to report long travelling times, while travelling times tended to be shortest in Temotu, Honiara and Western. There was almost no difference between age/gender grouping percentages reporting primary schools in the same community, while other small differences could be due to different levels of knowledge of how long it takes children to get to school.
38 Table B.5: Time taken to reach nearest primary school Same < I hour 1 2 hours Half day % % % % (No ) Province Choiseul 32.1 52.1 13.6 2.1 280 Guadalcanal 6.9 55.6 37.5 0.1 977 Honiara 14.4 83.2 2.4 0.0 637 Honiara Settlements 16.5 83.5 0.0 0.0 278 Isabel 23.0 45.0 25.9 6.0 282 Malaita 28.3 52.3 19.3 0.1 1460 Temotu 63.7 34.1 2.2 0.0 226 Western 24.8 69.1 4.9 1.2 815
Age/gender group Man 22.2 59.4 17.8 0.6 1261 Woman 23.0 61.4 15.1 0.5 1250 Young Man 22.5 62.1 14.4 1.0 1233 Young Woman 22.6 57.7 18.9 0.7 1211 All respondents 22.6 60.2 16.5 0.7 4955 Don’t know = 17 respondents Respondents were asked how many of their children were currently enrolled in a primary school, and 41% had at least one child enrolled Figure B.6 shows that while half had only one child at school, substantial percentages had two or more children attending a primary school. Figure B.6: Number of children attending primary school 100
90
80 n=2034 70
60 % 50
40
30
20 10
0 123456 Table B.7 shows that 53% of all respondents with children attending primary school were satisfied with the school and 25% said they were partially satisfied. Reports of satisfaction were most likely in Honiara Settlements (61%), Western (59%) and Malaita (58%). Least likely to be satisfied were respondents in Choiseul
39 (34%) and Isabel (33%). Young Men were less likely than other age/gender groups to say they were always satisfied, but were similar to Men and Women in the percentages saying they were definitely not satisfied. Table B.7: Satisfaction with children’s primary school Yes Sometimes No (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 37.9 28.4 33.6 116 Guadalcanal 43.5 34.3 22.2 379 Honiara 52.5 21.8 25.7 257 Honiara Settlements 61.1 27.4 11.5 113 Isabel 45.7 21.0 33.3 105 Malaita 58.1 19.2 22.8 589 Temotu 52.2 18.9 28.9 90 Western 59.0 26.9 14.1 368
Age/gender group Man 53.0 23.9 23.1 707 Woman 54.8 22.5 22.7 726 Young Man 34.1 42.3 23.6 246 Young Woman 62.1 19.2 18.6 338 All respondents 52.9 24.8 22.3 2017 Figure B.8 shows the problems reported by the 22% of respondents who were not satisfied with their children’s primary school. While the most commonly reported problems related to teachers, there were as many reported problems with buildings or resources, access or cost, or management. In 2010, when respondents were asked only about teachers’ attendance, 38% said the teacher was often absent. Figure B.8: Problems with children’s primary school 100 90 80 n = 956 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Problem with Problem with Problem with Management Low standard teachers building access /cost problems of education /resources Note: Multiple response chart. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. 40 FGD participants reported that the lack of health clinics and schools are major problems. Most of this physical infrastructure is in poor condition or non existent. Village people are resigned to this situation and said they feel helpless and powerless. In east Guadalcanal FGD participants reported that there is a lack of clinics, or that clinics have been closed. Consequently, people cannot obtain medication. Remote communities have poor road access, poor water supplies and inadequate schools. There is a major problem in the long distances to the nearest schools, as this makes it almost impossible for children to access them. Other problems mentioned included the lack of a proper water supply at schools and clinics, poor staff housing for teachers at local schools, not enough school equipment and no boarding facilities at the larger coastal schools. FGD participants were asked what they would do if they had major problems with the performance of a school teacher or a health care worker. This question was considered important because there were reported high rates of teacher and nurse absenteeism in communities. One community said their teacher had been absent for 34 consecutive days. Most communities visited in east Guadalcanal had clinic and school committees and even parent/teacher groups. Guadalcanal participants stated that they reported under performing teachers and nurses to the relevant committees. People understand this is the way to discipline teachers and nurses who are often absent or who perform poorly. Coastal communities in east Guadalcanal also reported that they could approach the local village committee, chiefs or even provincial authorities about underperformance, but they remarked that little is achieved by doing this. Participants felt frustrated by the lack of action of provincial and national government departments when concerns are raised with them. They also fear retaliation by officials and want the role of the chiefs and elders to be strengthened. Generally rural participants felt neglected and intimidated. As a result, they prefer to remain quiet to avoid any disagreement or provoking the anger of a public servant who has status in the community and access to resources not available to others. ‘Some of the teachers are really bad; they eat money.’ (i.e. use school funds for their own purposes) (Women, Rural Guadalcanal) Villagers in Isabel Province said ‘Illiterate people aren’t able to deal with problems and can’t take them further’. They know they are handicapped by location, education and language. Teachers and nurses are educated and linked to public service colleagues. While unproductive or absentee teachers and nurses can be reported to local clinic and school committees, these committees are largely composed of villagers who lack confidence and experience in dealing with officialdom. There are many problems with untrained teachers in rural schools and teacher absenteeism is high. People are naturally reluctant to complain to senior officials and access to senior officials is difficult, both physically and socially. Village participants said they are also ignored by their elected representatives and have few options to advance their concerns. Access to transport Figure B.9 shows types of transport ever used by respondents. Small boat was the most common form of transport (mentioned by 64% of respondents). Forty one per cent said they use road transport, and 26% mentioned large boats. Three per cent said they never use any form of transport.
41 Figure B.9: Types of transport used 100 90 80 n=4972 70
60 % 50 40 30
20 10 0 Road Small Large Air Other Don't use boat boat Note: Multiple response chart. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent Table B.9 reflects marked differences between provinces in the extent of the road network. Small boat was the most common form of transport in every surveyed area except Honiara. The percentages using road transport were as small as 4% in north Choiseul and 1% in southern Isabel, where there are few roads. Although the other surveyed provinces have a skeleton road network, all reported higher percentages using small boats than road transport. Large boats (for freight and inter island travel) were especially important for respondents in Guadalcanal (56%). Air transport was reported by less than 2% of respondents in Western and Guadalcanal, although their use of air transport was the highest nationally. In Temotu, 12% of respondents said they never use transport, contrasting with less than 1% in Honiara and Western. The pattern by age/gender group shows that Women are most likely to use road transport (47% compared with 40% or less for other groups). Women were also most likely to use large boats, but least likely to use air transport. Men were most likely to say they never use transport. The 2010 transport questions related only to transport for business activities so cannot be compared with the 2011 data.
42 Table B.9: Types of transport used Small Don't use Road Large boat Air Other boat transport (No.) % % % % % % Province Choiseul 3.9 92.1 22.1 0.4 0.0 3.9 280 Guadalcanal 39.0 61.0 56.2 1.4 0.3 1.2 980 Honiara 98.4 1.3 3.0 0.2 0.2 0.9 638 Honiara Settlements 83.5 13.7 7.9 0.0 0.4 3.2 278 Isabel 1.1 95.0 28.4 0.7 0.0 3.5 282 Malaita 36.1 71.1 23.2 0.1 0.3 4.8 1472 Temotu 17.7 78.3 4.9 0.4 0.0 11.9 226 Western 28.1 96.1 27.3 1.5 0.5 0.5 816 Age/gender group Man 40.4 63.3 25.9 1.1 0.4 3.7 1267 Woman 46.8 60.8 29.1 0.2 0.3 1.4 1251 Young Man 39.4 67.7 26.0 0.5 0.3 3.4 1239 Young Woman 38.8 64.0 24.3 0.7 0.1 3.5 1215 Number of respondents 41.4 63.9 26.3 0.6 0.3 3.0 4972 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Figure B.10 shows how respondents use transport. Most often mentioned was ‘to access markets’ (61%), but use of transport for social purposes and to access schools and health facilities were also mentioned by 50% or more. Almost 30% of respondents mentioned use of transport for fishing or to produce other food. Figure B.10: How transport is used 100 90 80 n=4824 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0
Note: Multiple response chart. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
43 FGD participants were asked how they transport goods to market. People from the inland communities of east Guadalcanal carry their freight to the main road and then hire a truck or bus to take them to Honiara. Timber and heavy cargo are floated down the river to the coast by a hired raft operator. When it reaches the coast the freight is shipped to Honiara. The nearest good road is 30 kilometres away from some Guadalcanal coastal communities visited but others were served by a road. Those without road access said it is safer and cheaper to hire an outboard motor boat (OBM) or use coastal shipping services to go to Honiara, although these shipping services can be unreliable. Lack of road access is a major problem for residents of communities in east Guadalcanal, who may need to walk for nine hours to reach the nearest road. Honiara residents use public buses, trucks and taxis to take produce to and from the markets. In Isabel there are few roads to connect villages with Buala, so most travel is undertaken by canoe, OBM or on foot. ‘We use rafts to float our market produce to the main road, where we wait for a truck to take it to the main market.’ ‘Road access is our big problem here and we are tired of carrying market produce to the main road, then waiting for a truck to pick us up.’ (FGDs, Women, rural Guadalcanal) In Malaita people must carry produce, and sometimes even timber, to the main roads for transport to markets. From Auki the produce is shipped to Honiara and people must pay for their fare and freight charges. Village women from coastal communities in Temotu paddle canoes to the market in Lata and people from the inland communities usually walk to the town because there are few roads or vehicles. Those with access to OBM transport must meet the high cost of fuel. Goods produced in Lata can be shipped to Honiara but the services are unreliable. There are also flights from Lata to Honiara but fares and freight charges are high. In Western Province most people use sea transport. There is a regular ferry service to and from Honiara and OBM traffic around the islands is constant. However, sea transport is expensive. On the main island, New Georgia, women walk to local markets. Figure B.11 shows that 64% of respondents who used transport said they were satisfied with the transport available to them, while 36% were not satisfied. Figure B.11: Are you satisfied with the transport available to you? 100
90
80 n=4807 70
60 % 50 40
30
20
10
0 Yes No
44 Although Choiseul respondents had very little access to road transport, Table B.11 shows that they were most likely to be satisfied with the transport available to them (69% satisfied). In contrast, respondents from Isabel, who also made very little use of road transport, were least likely to be satisfied (40%). Respondents in Temotu were also more likely to be dissatisfied than satisfied with the transport available to them (55% compared with 45%). Young Men were the age/gender group least likely to be satisfied with the available transport (54%) while Women, who make most use of road transport (see Table B.9 above), were most likely to be satisfied (71%). Table B.11: Are you satisfied with the transport available to you? Yes No Don't know (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 69.1 30.1 0.7 269 Guadalcanal 61.0 38.8 0.2 972 Honiara 66.2 33.6 0.2 631 Honiara Settlements 67.7 32.3 0.0 269 Isabel 39.6 60.4 0.0 273 Malaita 68.1 31.4 0.5 1401 Temotu 44.7 55.3 0.0 199 Western 67.3 32.5 0.2 807 Age/gender group Man 62.8 37.0 0.2 1221 Woman 67.7 31.8 0.4 1231 Young Man 53.6 45.9 0.5 1199 Young Woman 70.9 29.1 0.1 1170 All respondents 63.7 36.0 0.3 4821 Tables B.12.a and B.12.b show what would make transport better for respondents who said they were dissatisfied with the transport available to them. The most common responses in both rural areas and in Honiara related to cost of fares and fuel, access to and quality of roads, and the availability of public transport. Improvements to wharves were mentioned more often in rural areas, where there is greater reliance on boats.
45 Table B.12.a: What would make transport better for you? (by residence) Rural Honiara & Settlements All % % % Cheaper fares and /or fuel 44.5 41.2 44.0 New or better roads /tracks 40.6 24.3 37.8 More frequent public transport 32.3 33.6 32.5 New or better wharf 26.8 2.3 22.6 My own transport 17.4 5.0 15.3 More places to catch public transport 12.1 18.3 13.2 Better public transport / reliable vehicles 4.3 16.3 6.3 Support from National and Provincial Government /MPs 4.4 0.3 3.7 Price controls, transport policies 1.3 9.6 2.7 Better behaviour on transport 0.9 6.0 1.8 Other unspecified 1.1 0.3 1.0 Don't know 0.3 1.0 0.4 Build /repair bridges 0.1 0.3 0.2 Number of respondents 1435 301 1736 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Table B.12.b shows that, compared with male respondents, female respondents were more concerned with frequency and convenience of transport, especially public transport, than with cost and access to roads. Female respondents were also less likely to mention improvements to wharves. Table B.12.b: What would make transport better for you? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Cheaper fares and /or fuel 48.6 37.6 44.0 New or better roads /tracks 41.4 32.9 37.8 More frequent public transport 28.3 38.3 32.5 New or better wharf 27.7 15.7 22.6 My own transport 13.3 17.9 15.3 More places to catch public transport 9.6 18.0 13.2 Better public transport / reliable vehicles 4.6 8.7 6.3 Support from National and Provincial Government /MPs 3.3 4.2 3.7 Price controls, transport policies 3.2 2.0 2.7 Better behaviour on transport 1.7 1.9 1.8 Build /repair bridges 0.2 0.1 0.2 Other unspecified 1.4 0.4 1.0 Don't know 0.3 0.5 0.4 Number of respondents 1435 301 1736 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
46 Coastal communities in east Guadalcanal spoke of poor roads, a lack of bridges across major rivers, poor maintenance of the existing roads and sub standard coastal shipping. A major concern, although not related to the actual condition of roads, was the ongoing problem of road blocks by youths who demand compensation of SBD50 to SBD100 to allow trucks to pass. This occurs only a few hours from Honiara. Participants in Honiara suburban areas and squatter settlements also complained of lack of infrastructure, poor education, high costs of transport and the need for community based projects to increase skills and employment opportunities especially for youth. Bus services were said to be crowded, and queues at the main market and the furthest points of bus routes to the outer suburbs are long. ‘People want services to be more accessible, they want electricity, roads and their goods taken to markets, like people on the Weather Coast [Guadalcanal]: they are not really far from Honiara, but there are no roads between them … that’s why people like the government to do something about its services.’ (Male participant, Informal Interview, Honiara) ‘We want MPs to help us build our road … and to improve our schools.’ (Women, rural Guadalcanal) Participants in rural Malaita mentioned poor roads and long distances for people to travel to gain access to services. Many rural communities have to carry all their produce and belongings to the main roads before they can even start to hire transport to town and to markets. ‘We are happy with our water supply, school and clinic in our place, but the road is now a big problem here. It is expensive for us to go to the market, because you must pay a man to carry your goods and for transport too.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Malaita) Participants in Temotu Province commented that they are far from Honiara and largely neglected by the national government. The province has poor transport and no proper reliable shipping service. Participants stated that they need more wharves and jetties on Nendo and more warehouses and storage facilities at Lata. In Western Province participants said basic transport infrastructure is inadequate. Although much of the province is accessible only by sea, the wharves are run down (except those located at private resorts). Participants mentioned that other consequence of poor transport is irregular delivery and collection of mail and loss of freight. ‘Our wharf at Nggatokae is really no good. Ships have to anchor outside to unload and during unloading many belongings are dropped into the sea.’ ‘We have problems with transportation of sick patients to the nearest clinics.’ (Men, rural Western) Household water supply Figure B.13 shows major contrasts between the data on source of drinking water for 2010 and 2011. Although the question asked was the same and multiple responses were permitted in both years, different areas and some different provinces were surveyed in 2010 and 2011. The contrasts are too substantial to reflect improvement. A more likely explanation is that there are very substantial differences in source of clean water within provinces and between parts of Honiara.
47 Figure B.13 Source of drinking water, 2010 and 2011 100 90
80 2010 70 2011 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0
Note: Multiple response chart. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Tables B.13.a and B.13.b show that in 2011 community tap or standpipe was mentioned most often (by 59% of respondents), followed by surface water such as river, spring or stream (31%). Standpipe was mentioned twice as often in rural areas (64% compared with 36%). Individual household rainwater tanks were mentioned by 18% of respondents, while most of those with water piped to their household were residents of Honiara (51% of Honiara respondents compared with 6% of those living outside Honiara). Table B.13.b does not show any marked differences by gender. Table B.13.a: Source of drinking water (by residence) Rural Honiara & All Settlements % % % Community tap or standpipe 63.6 36.1 58.5 River/stream/spring 35.1 12.2 30.8 Household rainwater tank 19.7 11.6 18.4 Piped to house 6.5 51.3 14.8 Community rainwater tank 10.1 2.0 8.6 Unprotected well 6.1 5.1 5.9 Protected well 4.1 1.6 3.7 Standpipe /tank in another community 1.1 0.2 0.9 Bought in containers 0.7 0.4 0.6 No details /other 0.3 0.4 0.3 Number of respondents 1435 916 4970 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
48 Table B.13.b: Source of drinking water (by gender) Male Female All % % % Community tap or standpipe 57.4 59.6 58.5 River/stream/spring 30.7 31.0 30.8 Household rainwater tank 19.2 17.7 18.4 Piped to house 15.4 14.2 14.8 Community rainwater tank 9.9 7.3 8.6 Unprotected well 7.7 4.1 5.9 Protected well 3.6 3.7 3.7 Standpipe /tank in another community 0.7 1.2 0.9 Bought in containers 0.9 0.4 0.6 No details /other 0.2 0.4 0.3 Number of respondents 2505 2465 4970 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. The substantial differences between 2010 and 2011 in source of water were not reflected in the availability of clean water. Figure B.14 shows that 51% of 2011 respondents said they always had clean water available and 16% did not, which was only a few percentage points different from 2010. Figure B.14: Is clean water always available? 100
90 80 2010 70 2011 60 % 50 40
30 20
10 0 Yes Sometimes No Table B.14 shows that respondents in Honiara, Honiara Settlements and Guadalcanal were the most likely to say that clean water is not always available, while respondents in Choiseul were most likely to say they always have access to clean water. Differences by age/gender group are probably different perceptions rather than actual differences in water supply.
49 Table B.14: Is clean water always available? Yes Sometimes No (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 72.5 22.1 5.4 280 Guadalcanal 49.9 25.0 25.1 980 Honiara 52.2 24.0 23.7 638 Honiara Settlements 50.0 27.7 22.3 278 Isabel 59.6 30.5 9.9 282 Malaita 52.4 34.9 12.7 1472 Temotu 38.9 60.2 0.9 226 Western 44.2 41.5 14.4 815 Age/gender group Man 51.7 27.9 20.4 1267 Woman 49.4 31.6 19.0 1251 Young Man 44.7 37.9 17.3 1238 Young Woman 59.6 32.3 8.1 1215 All respondents 51.3 32.4 16.3 4971 No answer = 1 case Tables B.15.a and B.15.b show the problems mentioned by respondents who said clean water wasn’t always available or was available only sometimes. The most common problem was with the adequacy of the water source itself (53%), followed by problems with the storage tank, pump or pipes (41%) and water quality (40%). Problems with the Solomon Islands Water Authority (SIWA) were often mentioned by respondents in Honiara (17%). The main difference by gender was that women were more likely to perceive the source as inadequate, while men were more likely to mention equipment problems. Detailed comparison of the problems mentioned in the 2010 and 2011 People’s Surveys was not possible because of limitations and overlaps in the categories used in 2010, but it can be said that the most frequently mentioned problems were generally similar.
50 Table B.15.a: Problems with water supply (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Source too far away, insufficient, dries up 52.5 55.8 53.1 Broken tank, pump or pipes 45.2 20.3 40.6 Dirty, polluted 44.9 16.5 39.7 Disputes, misuse 3.4 9.7 4.6 Problem with electricity supply 1.2 1.6 3.3 Problem with SIWA 0.3 16.9 1.4 No details /other 0.9 1.8 1.0 Don't know 0.1 7.4 1.3 Number of respondents 1962 443 2405 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Table B.15.b: Problems with water supply (by gender) Male Female All % % % Source too far away, insufficient, dries up 50.4 56.2 53.1 Broken tank, pump or pipes 42.9 37.9 40.6 Dirty, polluted 40.7 38.5 39.7 Disputes, misuse 3.9 5.3 4.6 Problem with electricity supply 4.7 1.8 3.3 Problem with SIWA 1.2 1.7 1.4 No details /other 1.5 0.5 1.0 Don't know 0.1 2.7 1.3 Number of respondents 1283 1122 2405 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Access to electricity Figure B.16 compares access to electricity as reported in the 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 People’s Surveys (this question was not asked in 2010). Although the places surveyed varied (except between 2007 and 2009) and respondents could mention a second source of electricity in 2011, substantially smaller percentages reported no electricity. This suggests real improvements over time, especially in use of solar panels.
51 Figure B.16: Access to electricity, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2010
Note: Up to two answers per respondent in 2011, one response only in other years. Table B.16 shows the sources of electricity reported by respondents (up to two responses). Solar power was most commonly mentioned (43%), followed by mains supply (12%), while 42% of respondents had no electricity. Solar power was more common in the provinces than in Honiara, especially in Isabel (69%) and Malaita (61%), although 20% of respondents in Honiara Settlements said they have access to solar power. Mains electricity was most often reported by respondents living in Honiara (58%), but 35% of respondents in Honiara Settlements also said they had access to mains electricity. Generators were reported by 7% of respondents in Western but only 3% overall, while there was almost no mention of hydro electricity. Women were less likely to mention solar power, but this is probably because they were less likely than other age/gender groups to give a second response. Table B.16: Sources of electricity Mains 12 volt No supply Solar Generator system Other electricity % % % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 3.6 46.1 1.4 0.0 0.0 48.9 280 Guadalcanal 0.2 36.6 4.1 0.2 0.5 59.8 980 Honiara 58.3 5.0 0.2 0.2 0.2 36.7 638 Honiara Settlements 35.3 20.1 2.5 0.0 0.0 42.8 278 Isabel 0.0 68.8 1.8 0.7 0.4 29.4 282 Malaita 0.9 61.4 2.8 3.5 0.8 31.2 1470 Temotu 0.9 42.9 3.1 1.8 0.0 51.3 226 Western 11.5 43.3 7.7 0.0 0.5 38.5 816 Age/gender group Man 11.7 42.5 3.2 0.3 0.4 42.7 1265 Woman 11.8 37.0 3.5 1.6 0.4 47.0 1251 Young Man 12.0 43.2 3.5 1.1 1.0 39.8 1239 Young Woman 12.1 48.4 3.3 1.9 0.1 35.1 1215 TOTAL 11.9 42.7 3.4 1.2 0.5 41.2 4970 Note: Multiple response table Percentages are totals of up to two answers per respondent. 52 Access to Communications Figure B.17 compares access to phones as reported in four People’s Surveys. Although only 4% had access to a landline, 75% had access to mobile phones. Even allowing for a combined category for landlines and mobile phones in 2007 and 2008, the exponential rise in mobile phone coverage in much of Solomon Islands in the past year or so is clearly evident. This improvement in communications has been very important in the lives of many Solomon Islands people. This is evidenced in Section E of this report, where improved communications were often mentioned as the most significant change in a respondent’s life in the past year. Figure B.17: Access to communications, 2007, 2008, 2009 and 2011 100 90 2007 80 2008 70 60 2009 % 50 2011 40 30 20 10 0
Note: In 2007 and 2008 the question asked only about ‘phone’ and is shown in the table as ‘Phone/landline’. From 2009 onward ‘Phone/landline’ signifies only landline. In 2011 multiple responses were permitted. Table B.17 shows that, of the surveyed areas, only northern Choiseul lacked good phone coverage, with southern Isabel having coverage in some places. Elsewhere 75% or more respondents reported mobile phone coverage while access to landlines remained sparse except in Temotu (35%). Despite recent improvements, it is notable that 19% of respondents had neither phone nor two way radio access in their home community. There were no marked differences in access to communications by age/gender group.
53 Table B.17: Access to communications in home community
Landline Mobile Radio No phone or Don't phone phone only radio know (No.) % % % % % Province Choiseul 1.1 3.9 35.0 60.7 0.0 280 Guadalcanal 0.1 75.5 3.0 19.4 2.2 980 Honiara 5.2 94.5 0.2 5.8 0.0 638 Honiara Settlements 0.7 84.2 2.9 12.9 0.0 278 Isabel 0.0 36.9 10.6 52.5 0.0 282 Malaita 1.6 79.6 1.7 18.1 0.2 1471 Temotu 5.0 88.1 0.9 9.7 0.4 226 Western 4.9 82.0 8.1 9.4 0.2 815
Age/gender group Man 5.3 76.5 4.8 18.0 0.1 1266 Woman 2.4 74.8 3.8 21.0 0.4 1251 Young Man 4.2 70.5 5.4 23.6 0.2 1239 Young Woman 2.6 78.5 6.8 13.4 1.6 1215 All respondents 3.6 75.1 5.2 19.0 0.6 4970 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to two answers per respondent. Focus group comments on services and infrastructure Participants in Isabel reported problems with clinics, bridges, roads, sanitation and water, and with shortages of staff houses for teacher and nurses and the lack of medicines at the hospital and clinics, which are sub standard. All or some of these problems were mentioned in other rural FGDs. There is no ambulance service at Buala Hospital, there are no proper market facilities in the town, health services across the province are poor and its schools lack equipment and stationery. Participants reported that the wantok system applies to the allocation of scarce resources. Family and relatives of public servants will get first choice when any goods or services are distributed. The most commonly reported infrastructure problem in Western Province was poor clinics with inadequate staff and few medical supplies. A few resorts, like Uepi Resort, maintain and stock the local clinics but the cost of medical transport to Gizo or to Honiara is extremely high. Most clinics need an OBM as the only possible route to these hospitals is by sea. Western Province participants also mentioned that a shortage of police housing adversely affects delivery of policing services. In one FGD in rural Malaita, participants linked deficiencies in health services to transport. They said ‘real development depends entirely on proper road access.’ In some cases they had to carry sick people to town and some patients had been known to die on the way. ‘The main problems of services here, we do not have a water supply, our clinic is really no good, there are two schools here, primary and secondary, they do not have enough classrooms and staff houses … and also we do not have a road.’
54 ‘We do not feel and see any government support to our community here, look … even our school dormitory for the girls it is just like copra shed, and even the clinic does not have any cupboard inside either.’ (FGD, Men, Isabel) Focus group participants were asked what they did when they had problems with services and infrastructure in their communities. Their responses indicate that most rural people feel helpless and neglected. They are unable to access national or provincial government departments, their sitting members of parliament or essential social services. Most responded that in cases where people have problems with services and infrastructure it is the responsibility of the relevant committee to raise the matter with chiefs and elders, and even with provincial health and education authorities. Local ward and constituency members also could be approached for assistance. Often, however, even after matters are raised with authorities, no action is taken. Participants on the coast of east Guadalcanal were very concerned by the lack of response such reports receive. Some FGD respondents stated that they do not know what to do or whom to approach and they lack confidence to report under performing staff and problems with the poor quality of infrastructure. They said that even local members often ignore them. Participants pointed out that villagers do not have the time or the money to travel to Honiara to make the rounds of government departments that they consider notoriously inefficient and corrupt. They also said that rural people do not have a good understanding of the structure and hierarchy of the national public service. The most common response from FGDs in Isabel was ‘don’t know who to go to next’ and ‘have tried the usual procedures but have never had any response, so gave up.’ Although the communities visited were clearly resourceful as they had built rest houses, schools and water supply systems, they still require assistance from provincial and national governments. It was said that approaches to MPs and to local governments do not produce results because of ‘the wantok system and lack of transparency is obvious’ in all dealings. ‘We would like an MP who will build our road and help all our small school children … and who will listen to everybody, not just his own family.’ ‘We do not have a road to go to Buala; we use canoes to paddle to the hospital and market, and during rough seas we have to walk along the bush track.’ (FGDs, Women, Isabel) The situation is the same In Malaita. Participants complained about the lack of services and how, although they voice their concerns to their MPs and complain to candidates at election time, little is done to rectify the declining state of infrastructure. A common response was ‘don’t know where to go or what to do’ and that, because the solution is beyond the scale of village self help, people do nothing. Although Solomon Islanders are resilient, and often believe they can solve their own problems, they are unable to undertake major infrastructure projects themselves. Village self help has limited capacity to fix bad roads, repair school buildings and bridges and provide housing for teachers and nurses. Rural communities have no way of filling empty clinics with medicines. ‘I am the sort of person who stays in the bush. If I have problems with services or other things I go looking, no one directs me where to go or how to solve all the problems.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Malaita) Even in Honiara, where people are near government departments, participants said they were afraid of retaliation if they reported public servants and teachers to higher authorities.
55 Section C: Household and Business Finances Financial situation Figure C.1 shows perceptions of household financial situation compared with two years previously.4 In 2011, 28% said that their household financial situation was ‘better’ as compared with 21% in 2009, although the percentages of participants reporting ‘better’ financial situations were higher in 2007 and 2008. This suggests some improvement since the Global Economic Crisis of 2008 2009, although perhaps not a full recovery to previous levels. If ‘better’ and ‘the same’ are considered together, however, there is no evidence of improvement since 2009. Figure C.1: Household financial situation, 2007 2011 100
90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2010 % 50 2011
40
30
20
10
0 Better The same Worse Table C.1 shows that respondents in Honiara were most likely to say their financial situation was worse (53%) followed by respondents in Temotu (50%). Respondents in Choiseul were most likely to say ‘better’ (38%), but almost as many said ‘worse’ (34%). Respondents in Malaita and Guadalcanal were most likely to say their financial situation had improved or stayed the same. The main difference by age/gender group was that female respondents were more likely to say ‘worse’ and males more likely to say ‘the same’.
4 The 2010 data are not comparable as respondents were asked only to describe the current financial situation of their household.
56 Table C.1: How is your household’s financial situation compared with two years ago? Better The same Worse Don't know % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 37.9 27.5 34.3 0.4 280 Guadalcanal 31.5 41.9 25.8 0.7 980 Honiara 15.7 31.1 52.6 0.6 637 Honiara Settlements 26.3 27.3 46.0 0.4 278 Isabel 29.1 29.8 40.8 0.4 282 Malaita 28.1 44.6 24.5 2.9 1472 Temotu 30.5 18.6 49.6 1.3 226 Western 27.0 36.8 34.7 1.6 816
Age/gender group Man 25.9 42.2 29.5 2.4 1266 Woman 25.3 34.9 38.7 1.0 1251 Young Man 30.7 42.1 26.8 0.5 1239 Young Woman 28.6 29.0 40.5 2.0 1215 All respondents 27.6 37.1 33.8 1.5 4971 No answer=1 case FGD participants said that life in Honiara is expensive, especially services like electricity, fuel, kerosene, water and store foods. People in Honiara also face high transport costs despite the number of taxis, buses and trucks serving the outer suburban areas and settlements. Fuel prices and rents are high. Store foods, electricity, and water charges are expensive relative to incomes. In addition, many urban men spend money on alcohol, betel nut, marijuana and cigarettes. School fees, church contributions, mobile phone credit, clothes and licence fees also consume much of the income of urban populations. The high cost of living and population pressure in Honiara has forced even many employed people into squatter settlements or overcrowded shared houses. ‘After marketing finishes, we spend most of our money on food, clothes, kerosene and on the man who carries our goods from main road to the house.’ (FGD, Women, rural Malaita) ‘I do marketing mainly to buy my children’s school fees.’ (FGD, Women, Western Province) Villagers in east Guadalcanal said they spend most of their income on daily necessities such as clothing, store food, fuel (including kerosene), school fees for children, and other incidentals such as church tithes, labour costs and equipment hire. For coastal communities, the range of expenses was more extensive and included essential items such as clothing, store goods, food, kerosene, school fees, fares and freight, as well as tithes and consumer goods such as medicine and mobile phone credit. If they have borrowed money, paying back all or part of their debts is another expense. Labour costs, porters and freight charges are high. In Malaita, the bride price is expensive and may be made in several payments so it is a long and continuing cost to the groom’s family. Other, more culturally specific items include compensation payments and wedding and funeral kastom contributions.
57 Income sources and opportunities Tables C.2.a and C.2.b show how respondents usually obtain money – i.e. cash for purchases. By far the most common source of money is selling goods (78%), which is largely by informal marketing of food and betel nut, but could include some informal selling of sawn timber and other building materials. The percentage relying on selling was higher in rural areas (84%), but even in Honiara, where the economy is most developed, 51% rely on selling goods to obtain cash. The next most common source of money was ‘from family’. Only 16% of respondents said they obtain money from paid work (almost one in every three respondents in Honiara but less than one in eight in rural areas). Nine per cent of all respondents had their own business (14% in Honiara and 8% in rural areas). Female respondents were more likely than males to rely on informal selling (80% and 75%) or their family (22% and 16%) but males were almost twice as likely to be engaged in paid work, and more likely to have their own business. Only 1% of respondents said they obtain royalties or other income from logging operations or from harvesting timber themselves. A few respondents may have reported informal marketing of rough sawn timber, carvings and other timber products as ‘selling’. Table C.2.a: How do you usually get money? (by residence) Rural Honiara & All Settlements % % % Sell something 83.6 51.4 77.7 From family 16.9 27.3 18.8 Paid work 12.3 32.9 16.1 Own business 7.5 14.1 8.8 Cocoa/copra, other cash crops 8.4 0.7 7.0 Fishing /other marine products 3.4 0.2 2.8 Logging royalties /sawn timber 1.2 0.2 1.0 Shell money /crafts 0.7 0.0 0.6 Wantoks /friends /churches / MP 0.1 0.3 0.1 No details /other 0.5 0.7 0.5 No regular access to money 1.9 4.9 2.5 Number or respondents 4055 916 4970 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals from up to three answers per respondent.
58 Table C.2.b: How do you usually get money? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Sell something 75.0 80.4 77.7 From family 15.9 21.8 18.8 Paid work 20.8 11.3 16.1 Own business 9.5 7.9 8.8 Cocoa/copra, other cash crops 7.7 6.2 7.0 Fishing /other marine products 4.7 0.9 2.8 Logging royalties /sawn timber 1.4 0.7 1.0 Shell money /crafts 1.0 0.1 0.6 Wantoks /friends /churches / MP 0.2 0.1 0.1 No details /other 0.6 0.5 0.5 No regular access to money 2.7 2.2 2.5 Number or respondents 2505 2466 4970 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Figure C.2, which combines minor categories, shows greater reliance on selling in the 2011 People’s Survey as compared to 2010, and a smaller percentage of respondents having their own business or selling cash crops such as cocoa and copra. This may be due to the inclusion of more relatively remote areas in the 2011 sample rather than to any change in economic conditions. Figure C.2: How do you usually get money? 100 90 80
70 2010 60 % 50 2011 40 30 20 10 0
FGD participants in east Guadalcanal said the main sources of income in their communities were cocoa, timber and market vegetables. While the area has been logged in recent years, quality timber is still sourced from this area. A few groups mentioned that some people sell betel nut and korokua (fruit leaf) but an equal number of communities also reported that some people earned money as porters of vegetables and as raft handlers (floating timber and other goods down to the coast). Minor sources of income mentioned were from basketry and woven handicrafts, growing watermelons and potatoes and, for women, making and selling cakes in the villages. Participants said a wider range of income
59 sources were open to people in the large coastal communities near the river and with coastal hills and plains behind them. Some grow cocoa for sale to middlemen who come to communities. Copra is widely grown and may be sold in various ways. Sometimes it is dried locally and sold to middlemen who visit communities and sometimes it is shipped to commercial processors in the main centres. Betel nut and fish are sold locally as well as in Honiara, and some communities grow home or bush tobacco, peanuts and pineapples, raise chickens and pigs and sell market vegetables. In addition, some local men make furniture and undertake casual labouring jobs. Women in the communities may run small bakeries or village canteens or make handicrafts. Some do informal work such as being a house girl (housekeeping), taking in washing, gardening and selling fish. Small business operators interviewed in Honiara relied on selling cooked food, betel nut, fruit leaf, cigarettes, and barbequed fish, cassava and rice in small food outlets. Those running unlicensed businesses in town or on the edge of settlements were mostly women. Participants indicated that selling market produce or running food stalls and roadside stalls is a precarious living. ‘For us women, our source of income is very limited, we rely on selling fish and betel nut, that’s all. With only a little income, it’s hard to send the small children to school.’ (FGD, Women, Honiara settlement) Private citizens interviewed in Honiara earned their income from a variety of sources. While a small minority have paid work, others depend on marketing fruit and vegetables, working as house girls, taking in washing or selling betel nut and cigarettes beside the road. Some have casual employment such as cutting grass and road work. Some men deal in black market beer. The small population of Isabel Province largely dwells on the coast, and participants mentioned fewer income sources than respondents in Guadalcanal. These include the sale of betel nut, korokua and copra. Some men sell fish and some work as casual labourers, for example, clearing grass on the local airstrip. Women make and sell cakes, weave mats, sell cigarettes and also sell vegetables. Isabel people do not generally travel to the main market in Honiara as the distance is far. As most local people and public servants in Buala have their own gardens, the local markets are not very large. The cash economy is not very significant in rural areas of Isabel, although some logging has taken place recently. Although Malaita has a large population and many communities are large, FGDs suggested the range of income sources for communities in Malaita was similar to those in other provinces. Subsistence farmers sell vegetables and fruit, grow and sell betel nut and korokua, raise pigs to market, run small canteens and sell cocoa and copra to commercial buyers. Cocoa and copra buyers come to the villages, but prices are controlled by the buyers not the sellers. Timber is also cut and sold locally and in Honiara. Langalanga is a famous centre for the manufacture of shell money and handicrafts, and women continue these traditions. Shell money is sold in Auki but mostly in the main market in Honiara and to overseas buyers, especially from Bougainville and Vanuatu. ‘We have problems with cocoa prices. Local buyers agree to give us one price that is hard to change. It doesn’t matter if the price of cocoa is high; all the local buyers buy beans at the low price only.’ (FGD, Men, rural Malaita) ‘We women on the coastal community make shell money and necklaces and sell them in Honiara, Bougainville and Vanuatu for money to help our families.’ ‘We sell cocoa, vegetables and bake cake for only little money. We have to work hard to pay for school fee[s] and help the family.’ (FGDs, Women, rural Malaita) The people of Temotu are almost self sufficient in vegetable foods, poultry and pigs. Many of the men are skilled fishermen. Participants in Temotu said they grow and sell betel nut and korokua, have small copra plantations, market fruit, vegetables and root crops as well as sell fish, crabs and shellfish. In Temotu nambo
60 (a nutritious, biscuit like food made from breadfruit) is a popular food. Nearly all Solomon Islanders eat nambo, but few know how to make it. Exporting nambo to Honiara is also a source of income for some in Temotu. Another popular food in Temotu is flying fox. Men also fish for trochus and catch sharks for fins (both contrary to national fishing laws), work as casual labourers and sell sago palm leaves for use as walls and roofing. Temotu men are also known as expert canoe makers. Women in Temotu may have small bakeries, run canteens and make handicrafts. The men of the Western Province earn income from high quality carvings of rosewood, kerosene wood and ebony. Stone carvings are becoming more common as suitable wood becomes increasingly scarce, especially ebony. A carved stone bowl can sell for SBD25 per inch. The women are skilled basket weavers and make shell jewellery. Commercial crops and products include copra, coconut oil, tobacco, trochus and bêche de mer. In the villages, people grow and sell vegetables and men are skilled fishermen. Much of this produce is sold in the Honiara market. Expansion of the tourist industry in the Gizo and Marovo Lagoon regions has provided some opportunities to work in resorts as cooks, cleaners, maids, gardeners and boat crews. The small but important dive industry requires skilled local knowledge and trained dive masters. The tourist and dive resorts – situated mainly in offshore islands around the lagoons – are an important source of income for local communities as they regularly buy local fresh food. The number of times each activity was mentioned in FGDs can be found in Annex One, but as these comments could relate to individuals, communities or districts, Tables C.2.a and C.2.b provide a better indication of the relative importance of the activities mentioned. Tables C.3.a and C.3.b show respondents’ perceptions of how they could increase their income. By far the most common response was ‘sell more’, although this was mentioned less frequently in Honiara and settlements than in rural areas (45% compared with 66%). ‘Start or expand own business’ was the second most common response and mentioned more often in rural areas (37%) than in Honiara (32%). Fifteen per cent of Honiara respondents said ‘get a new job’ but less than 7% in rural areas. Only small percentages made other suggestions, while 8% said there was no opportunity to increase their income. The patterns by residence and gender were consistent with the patterns for usual source of money, with rural residents and female respondents a little more likely to suggest increase selling, and urban and male respondents more likely to suggest paid work or business. Table C.3.a: Opportunities for respondents to increase income (by residence) Rural Honiara & Settlements All % % % Sell more 66.4 45.3 62.6 Start or expand own business 36.6 31.8 35.0 Get a new job 6.9 14.5 8.3 Better prices for produce /increase production /work harder/ cash crops 6.1 0.9 5.1 MP/RCDF /donors /government /province 3.2 2.3 3.1 Improve transport /access to markets 2.1 0.3 1.8 Pigs /other livestock 1.7 1.4 1.6 Fundraising activities 1.2 1.1 1.2 Promotion /salary increment 0.6 1.9 0.8 Family member get work /continue education / training 0.7 1.2 0.8 Bank /borrow money 0.6 0.2 0.5 No details /other 1.0 1.0 1.0 Don't know 2.4 5.0 2.9 No opportunities 6.6 15.2 8.2 Number of respondents 4048 905 4953 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals from up to three answers per respondent.
61 Table C.3.b: Opportunities for respondent to increase income (by gender) Male Female All % % % Sell more 60.0 65.2 62.6 Start or expand own business 36.6 31.6 35.0 Get a new job 9.7 6.8 8.3 Better prices for produce/ increase production/work harder/ cash crops 5.6 4.7 5.1 MP/RCDF /other donors /government /province 4.3 1.8 3.1 Improve transport /access to markets 2.9 0.6 1.8 Pigs /other livestock 2.0 1.3 1.6 Fundraising activities 0.6 1.7 1.2 Promotion /salary increment 0.9 0.8 0.8 Family member get work /continue education / training 0.6 0.9 0.8 Bank /borrow money 0.4 0.7 0.5 No details /other 1.0 1.1 1.0 Don't know 2.2 3.6 2.9 No opportunities 9.4 7.0 8.2 Number of respondents 2496 2457 4953 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals from up to three answers per respondent. Figure C.3 compares 2010 and 2011 respondents’ perceptions of opportunities to increase their income. Generally the patterns were similar, although the 2011 data included a greater reliance on increased selling and less diversity in other suggestions. Figure C.3: Opportunities to increase income, 2010 and 2011 100
90 2010 80 70 2011 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0
Tables C.4.a and C.4.b show respondents’ perceptions of any barriers to increasing their income. While 10% said they lacked land or capacity to increase production, only 7% mentioned lack of markets. Male respondents and Honiara residents were more likely to say the economy was weak or there were no markets, while female respondents were more likely to say they were prevented from increasing their income because
62 of family obligations. Forty per cent of respondents said nothing was preventing them from increasing their income, and 13% didn’t know. Table C.4.a: Is anything preventing you from increasing your income? (by residence) Rural Honiara & Settlements All % % % No access to land /insufficient produce 11.9 2.4 10.1 8.4 15.5 9.7 Family or community obligations 8.7 2.0 7.4 No market place /inadequate markets 3.5 12.1 5.1 Weak economy /no work or business opportunities 4.0 7.6 4.7 Profit margin too small /credit 4.5 4.4 4.5 Depend on others /lazy /drinking/wasting money 1.6 1.5 1.6 Lack of education 0.3 1.1 0.5 Code of conduct / honesty 0.5 0.1 0.4 Competition 3.5 2.1 3.2 No details /other 10.8 20.5 12.6 Don't know 42.3 30.7 40.1 Nothing % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 4056 916 2466 Table C.4.b: Is anything preventing you from increasing your income? (by gender) Male Female All % % % No access to land /insufficient produce 14.0 6.2 10.1 Family or community obligations 6.2 13.3 9.7 No market place /inadequate markets 9.1 5.8 7.4 Weak economy /no work or business opportunities 7.1 3.0 5.1 Profit margin too small /credit 3.4 6.0 4.7 Depend on others /lazy /drinking/wasting money 4.4 4.5 4.5 Lack of education 1.3 1.8 1.6 Code of conduct / honesty 0.6 0.3 0.5 Competition 0.8 0.0 0.4 No details /other 4.1 2.4 3.2 Don't know 13.1 12.1 12.6 Nothing 35.8 44.5 40.1 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2506 2466 4972
63 FGD participants said the main impediments to increasing their income are the high transport costs of getting people and goods to markets, especially to Honiara, and the poor state of the roads and bridges. Inland communities in east Guadalcanal reported that they must pay up to SBD1,000 for one load of timber to be transported to Honiara and up to SBD100 for a porter to carry a load of vegetables to the roadside where a truck can be hired to take the goods to markets. Labour costs and market competition mean that profits, especially on the sale of vegetables, are small. Other problems were also mentioned as preventing rural people from increasing their income. Bad weather can make it impossible to access the main town markets when floods cut the roads. Lack of reliable shipping and the generally unsafe nature of local ships make sea travel a risk. In east Guadalcanal road blocks on the main road were said to be a continual source of worry to local people. ‘For us here one thing that disturbs our market is rain, when the river floods it makes it unsafe for the truck to cross to the other side.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Yong Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) A major problem in Isabel Province is the small market for produce. Most people grow their own food so the new market house is under used. The lack of transport, the poor roads and remoteness of villages are all factors limiting income growth for Isabel villagers. OBM transport is expensive, as long distances along the narrow coast must be covered. A problem for those in business is debtors (kaon people who buy foods, cigarettes and petrol on credit from local canteens and stores, and then fail to pay their accounts). Kaon means that the storekeeper has a cash flow problem and cannot re stock. Women are often the canteen owners in rural communities, and Women participants said they need training in household budgeting. The provision of trade courses in bookkeeping and budgeting would assist market sellers and small shopkeepers. ‘We have many goods or sale, but our problem is we don’t have proper market place here.’ ‘We women need a little training, on how to budget our own money and for households to stop the misuse of money.’ FGDs, Women, Isabel) Participants in Malaita complain of poor roads, high labour costs for men to carry produce to transport (e.g. SBD50 to carry one bag of potatoes from the village to the main road) and low prices for cocoa and copra when there are many growers selling to a few buyers. The distance to markets from inland Malaita is a problem. Despite the fertility of the soil, marketing is often constrained by bad weather and floods that hinder travel. In Langalanga, profits from making shell money are eroded by transport costs, although there is a good market for shell money and adornments for bride price ceremonies in Malaita, Honiara, Bougainville and Vanuatu. ‘A land dispute affects road access here and it makes it hard to do marketing and earn money.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Malaita) ‘We have shortage of shell to make shell money and we have to go to Western Province to get shell, and it is very expensive, SBD50 for one bag of 20kg by ship.’ (FGD, Women, rural Malaita) In Temotu Province rural incomes are affected by poor transport and lack of facilities such as shops, agricultural extension services and market outlets, as well as a lack of government assistance for rural areas. The high cost of living, lack of start up capital, unreliable prices for copra, cocoa and other commodities, and the small number of buyers mean that returns are low. All these factors discourage commercial ventures. In addition Temotu is plagued by bad weather as it is on the edge of the cyclone belt and, with a growing population, land shortages are becoming a problem on the numerous small islands. In Western Province the only banks are in Gizo, Munda and Batuna, so it is difficult for people elsewhere to access cash, credit and loans. This is a common problem throughout rural Solomon Islands. Transport is expensive and most people have to use overcrowded commercial shipping services or hire an expensive OBM.
64 Women often have to paddle long distances to get their product to markets and, as is common elsewhere, they complain that men take their money and spend it on beer and cigarettes. Carvers find it hard to sell their work in Honiara as there is no craft market and men have to find small spaces close to passing traffic where potential customers may pass. This means profits are small. Participants said resort guests tend to be difficult to please and do not buy many carvings or baskets, while they find their critical comments about service or food confronting. Staff at the resort in Munda complained that tourists empty the automatic teller machine (ATM) within a day or two of its being replenished, leaving locals unable to withdraw cash from their bank accounts. The association of infrastructure and income was clearly apparent from FGDs. The first need appears to be roads, followed by development of markets for local resources. Nearly all produce from outer provinces such as Malaita is subject to high supply and low demand and so the profits are small. Participants suggested having their own cocoa dryers in the villages because dry beans are more profitable than wet beans and keep longer in storage. Inland communities in east Guadalcanal said they need better roads, better transport, better communication networks and good market houses. They also mentioned needing lower labour and transport costs, which could be achieved by building good roads and bridges. ‘Transportation and labour cost are very high. Although we took a lot of produce to the market, we only make a little bit of money; every penny goes in truck fares and labour costs.’ (FGD, Men, rural Guadalcanal) Participants in Isabel said there was a need to create opportunities for unemployed and undereducated youth, provide business skills training courses and teach people how to handle money. They also mentioned that they needed training in the use of the money sent to them as part of the RCDF allocation. ‘We need training and awareness in how to use funds that our leaders (MPs) provide for the community, for we need to know how to use them.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, Isabel) Coastal communities listed a range of improvements to infrastructure that would facilitate income earning. They included better roads, bridges and transport and police patrols to stop road blocks. Honiara participants complained of insufficient selling places at the main market and the absence of sleeping places for those who travel long distances from regional areas to sell food, fish, clothing and crafts. The absence of sleeping places and poor security are major concerns for women, especially those with children. The need for formal micro financing schemes was also mentioned, along with government sponsored marketing strategies for local produce. Because most subsistence farmers produce much of the same product at the same time, there is a problem with oversupply at certain seasons, and this leads to lower prices and significantly lower profits. Participants also expressed concern about the dominance of Chinese in medium scale business, often referring to all Asian nationals as ‘Chinese’. This has always been a matter of some contention in Solomon Islands, despite the long historic association of Chinese merchants with commercial activity. Concerns included the high prices and poor quality of goods in their trade stores. Business activity Figure C.5 shows that, although more than a quarter of respondents had tried to start a business of some kind in the preceding two years, this was a small decline compared with past People’s Surveys.
65 Figure C.5: Percentage of respondents starting a business in preceding 2 years 100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Table C.5 shows quite small differences between provinces, with respondents in Malaita least likely to have tried to start a business in the past two years (24%) and younger people less likely than older age groups. Table C.5: Have you tried to start a business in the preceding two years? Yes No % % (No.) Province Choiseul 26.8 73.2 280 Guadalcanal 30.4 69.6 976 Honiara 29.2 70.8 637 Honiara Settlements 25.5 74.5 278 Isabel 28.7 71.3 282 Malaita 24.3 75.7 1470 Temotu 28.3 71.7 226 Western 29.3 70.7 816 Age/gender group Man 28.3 71.7 1266 Woman 30.5 69.5 1249 Young Man 24.2 75.8 1238 Young Woman 27.3 72.7 1212 All respondents 27.6 72.4 4965 No answer = 7 respondents Tables C.6.a and C.6.b show the problems encountered by respondents who had attempted to start a business. As in previous People’s Surveys, problems with wantoks and other customers, insufficient profit or cash flow, management problems and high transport costs were mentioned most often. All these difficulties tended to be mentioned less often by residents of Honiara, who were more likely to say they had no problems (8% compared to 4% of rural respondents). There were no major differences by gender.
66 Table C.6.a: Did you experience any problems starting your business? (by residence) Rural Honiara & All Settlements % % % Wantoks and customers, e.g. credit, jealousy 75.8 60.6 72.9 Not enough profit, cash flow too small 36.0 27.8 34.5 Lack of management skills 27.8 15.1 25.4 Can’t afford to buy or transport stock 17.9 15.1 17.4 Can’t get bank finance or capital 8.3 14.7 9.5 Problems with licence, officials 3.8 3.1 3.7 Land problem / arguments /criminal activity /stealing 2.1 1.5 2.0 Competition 0.4 1.9 0.7 High rentals / no building / poor location /far from market 0.5 1.2 0.7 Too busy to do it properly / no enough time to run it 0.3 0.8 0.4 No details /other 0.2 0.8 0.3 No problems 4.1 7.7 4.8 Number of respondents 1118 259 1377 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Table C.6.b: Did you experience any problems starting your business? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Wantoks and customers, e.g. credit, jealous 71.1 74.6 72.9 Not enough profit, cash flow too small 36.7 32.4 34.5 Lack of management skills 25.9 25.0 25.4 Can’t afford to buy or transport stock 19.3 15.6 17.4 Can’t get bank finance or capital 13.7 5.6 9.5 Problems with licence, officials 3.9 3.5 3.7 Land problem / arguments /criminal activity /stealing 1.4 2.7 2.0 Competition 1.2 0.3 0.7 High rentals / no building / poor location /far from market 0.8 0.6 0.7 Too busy to do it properly / no enough time to run it 0.6 0.1 0.4 No details /other 0.2 0.4 0.3 No problems 5.1 4.5 4.8 Number of respondents 664 713 1377 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. In 2011, all respondents were asked a new question ‘Do you currently do any business?’ Comparing the 21% who said ‘yes’ with the 28% who said they had ‘tried to start a business in the preceding two years’ (Table C.5) suggests that at least a quarter of attempts to start a business are failures.
67 Table C.7: Do you do any business now? Yes No % % (No.) Province Choiseul 27.9 72.1 280 Guadalcanal 18.2 81.8 978 Honiara 23.0 77.0 635 Honiara Settlements 18.3 81.7 278 Isabel 24.5 75.5 282 Malaita 20.6 79.4 1469 Temotu 22.6 77.4 226 Western 19.2 80.8 814 Age/gender group Man 28.3 71.7 1266 Woman 30.5 69.5 1249 Young Man 24.2 75.8 1238 Young Woman 27.3 72.7 1212 All respondents 20.8 79.2 4965 No answer = 7 respondents
Taxation and taxable earnings A new question in 2011 sought to establish knowledge of the taxation threshold. Table C.8 shows that less than 3% were able to give a correct or nearly correct answer (the threshold is actually SBD7,800 in one year from any source). Two per cent thought it was higher, 6% thought it was lower and 89% did not have any idea. As would be expected, knowledge was highest in Honiara, but even there only 6% gave a correct or nearly correct answer. Of the age/gender groups, Men and Young Men (5% and 2%) were most likely to know the tax threshold. Table C.8: How much can you earn in one year before you must pay tax? $7,000 More than Less than Don't 8,000 $8,000 $7,000 know (No.) % % % % Province Choiseul 1.1 0.7 10.0 88.2 279 Guadalcanal 1.6 3.0 9.7 85.7 973 Honiara 5.5 2.8 1.0 90.8 618 Honiara Settlements 2.6 3.3 5.9 88.3 273 Isabel 0.7 2.5 10.6 86.2 282 Malaita 2.6 2.6 4.3 90.5 1455 Temotu 1.8 2.7 10.2 85.4 226 Western 2.1 0.9 3.9 93.1 796 Age/gender group Man 4.5 4.7 6.3 84.5 1257 Woman 1.6 0.7 2.9 94.8 1240 Young Man 2.2 2.9 5.5 89.3 1211 Young Woman 1.4 1.0 9.0 88.5 1194 All respondents 2.5 2.3 5.9 89.3 4902 No answer = 70 respondents 68 Table C.9 shows that 16% of respondents said they had paid tax at some time and 64% had not, while 20% didn’t know. The highest percentages of taxpayers were found in Honiara (36%) and Honiara Settlements (33%), followed by Temotu (28%). This contrasts with less than 6% in Isabel. Table C.9: Have you ever paid tax? Yes No Don't % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 9.3 78.9 11.8 280 Guadalcanal 17.5 67.2 15.3 970 Honiara 36.4 49.7 13.9 632 Honiara Settlements 32.5 61.0 6.5 277 Isabel 5.4 73.9 20.7 280 Malaita 7.7 61.9 30.4 1442 Temotu 27.6 66.7 5.8 225 Western 10.8 69.0 20.2 816 Age/gender group Man 33.1 55.4 11.5 1264 Woman 9.7 55.1 35.2 1224 Young Man 12.9 70.8 16.3 1222 Young Woman 7.9 76.7 15.3 1212 All respondents 16.1 64.4 19.5 4922 No answer = 50 respondents Figure C.9 shows that the overall percentage of respondents who had ever paid tax was lower than reported in the 2007 2009 surveys, when up to 25% of respondents said they had paid tax at some time. Figure C.9: Have you ever paid tax? (2007 2011)
100 90 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Table C.10 shows that 22% of respondents had earned SBD7,800 or more in one year at some time, while 16% didn’t know how much they had earned. Comparing this with the 16% who said they had paid tax implies a shortfall in potential tax collection, although it may reduce if ‘don’t know’ is taken into account and may be small in dollar terms. The correlation between taxable earnings and payment of taxes is quite close in Honiara, but there are large discrepancies in most provinces, especially Choiseul and Isabel. Although the question
69 specifically mentioned earnings from both wages and business, many respondents probably do not know exactly how much they earn from non wage activities. Table C.10: Have you ever earned $7,800 or more in one year? Yes No Don't % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 22.9 66.8 10.4 280 Guadalcanal 25.1 61.6 13.3 977 Honiara 33.7 56.8 9.5 630 Honiara Settlements 33.2 54.9 11.9 277 Isabel 20.9 65.2 13.8 282 Malaita 14.3 63.5 22.2 1438 Temotu 22.2 66.2 11.6 225 Western 16.6 65.9 17.5 815 Age/gender group Man 37.7 58.6 3.6 1264 Woman 18.2 60.4 21.4 1222 Young Man 19.9 61.8 18.3 1230 Young Woman 9.9 69.8 20.4 1208 All respondents 21.6 62.6 15.8 4924 No answer = 48 respondents FGD participants considered both the taxes paid and what the government does with taxation revenue. Only a few people in the inland communities surveyed really understood the meaning of taxes and their use, while most had little understanding of the concept. Many participants thought the SBD10 market table fee charged by the Honiara Town Council was a tax, when in reality it is a local council operating and management fee similar to a parking fee. Only a few participants knew about GST and what it means, but most were aware that public servants pay taxes from their wages. Coastal people were more likely to know about the GST and the producers’ tax charged to copra and cocoa growers. Many participants confused fees and licences and even considered the mobile phone top up to be a tax. Mention was also made of the old ‘dog tax’ that was charged by the colonial administration and was used to curb the number of stray dogs in communities. ‘We don’t pay taxes to the government, only the market fee of SBD10 for one table.’ (FGD, Women, rural Guadalcanal) Honiara participants were generally aware of GST, income tax and PAYE, National Provident Fund (NPF) contributions and licence fees. Only town workers in formal employment had any real understanding of the national taxation system. Even so, some Honiara participants interviewed considered the market fee of SBD10 to be a tax. A few participants in FGDs in Isabel Province knew about GST, that business licences are paid to the provincial government and that public servants including teachers have to pay income tax to the national government, but most confused the SBD5 market table hire fee paid in Buala with taxation. Participants in Malaita understood that they pay GST on goods purchased in Auki trade stores but otherwise said that they do not pay direct taxes. ‘Inside the village we don’t pay any tax. Those who go to the market to sell market produce pay a small fee (SBD5) to the provincial government.’
70 (FGD, Women, Isabel) ‘We don’t have access to banks … and do not understand what kinds of taxes we pay to the government.’ (FGD, Women, rural Malaita) Participants in Temotu did not have much knowledge about the role and use of taxation. Many inland people considered market fees and even truck fees as tax. Coastal villagers were more aware of GST, business licence fees, basic rates on land and the PAYE income tax paid by public servants. The old colonial head tax was mentioned at one meeting, which is another indication of low public awareness of tax and its purpose. Business people in Western Province understood the role of business tax and PAYE. Women who worked in tourist resorts said they paid PAYE tax. Most villagers did not understand the taxation system at all. Common statements were ‘we don’t know what tax is or what the government does with tax’ and ‘we know nothing about taxes.’ This data suggests that a considerable amount of civic education is needed to inform the public about the nature and use of taxes. ‘The government should work hard to get the public to understand the tax system, reduce fear of the tax system and change attitudes toward taxes. This requires a lot of awareness raising about taxes and also good people to manage our country.’ (SI Small Business Enterprise Centre) Access to banks Table C.11 shows the percentages of respondents who have an account at a bank and/or other savings organization. It can be seen that bank accounts are much more common than accounts at other institutions. Respondents in Honiara, Honiara Settlements and Men were most likely to have either type of account. Figure C.11 shows the overall percentage was similar to previous People’s Surveys. Table C.11: Do you have an account with a financial institution? Yes, bank Yes, other No % % % Province Choiseul 22.9 1.4 76.8 280 Guadalcanal 27.2 0.8 72.1 977 Honiara 39.0 7.4 60.5 630 Honiara Settlements 42.8 5.8 55.8 277 Isabel 11.4 1.4 87.9 282 Malaita 17.1 3.7 80.0 1438 Temotu 29.2 1.8 69.5 225 Western 18.8 1.2 80.5 815 Age/gender group Man 31.9 6.3 67.1 1264 Woman 24.5 1.5 74.3 1222 Young Man 20.1 2.1 78.2 1230 Young Woman 19.9 1.9 78.5 1208 Number of respondents 1197 147 3685 4924 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to two answers per respondent.
71 Figure C.11: Account with any type of financial institution (2007 2009, 2011)
Although more than 25% of respondents said they have an account with a financial institution, Tables C.12.a and C.12.b show that only 12% said they would approach a bank for capital to start a business. More than twice as many would seek money from family or a wantok, while 22% would use their own funds – i.e. they would not seek any kind of loan or gift. The most common answer, however, was ‘don’t know’ (28%). Compared to rural residents, Honiara residents were twice as likely to say they would approach a bank and half as likely to use their own funds, but even Honiara respondents were most likely to ask family or a wantok (24%) and more likely to say ‘don’t know’. There was little difference by gender. Respondents who mentioned that they would seek start up capital from a non bank source were asked why they wouldn’t apply for a bank loan. Tables C.13.a and C.13.b show that the main reason was ‘don’t know how to apply’ (55%), followed by ‘no collateral’ (9%). Respondents in Honiara were less likely to say they didn’t know how to apply and more likely to say they lacked collateral. The main difference by gender was that male respondents were more likely to say they lacked collateral while female respondents were more likely to say they didn’t know. Table C.12.a: Where would you seek money to start a business? (by residence) Rural Honiara & Settlements All % % % Family or wantok 26.3 24.2 25.9 Use own money /sell things 24.4 12.6 22.2 Bank or other financial organization 9.9 20.0 11.7 MP /Big Man 10.4 10.5 10.4 Advance from company 0.4 0.2 0.4 No details /other 1.1 0.8 1.0 Don't know 27.5 31.6 28.3 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 4039 910 4949 No answer=23 respondents
72 Table C.12.b: Where would respondent seek money to start a business (by gender) Male Female All % % % Family or wantok 25.7 26.1 25.9 Use own money /sell things 21.7 22.8 22.2 Bank or other financial organization 12.3 11.1 11.7 MP /Big Man 10.4 10.5 10.4 Advance from company 0.3 0.4 0.4 No details /other 0.6 1.4 1.0 Don't know 29.0 27.5 28.3 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2491 2458 4949 No answer=23 respondents Table C.13.a: Why respondent wouldn’t apply for a bank loan (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Don’t know how to apply 55.6 49.1 54.7 No security, bank account, regular job or collateral 7.2 17.9 8.8 High interest /fear of dealing with banks 5.2 9.4 5.8 Don't need a bank 2.1 5.8 2.6 No access to a bank 0.4 0.0 0.3 No details /other 3.6 2.9 3.5 Don't know 25.9 14.8 24.3 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2632 446 3078 Table C.13.b: Why respondent wouldn’t apply for a bank loan (by gender) Male Female All % % % Don’t know how to apply 53.5 55.8 54.7 No security, bank account, regular job or collateral 11.0 6.6 8.8 High interest /fear of dealing with banks 6.5 5.1 5.8 Don't need a bank 2.3 3.0 2.6 No access to a bank 0.4 0.3 0.3 No details /other 4.5 2.6 3.5 Don't know 21.8 26.7 24.3 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 1522 1556 3078
73 Those FGD participants asked about access to banks and credit almost always reported that most village people were disadvantaged by location, lack of collateral, the strict requirements of banks regarding formal identification, and even the need to bribe bank staff to provide services. Participants said that only a few rural people have bank accounts and they are mostly public servants, such as teachers, nurses and police, whose salary is deposited into their accounts. The ANZ Rural Banking Service no longer operates in Guadalcanal and this is a major inconvenience for rural communities. Consequently teachers and nurses leave their place of work on pay week and travel to Honiara to access their money, often not returning until the following week. As noted in Section B, teacher and health worker absenteeism is a major grievance in rural areas. People with no bank account keep their money in the house, and this is a further cause of minor crime like breaking and entering. Banking services are very limited in rural areas. Only Honiara has a good range of commercial banks and financial agencies. Local people, even business operators, who lack formal identification such as a passport or driver’s licence, cannot open an account, and hence cannot access commercial credit or loans. Banks will not lend to small cocoa farmers or to village people who do not have collateral and formal identification. While some cocoa buyers will pre finance cocoa farmers, access to advance loans is limited. Rural people cannot access loans and credit. Informal credit unions often fail when people do not repay loans. People from the urban settlements who live on unregistered land find it even more difficult than others in accessing bank accounts and finance. ‘I don’t access loans or credit, so don’t really know about loans’ and ‘I don’t understand the process and systems (of bank loans)’ were common responses. ‘Most of us here do not know how to access loans from banks, because there are lots of requirements and so we have no interest in obtaining loans.’ (FGD, Men, Honiara settlement) Buala in Isabel Province has some banking facilities, but many village people cannot open bank accounts or access loans or credit as they do not meet bank requirements and/or lack formal identification such as passports and driver’s licences. One informal savings club in Isabel had 97 members who each contributed SBD200 to join. It appears to have failed, however, because people borrowed from the club and failed to repay their debts. Auki in Malaita Province also has banks and other financial services such as money lenders, but people in rural areas usually keep their money at home. As few people have bank accounts they cannot access loans or obtain credit, so they borrow from each other, or bank informally with wholesalers or shopkeepers. The ANZ Rural Banking service no longer operates in Malaita. The bank agency in Lata, Temotu, was criticised by participants for its unreliability and because it is often short of money to pay people. The banking system charges relatively high fees and pays a low interest rate of only 2%, while it takes 14 days for the bank to clear a cheque. As a result of strict requirements for formal identification, many people in Temotu cannot open a bank account or access credit or a loan. Some participants commented that bank staff in Honiara can be bribed to process transactions quickly. Participants pointed out that even where customers are able to access to banks, there may be costs associated with withdrawing money. For example, customers in rural areas may have to pay for their bank to ring Honiara or use their own mobile phones to check on their balance before they can withdraw cash.
Sources of agricultural information Tables C.14.a and C.14.b show that, although respondents’ main source of income was selling produce (see Table C.2) many said that they do not receive any information about growing crops (47%) or that they learn only from their family or community (23%). Only 24% of rural residents said they received information from an agricultural extension officer, while very small percentages received information from other sources. Male respondents were much more likely than female respondents to receive information from an agricultural extension officer (27% compared with 16%) while female respondents were more likely not to receive any information (52% compared with 42%).
74 Table C.14.a: Where do you get information about growing crops? (by residence)
Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Family, community 22.2 25.8 22.8 Agricultural extension officer 23.7 11.6 21.5 Training centre /school /books 3.4 4.4 3.5 Media (newspaper, radio, phone messages) 1.8 2.6 2.0 Kastom Garden Association 0.4 0.8 0.5 Organic Farming Association 0.1 0.1 0.1 SICHE /SICHE students 0.0 0.5 0.1 No details /other 0.5 0.4 0.5 Don't know 2.0 3.7 2.3 Don’t get information 45.8 50.0 46.6 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 4051 914 4965 No answer=7 respondents Table C.14.b: Source of information about growing crops (by gender) Male Female All % % % Family, community 23.7 21.9 22.8 Agricultural extension officer 27.2 15.7 21.5 Training centre /school /books 3.3 3.8 3.5 Media (newspaper, radio, phone messages) 1.4 2.5 2.0 Kastom Garden Association 0.2 0.8 0.5 Organic Farming Association 0.1 0.2 0.1 SICHE /SICHE students 0.0 0.2 0.1 No details /other 0.6 0.3 0.5 Don't know 2.0 2.7 2.3 Don’t get information 41.5 51.8 46.6 % 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2502 2463 4965 No answer=7 respondents Respondents who named a usual source of agricultural information were asked when they last received information from that source. Table C.15 shows that more than half of the respondents had not received any agricultural information for at least a year, especially those in Honiara Settlements (68%), Malaita (63%) and Western Province (62%). Five per cent of respondents said they had never received agricultural information,
75 although they had named a usual source. Women and Young Women were more likely to say it was at least a year since they had received any agricultural information. Table C.15: When did you last receive any agricultural information from that source?
2 6 7 12 More than Don't 0 4 weeks months months 1 year ago Never know % % % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 17.5 22.7 14.4 15.5 28.9 1.0 97 Guadalcanal 17.7 29.4 19.1 31.2 1.1 1.4 282 Honiara 16.3 9.8 7.2 47.7 13.6 5.3 264 Honiara Settlements 1.9 11.4 5.1 68.4 3.8 9.5 158 Isabel 14.8 18.4 12.6 44.8 9.4 223 0.0 Malaita 9.2 15.7 8.8 63.0 2.1 1.2 972 Temotu 14.9 25.0 25.0 26.6 1.1 7.4 188 Western 11.6 10.7 10.7 62.1 3.0 1.8 335
Age/gender group 10.2 19.5 12.3 48.3 5.0 4.7 636 Man 16.1 14.8 7.9 58.1 2.4 0.6 492 Woman 14.3 18.0 13.9 44.9 7.1 1.8 777 Young Man 7.7 14.5 10.9 59.4 4.4 3.1 614 Young Women All respondents 12.0 16.9 11.6 51.9 5.0 2.6 2519 Figure C.16 shows that more than 50% of respondents said someone in their family was an absentee wage worker, and this was higher as compared to the 2007 2009 People’s Surveys. Figure C.16: Family member in wage job away from home (2007 2011) 100 90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2011 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 2007 2008 2009 2011
76 Table C.16 shows relatively high percentages of absentee workers reported in Honiara and Honiara Settlements. This suggests that some respondents may perceive themselves and/or their immediate family as absent from another ‘home’ somewhere in the provinces. As in previous People’s Surveys, absentee workers were twice as likely to be male as females (46% compared with 21.5%). Table C.16: Does anyone in your family have a wage job away from home? Yes, man Yes, woman No % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 41.8 13.6 47.5 280 Guadalcanal 41.9 17.6 47.5 979 Honiara 50.8 23.8 38.2 638 Honiara Settlements 52.9 19.4 36.7 278 Isabel 45.4 24.5 45.7 282 Malaita 42.5 19.5 47.8 1472 Temotu 55.1 24.4 32.4 225 Western 52.9 29.5 33.3 816
Age/gender group Man 44.6 24.6 45.2 1267 Woman 49.8 23.0 36.8 1250 Young Man 44.7 18.7 45.3 1238 Young Woman 46.5 19.5 43.5 1215 Number of respondents 2307 1068 2122 4970 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to two answers per respondent. Table C.17 shows that 75% of those who reported anyone working away from home said the absentee worker(s) remit money to their household. Most likely to report remittances were respondents in Choiseul (83%), Honiara Settlements (82%) and Western (81%), while respondents residing in Honiara were least likely to report receiving remittances. As compared with the other age/gender groups, Men were less likely to report that remittances were sent.
77 Table C.17: Does this person send money to your household? Yes No Don't know % % % Province Choiseul 83.4 16.6 0.0 145 Guadalcanal 71.4 28.4 0.2 511 Honiara 67.6 31.9 0.5 386 Honiara Settlements 81.8 18.2 0.0 176 Isabel 76.3 23.7 0.0 152 Malaita 79.2 19.8 1.0 764 Temotu 50.3 49.7 0.0 149 Western 80.9 19.0 0.2 538 Age/gender group Man 65.6 34.3 0.1 680 Woman 75.3 24.7 0.0 789 Young Man 78.3 20.5 1.2 667 Young Woman 81.8 17.8 0.4 685 All respondents 75.2 24.4 0.4 2821
78 Section D: SAFETY Law and order situation Figure D.1 shows that perceptions of the law and order situation in respondents’ communities were similar in 2011 to those reported in 2010. Increases of 1% each for ‘safe and peaceful’ and 2% for ‘many problems’ were offset by a 2.5% reduction in ‘don’t know’. Even so, both 2010 and 2011 continue to show substantially fewer respondents reporting ‘no problems’ as compared with 2007 and 2008. Figure D.1: How is the law and order situation in your community? (2007 2011)
Table D.1 shows that respondents in Choiseul (49%) and Isabel (45%) were most likely to say their community is ‘safe and peaceful’. Respondents in Temotu were most likely to report ‘many problems’ (43%). Second most likely to report ‘many problems’ were respondents in Honiara (27%), contrasting with only 10% in Honiara Settlements. The main differences between the age/gender groups were that Young Men and Young Women were more likely to say ‘safe and peaceful’ and less likely to report ‘many problems.’ Table D.1: How is the law and order situation in your community? Safe & peaceful Some problems Many problems Don't know (No.) % % % % Province Choiseul 48.9 43.6 7.5 0.0 280 Guadalcanal 19.0 67.7 11.3 1.9 979 Honiara 27.1 45.1 27.0 0.8 638 Honiara Settlements 28.1 61.5 10.4 0.0 278 Isabel 45.4 50.7 3.2 0.7 282 Malaita 31.1 54.8 13.5 0.6 1472 Temotu 20.9 36.0 43.1 0.0 225 Western 43.1 51.8 4.0 1.1 815 Age/gender group Man 28.7 55.0 15.9 0.3 1267 Woman 28.6 53.9 16.1 1.4 1249 Young Man 36.6 54.7 8.6 0.2 1239 Young Woman 31.6 53.5 13.3 1.6 1214 All respondents 31.4 54.3 13.5 0.9 4969 No answer = 3 respondents
79 Figure D.2 shows fewer respondents saying they always feel safe (59% compared with 61% in the 2010 People’s Survey) but this is probably because Temotu was included in the 2011 survey instead of Rennell and Bellona (see Section 1.2.1). On the other hand, there was a substantial improvement in perceptions of safety in Honiara Settlements (52% compared with 39% in 2010). Figure D.2: Do you feel safe in your community? (2010 and 2011) 100 90
80 2010 70 2011 60
% 50 40 30 20 10 0 Always safe Sometimes safe Rafely safe Table D.2 shows respondents in Isabel were most likely to say they always feel safe (89%) with less than 2% saying they rarely felt safe. Choiseul and Western also had high percentages feeling safe. Temotu respondents were most likely to feel unsafe (13%) and least likely to say they always felt safe. Only around half of respondents in Honiara said they always feel safe, with those in Honiara Settlements less likely to say they rarely feel safe (3%) as compared with those in Honiara (6%). Women were more likely to perceive problems than the other age/gender groups. Table D.2: Do you feel safe in your community? Yes Sometimes Rarely % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 77.5 19.6 2.9 280 Guadalcanal 50.8 44.7 4.4 979 Honiara 52.4 41.7 6.0 638 Honiara Settlements 52.2 45.0 2.9 278 Isabel 88.7 9.6 1.8 282 Malaita 56.3 37.8 5.8 1472 Temotu 41.2 46.0 12.8 226 Western 70.8 27.2 2.0 816 Age/gender group Man 62.1 32.7 5.1 1267 Woman 51.4 42.5 6.1 1250 Young Man 65.0 32.2 2.8 1239 Young Woman 58.3 37.0 4.7 1215 All respondents 59.2 36.1 4.7 4971 Don’t know = 1 case
80 Figure D.3 and Table D.3 show that, as in 2010, few respondents said they feel safer at night (2.4% compared with 3.4% in 2010) but in 2011 more respondents said there was no difference. ‘No difference’ was by far the most common response in Isabel (84%). It was also more common among men but there was not much difference between the other age/gender groups. Figure D.3: Do you feel safer in the day or at night? (2010 and 2011) 100 90 2010 80
70 2011 60 % 50 40 30 20 10
Safer in the day Safer at night No difference Table D.3: Do you feel safer in the day or at night? Day Night Same (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 51.4 1.1 47.5 280 Guadalcanal 64.1 3.2 32.6 979 Honiara 49.5 2.7 46.7 638 Honiara Settlements 63.3 0.7 36.0 278 Isabel 13.5 2.1 84.4 282 Malaita 42.0 1.3 56.1 1472 Temotu 69.5 3.1 27.4 226 Western 39.7 4.2 56.1 816
Age/gender group 31.4 1.7 66.5 1267 Man 55.8 1.8 42.1 1250 Woman 51.6 2.3 45.6 1239 Young Man 54.8 3.9 41.2 1215 Young Woman All respondents 48.3 2.4 49.0 4971 Don’t know = 1 case Figure D.4 shows a small increase in the percentage saying they always feel safe in their household (88% compared with 85%) with only a little over 1% saying ‘rarely’ in both years. However, Table D.4 shows that Temotu respondents, who were not surveyed in 2010, were least likely to say ‘always’ (62% compared with
81 80% or more in all other provinces). Women and Young Women were a little less likely to say they always feel safe, but substantially less than 2% said they rarely feel safe. Figure D.4: Do you feel safe in your household? (2010 and 2011) 100 90
80 2010 70 2011 60 % 50 40 30
20
10
0 Always Sometimes Rarely Table D.4: Do you feel safe in your household? Always Sometimes Rarely (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 92.1 6.4 1.4 280 Guadalcanal 87.3 11.2 1.3 979 Honiara 85.6 13.6 0.8 638 Honiara Settlements 79.9 19.8 0.4 278 Isabel 98.9 1.1 0.0 282 Malaita 88.2 10.6 1.1 1472 Temotu 62.4 35.8 1.8 226 Western 92.9 5.9 1.2 815
Age/gender group Man 89.3 9.2 1.3 1267 Woman 85.2 13.2 1.6 1249 Young Man 90.1 9.2 0.7 1239 Young Woman 85.9 13.3 0.7 1215 All respondents 87.6 11.2 1.1 4970 Don’t know = 2 respondents
82 Figure D.5 shows that only 17% of respondents said they always feel safe in Honiara, and this is a decline compared with 2010 (23%). The percentage who said they rarely feel safe in Honiara increased from 28% in 2010 to 33% in 2011. Figure D.5: Do you feel safe in Honiara? (2010 and 2011) 100 90 80 2010 70 2011 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Always Sometimes Rarely Table D.5 shows that residents of Honiara and Honiara Settlements (who were asked about safety in downtown Honiara rather than just Honiara) were most likely to say they feel safe there (29% and 25%) but almost equal percentages said ‘rarely’. Sixty four per cent of respondents from Isabel said they do not feel safe in Honiara. Large percentages of respondents from Western (49%) and Temotu (44%) also said they do not feel safe in Honiara. Interestingly, 5% of respondents from Honiara Settlements said they never visit downtown Honiara. Of the age/gender groups, Young Men (35%) and Young Women (36% and 35%) were more likely than Men (31%) and Women (32%) to say they rarely feel safe in Honiara. Table D.5: Do you feel safe in Honiara? Always Sometimes Rarely Don’t go/don’t know % % % % (No ) Province Choiseul 17.9 35.0 20.0 27.1 280 Guadalcanal 20.5 49.4 28.6 1.4 979 Honiara 28.8 47.0 23.8 0.3 638 Honiara Settlements 24.1 45.0 25.5 5.4 278 Isabel 6.7 27.3 63.8 2.1 282 Malaita 13.9 47.8 28.3 10.0 1471 Temotu 12.4 26.5 44.2 16.8 226 Western 10.9 31.9 49.4 7.9 816 Age/gender group Man 20.7 42.9 30.7 5.7 1266 Woman 15.4 45.8 32.3 6.4 1250 Young Man 13.6 40.9 35.6 9.8 1239 Young Woman 17.9 39.9 35.0 7.2 1215 All respondents 16.9 42.4 33.4 7.3 4970 No answer = 2 respondents
83 Assistance from the RSIPF Figure D.6 shows that 13% of respondents had asked RSIPF for help in the past year, which is almost exactly the same as in 2010. Although the question asked in 2007 2009 was ‘have you had any formal contact with RSIPF’ rather than ‘have you asked RSIPF for help’, the percentage has been almost unchanged in every People’s Survey. Figure D.6: Have you asked the RSIPF for help in the past year? 100
90 2007
80 2008
70 2009
60 2010
% 50 2011 40
30
20
10
0 Yes No Table D.6 shows that respondents from Isabel and Young Women were least likely to seek help from the RSIPF. The percentage for Honiara Settlements (18%) was smaller as compared with 2010 (26%). Table D.6: Have you asked the RSIPF for help in the past year? Yes No (No.) % % Province Choiseul 10.4 89.2 278 Guadalcanal 12.6 86.1 978 Honiara 15.7 83.9 638 Honiara Settlements 18.3 81.7 278 Isabel 7.1 92.9 282 Malaita 11.4 87.5 1468 Temotu 13.3 86.7 226 Western 14.0 86.0 815
Age/gender group 19.1 80.6 1266 Man 10.2 88.9 1249 Woman 13.9 85.8 1236 Young Man 7.8 91.2 1212 Young Woman All respondents 12.8 86.6 4942 Wouldn’t like to say = 30 respondents
84 Tables D.7.a and D.7.b show the types of problems for which help was sought. While disturbances (38%), violence or assault (28%) and theft (26%) were the main problems in both rural and urban areas, a wide range of other problems was also mentioned by small percentages of respondents. Theft was mentioned less often in Honiara (22%) than in rural areas (27%). The main difference by gender was that females were more likely than males to seek help for disturbances and violence and less likely to report theft and community disputes. The major concerns were the same in 2010, but the percentages cannot be compared because multiple responses were not permitted in 2010. Table D.7.a: What was this request for help from RSIPF for? (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Disturbances 37.3 41.6 38.3 Violence or assault 29.3 25.5 28.4 Theft 27.4 22.1 26.1 Community dispute 17.5 4.0 14.3 Seek advice /information /legal matters 3.4 2.0 3.0 Settle disagreement between individuals / adultery 1.9 4.0 2.4 Arson / destruction of property 2.5 0.7 2.1 Administrative e.g. Licence, clearance 0.8 0.7 0.8 Land dispute and related matters 0.6 0.7 0.6 Protection 0.6 0.7 0.6 Traffic accident 0.0 2.0 0.5 No details /other 0.4 0.7 0.5 Wouldn't like to say 0.4 2.0 0.8 Number of respondents 475 149 624 Table D.7.b: What was this request for help from RSIPF for? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Disturbances 36.4 41.9 38.3 Violence or assault 27.6 29.8 28.4 Theft 27.1 24.2 26.1 Community dispute 18.6 6.0 14.3 Seek advice /information /legal matters 3.2 2.8 3.0 Settle disagreement between individuals / adultery 1.7 3.7 2.4 Arson / destruction of property 1.5 3.3 2.1 Administrative e.g. Licence, clearance 1.0 0.5 0.8 Land dispute and related matters 0.7 0.5 0.6 Protection 0.7 0.5 0.6 Traffic accident 0.5 0.5 0.5 No details /other 0.7 0.0 0.5 Wouldn't like to say 0.7 0.9 0.8 Number of respondents 409 215 624
85 FGD participants said that the main problems in communities relate to alcohol consumption. This is a broad response that covers over consumption of beer, homebrew and kwaso, and the side effects of alcohol abuse, domestic conflict, assaults, misuse of family money and disputes when families are left with no money to buy food. Drug abuse, predominantly marijuana use, is also a major problem in Honiara, and often linked to alcohol abuse. Almost half of the problems identified in the qualitative survey were directly associated with alcohol, while almost any kind of dispute may be triggered or aggravated by alcohol consumption. Family disputes, the second most commonly reported, may also be related to alcohol. Of the disputes mentioned in FGDs, almost a quarter related to personal issues such as premarital and extramarital affairs. Other disputes mentioned were arguments about land, stealing from the gardens, fights between women over garden areas, swearing, vandalism, damage to property and inter family conflicts over illicit relations between young men and young women or between older men and older women. Gossip also causes disputes in village communities. Other causes of disputes were land and property conflicts and broader social causes. ‘All the boys around here drink home brew and smoke marijuana and make disturbances in the village.’ (FGD, Women, Western) Police said that the main disputes that they handle are crimes against property, general disturbances and arguments, usually alcohol related because kwaso, homebrew and also marijuana are found in most communities. Conflicts over land use and logging are also reported to police, who describe them as ‘conflicts arising from the struggle to survive.’ ‘Mainly the causes of disputes here is alcohol. When people get drunk they start to talk about someone and hurt someone … and then it increases … people drink anytime of the day and any time of the week.’ (SSI, Men, Honiara settlement) Participants also mentioned problems between families over boy/girl relationships, premarital affairs, men consorting with ‘O2s’ (mistresses), the lack of respect for marriage generally and male domination in general (paternalism and misogyny). Other personal problems raised were new social concerns such as swearing and abuse over the mobile phone. Inland communities in Malaita report the same problems as rural communities elsewhere. Alcohol related arguments cause disturbances in the village and young men swearing at elders is also considered a significant social problem in conservative communities. Young men have been reported for stealing from gardens and for using marijuana. Under age sexual activities, called ‘boy/girl relationships,’ often cause family and inter family arguments. Police in South Malaita reported that they mainly deal with land disputes that cause: fighting; stealing, especially by the young men who have no money; people drinking homebrew and kwaso; violence and sometimes murder. Rape, however, is seldom reported to police. ‘Land issues and all drugs, like marijuana and kwaso, cause a lot of conflicts in our village here, men drink and come fighting anyone who makes them cross’. (FGD, Men, rural Malaita) Police in Western said the main problems were alcohol and drug abuse and the related problems of disrespect for elders, fighting, swearing, stealing property and stealing from gardens. The problem of men having ‘O2s’ (mistresses) and other men ‘creeping’ (voyeurism) were also mentioned. Figure D.8 shows that, compared with 2010, fewer respondents overall were satisfied with the help received from the RSIPF. Nonetheless, Table D.8 shows that satisfaction improved in some places.
86 Figure D.8: Were you satisfied with the help you received from RSIPF? 100
90 Satisfied 80 Not satisfied 70
60 % 50 40
30
20
10
0 2010 2011 Forty four per cent of respondents were satisfied with the help received from police and 55% said they were not satisfied. Table D.8 shows that respondents in Honiara Settlements (57%) and Honiara (55%) were most likely to be satisfied while residents of Temotu were least likely (33%). In Honiara Settlements satisfaction with police increased from 49% in 2010 to 57% in 2011. Young Men were slightly more likely to be dissatisfied with the help received as compared to Men and Women. Table D.8: Were you satisfied with the help you received from RSIPF? Yes No % % (No.) Province Choiseul 42.9 57.1 28 Guadalcanal 38.7 61.3 119 Honiara 55.1 44.9 98 Honiara Settlements 57.1 40.8 49 Isabel 50.0 50.0 20 Malaita 42.2 54.2 166 Temotu 33.3 66.7 30 Western 36.3 63.7 113 Age/gender group Man 40.4 58.7 235 Woman 43.7 56.3 126 Young Man 36.3 60.8 171 Young Woman 64.8 35.2 91 All respondents 43.5 55.4 623 No answer = 8 respondents Respondents who were not satisfied with the help they received from the RSIPF were asked why they were not satisfied. Table D.9 shows the most common reason was that the police didn’t do anything to help (82%), while the only other reason given was that the police were too slow to respond (16%). Slow response was reported most often in Honiara (41%) and Isabel (30%). Young Women were more likely than other groups to report slowness rather than lack of help. This question was not asked in 2010.
87 Table D.9: Why weren’t you satisfied with the help received? Police didn't Police too No help slow details % % % Province Choiseul 100.0 0.0 0.0 16 Guadalcanal 86.3 12.3 1.4 73 Honiara 56.8 40.9 2.3 44 Honiara Settlements 85.0 15.0 0.0 20 Isabel 70.0 30.0 0.0 10 Malaita 86.8 8.8 4.4 91 Temotu 85.0 15.0 0.0 20 Western 83.3 16.7 0.0 72 Age/gender group Man 84.9 13.7 1.4 139 Woman 84.5 14.1 1.4 71 Young Man 82.7 15.4 1.9 104 Young Woman 62.5 34.4 3.1 32 All respondents 82.1 16.2 1.7 346 Perceptions of the RSIPF Figure D.10 shows that 31% of respondents said that the RSIPF treats people well, while 36% said ‘sometimes’ and 27% said ‘no’. The percentage of respondents with a positive opinion of the RSIPF was less in 2011 than in 2010 (a decline from 38% to 31%), but similar to 2009 (31%). The figure also shows that since 2008 there has been a steady decline in the percentage saying ‘don’t know’, suggesting growing confidence to speak out in the community. Figure D.10: Does the RSIPF treat people fairly and with respect? (2007 2011) 100
90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2010 % 50 2011 40
30 20 10
Yes Sometimes No Don't know Table D.10 shows that respondents in Isabel (59%), Honiara Settlements (41%) and Guadalcanal (39%) were most likely to have a good opinion of the RSIPF. Respondents in Temotu were most likely to have a bad opinion (47%) followed by respondents in Western (37%). As compared to the other age/gender groups, Men were least likely to have a good opinion of the RSIPF (28%).
88 Table D.10: Does the RSIPF treat people fairly and with respect? Yes Sometimes No Don't know (No.) % % % % Province Choiseul 31.8 37.9 26.8 3.6 280 Guadalcanal 39.1 31.1 24.7 5.1 977 Honiara 34.4 40.2 19.6 5.8 637 Honiara Settlements 40.4 38.3 14.8 6.5 277 Isabel 58.9 25.5 9.6 6.0 282 Malaita 23.5 36.5 28.8 11.1 1471 Temotu 19.9 28.3 46.9 4.9 226 Western 20.6 39.4 37.2 2.8 815
Age/gender group Man 27.6 35.8 31.4 5.1 1266 Woman 30.2 33.5 24.0 12.2 1249 Young Man 30.6 39.5 27.2 2.7 1237 Young Woman 34.7 33.5 25.4 6.4 1213 All respondents 30.8 35.6 27.0 6.6 4965 No answer = 7 respondents Figure D.11 shows responses to a new question, ‘do you think the RSIPF has improved in the past five years?’ (i.e. since the Chinatown Riots). Overall, 24% said ‘yes’, while 24% said it had improved in some ways, while 40% thought the RSIPF had not improved. This is reasonably consistent with Table D.10. Figure D.11: Has RSIPF improved in the last five years? 100 90 n=4966 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes Some No Don't know Table D.11 shows that respondents in Temotu (68%) and Western (56%) and Young Men (45%) were most likely to say there had been no improvement in the RSIPF in the past five years.
89 Table D.11: Has the RSIPF improved in the past 5 years? Yes In some ways No Don't know % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 27.1 33.9 33.2 5.7 280 Guadalcanal 34.5 21.2 35.7 8.6 977 Honiara 30.6 27.0 33.1 9.4 638 Honiara Settlements 32.1 26.4 28.2 13.4 277 Isabel 35.1 28.7 31.2 5.0 282 Malaita 19.4 23.4 36.2 21.0 1472 Temotu 10.2 15.6 67.6 6.7 225 Western 13.3 22.3 56.1 8.3 815 Age/gender group Man 28.5 25.9 37.3 8.3 1266 Woman 24.1 17.7 36.6 21.6 1250 Young Man 22.8 27.2 45.3 4.7 1237 Young Woman 22.1 25.1 38.8 14.0 1213 All respondents 24.4 24.0 39.5 12.1 4966 No answer = 6 respondents FGD participants were not asked specifically about contact with the RSIPF or about their perceptions of the police. However, other questions asked in relation to law and justice (see Section I) produced many comments on the local police. The inability of the police to respond to local crime and the weakness of the police has undermined their social position and led to a general and serious lack of confidence in the RSIPF. All groups interviewed reported that police are unwilling to leave police posts. They are ineffective when they do and village people, especially women and youth, are reluctant to report crimes to the police because they fear them. FGD participants in coastal Guadalcanal said that police had been seen taking bribes, from people not wanting police involvement and from wantoks wanting them to delay or decline to investigate matters. Many other comments pointed to a long term and serious lack of confidence in the local police, particularly in east Guadalcanal communities. The issue was not just a matter of dissatisfaction with police performance, however, but fear of harassment, retaliation, damage to property and threats to safety if disputes are reported to the police. Honiara participants believe that many police are corrupt and will even tip off criminals, especially if they are wantoks. ‘The police are not any kind of deterrent; although lack of logistics is often the reason, they do not respond to cases even close to the police post.’ (FGD, Men, Honiara) Participants in Isabel also expressed their dissatisfaction with the police and stated ‘nothing is done about most cases reported to police’ and ‘nothing is taken to court’. There was also dissatisfaction with police conduct. ‘All the police themselves are involved in drinking beer … they come and find beer in the village and disturb the village.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, Isabel)
90 Temotu participants said their police force is very weak, with few police posts outside Lata or on Nendo. There are no court houses, no solicitors and no lawyers in the province and the magistrate in Lata has many unsolved cases. Police logistics in Temotu are poor and a common response from police is that they have no resources to respond to crimes in rural areas. All communities surveyed in Western Province reported that the police were ineffective, do not undertake community awareness programs and fail to follow up on cases. Some Western Province participants complained that police would not respond to requests from communities just across the lagoon. Others said residents of remote villages assume they will have to provide transport if they want police to attend a crime scene. ‘Through my own observation, before the Tension police were active doing their work, and when RAMSI arrived police started to relax when they did their work.’ (FGD, Men, Western Province) Western Province police posts tend to be far from the coastal villages. Police housing is poor and police stations are reported to be often closed. A police officer interviewed in Western volunteered that he was aware of much criticism from the community but said the police post was understaffed, resources were scarce and the police OBM was in need of repair. Police everywhere reported that they have to leave posts unattended if they have duties elsewhere, that they lack logistics and are understaffed. One police officer remarked ‘Being a policeman is not really a good job. You think it will give you status and a good career but it doesn’t. That is, there are frustrations, it is difficult for police to do their job well because of lack of resources, and they are subject to much criticism.’ Police officers in Western Province said local policewomen are needed to investigate domestic violence and to discuss conflicts with the women. Gizo has the only regular court and substantial attendance costs for both offenders and the police discourage completion of prosecutions. Even where police do respond to calls, there tends to be widespread suspicion of favouritism or bias if kin or wantoks of police are involved. This suspicion is only increased if the case is dropped or not followed up for some reason, whether legitimate (such as lack of evidence or the cost of prosecution) or not (wantok influence or bribes). Mistrust of police is aggravated by posting police to their own locales and provinces, a practice which has always been problematic and was increased during the Tension and by shortages of police housing. Causes of conflict in Solomon Islands Tables D.12.a and b show a wide range of responses to another new question: ‘what are the main causes of conflict and problems in Solomon Islands?’ By far the most common response was ‘land disputes’ (61%), followed by ‘alcohol and drugs’ (40%) and arguments outside and within the family (21%). Criminal activity (17%) and performance of government and politicians (11%) were also seen as important, while a wide range of other causes were mentioned by less than 10% of respondents. It is notable that less than 10% mentioned tension between ethnic or provincial groups, migration or illegal settlement. Urban respondents were less likely to mention land disputes (41% compared with 65% for rural residents) but more likely to mention alcohol and drugs (46%), political performance (18%) and unemployment (13%). Male and female responses were generally similar except that female respondents were more likely to mention arguments and less likely to mention problems with government and politicians.
91 Table D.12.a: What are the main causes of problems and conflict in Solomon Islands? (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Land disputes 65.2 40.8 60.7 Alcohol /drugs /kwaso 38.2 45.8 39.6 Arguments /infidelity /domestic arguments 21.3 22.3 21.5 Criminal activity /violence /murder 16.8 18.1 17.1 Government /politicians /MPs performance 9.9 17.6 11.3 Provincial or ethnic tension /migration/ illegal settlement 8.9 13.0 9.7 Lack of respect for kastom, culture or religious values 8.6 8.6 8.6 Foreign investors / logging /investments 9.3 2.6 8.1 Unemployment /youth unemployment 5.2 12.5 6.5 Corruption 6.3 6.5 6.3 Wantokism /nepotism /jealousy 3.7 3.6 3.7 Poverty 2.2 5.0 2.7 Too much freedom /disobeying laws /Human Rights laws 1.7 1.3 1.6 Superstition /black magic 0.4 0.3 0.4 Low educational standards /lack of education 0.4 0.3 0.4 No details /other 0.2 0.1 0.2 Don't know 4.0 1.9 3.6 Number of respondents 4042 914 4956 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Table D.12.b: What are the main causes of problems and conflict in Solomon Islands (by gender) Male Female All % % % Land disputes 63.2 58.2 60.7 Alcohol /drugs /kwaso 39.6 39.7 39.6 Arguments /infidelity /domestic arguments/ trouble 17.6 25.4 21.5 Criminal activity /violence /murder 16.6 17.6 17.1 Problems with Government /politicians /MPs 14.6 7.9 11.3 Provincial or ethnic tension /migration/ illegal settlement 10.9 8.4 9.7 Lack of respect for kastom, culture or religious values 10.2 7.0 8.6 Foreign investors / logging /investments 6.8 9.4 8.1 Unemployment /youth unemployment 8.9 4.1 6.5 Corruption 7.1 5.6 6.3 Wantokism /nepotism /jealousy 3.8 3.5 3.7 Poverty 2.7 2.8 2.7 Too much freedom /disobeying laws /Human Rights laws 1.5 1.7 1.6 Superstition /black magic 0.6 0.2 0.4 Low educational standards /lack of education 0.4 0.3 0.4 No details /other 0.2 0.1 0.2 Don't know 1.9 5.3 3.6 Number of respondents 2501 2455 4956 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
92 Figure D.12 combines the categories mentioned by less than 7% of respondents, emphasising the perceived importance of land disputes and alcohol/drugs. Figure D.12: Main causes of problems and conflict in Solomon Islands 100 90 n=4956 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0
As in Tables D.12.a and D.12.b, the main causes of conflict in Solomon Islands mentioned by FGD participants were a mix of major and minor issues. This is to be expected as most disputes have multiple causes; for example a major dispute over land may not have occurred if the protagonists had not been drinking or had not had illicit liaisons (O2s). Many disputes, both minor and major, relate to alcohol consumption. Others are what one policeman defined in relation to land use and logging disputes as ’conflicts arising from the struggle to survive’. Religious and political differences may also start or inflame disputes, both major and minor. In urban settlement communities around Honiara built on unregistered land, people are often in conflict with the governments and with the original land owners. These squatters are likely to become involved in further disputes over the use of garden land, expanding boundaries of the urban slums and harvesting resources without permission. Some of these disputes may be internal to the settlement, as well as with outside groups. These issues are aggravated by population increase and the internal migration of residents of outer provinces who come to Honiara in search of work, medical care or education. Overcrowding also contributes to internal family conflicts. The many development issues facing the Solomon Islands were identified by participants as underlying causes of disputes, including the competition between leaders for power, the rise of the cash economy, new churches dividing communities and undermining the power of the established churches and the lack of national development plans. Inland communities in Malaita said land disputes are a major problem while some mentioned inter group disagreements among followers of new churches and fundamentalist sects that are appearing in Solomon Islands. There are also conflicts between communities. Participants in Western Province said land disputes and logging are serious issues and that land disputes are caused by many factors, including not sharing cash payments from logging, access to gardens being prevented by other landowners and the development of water supplies on contested land. They said that men have died from arguments over logging rights and women who dispute access to forests have been seriously beaten. ‘Disputes only arise when logging companies operate on our land and when somebody does business without consulting the whole tribe.’ ‘Some people steal from our coconut plantation because they claimed that we planted our coconuts on their land.’ (FGD, Men, Western Province)
93 Perceptions of RAMSI5 Figure D.13 shows that support for RAMSI has remained consistent with previous years. There was a small increase to 86% compared with 84% for 2010, while 9% did not support RAMSI and 6% were undecided. Figure D.13: Do you support the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands? (2007 2011) 100 90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2010 % 50 2011 40 30 20 10
Yes No Undecided Table D.13 shows that respondents in Honiara were least likely to say ‘yes’ (72%) whereas in previous years respondents in Malaita were least likely to support RAMSI. It is also notable that respondents in Honiara were more likely to be undecided in 2011 compared with 2010 (an increase from 6% to 9%). Female respondents were a little more likely than male respondents to support RAMSI. Table D.13: Do you support the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands? Yes No Undecided % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 90.7 6.4 2.9 280 Guadalcanal 91.6 4.8 3.6 979 Honiara 71.7 19.8 8.5 637 Honiara Settlements 88.5 7.2 4.3 278 Isabel 94.7 3.6 1.8 281 Malaita 82.7 9.2 8.1 1468 Temotu 92.5 4.0 3.5 226 Western 88.7 7.2 4.0 815 Age/gender group Man 82.9 11.8 5.3 1263 Woman 87.3 5.3 7.4 1249 Young Man 85.0 9.4 5.7 1237 Young Woman 88.7 7.7 3.6 1215 All respondents 85.9 8.5 5.5 4964 No answer=8 respondents Figure D.14 shows a new question for all respondents, ‘do you think Solomon Islands is ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities?’ Overall, 19% said ‘yes’, 65% said ‘no’ and 15% were undecided.
5 All data in this section, including comments made in FGDs, relate to existing perceptions of RAMSI. Interviewers and facilitators did not provide any information about RAMSI’s work and did not correct ‘wrong’ answers or misunderstandings.
94 Figure D.14: Is Solomon Islands ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities? 100
90 80 n=4957
70
60 % 50 40
30 20
10
Yes No Undecided Table D.14 shows that respondents in Honiara suburbs were most likely to think it is time for RAMSI to scale back (31%), but not those in Honiara Settlements (20%). Respondents in Malaita were least likely to say ‘yes’ (15%) but also most likely to be undecided (26%). Men and Young Men were almost twice as likely as Women to say ‘yes’. Table D.14: Is Solomon Islands ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities? Yes No Undecided % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 10.7 86.8 2.5 280 Guadalcanal 15.6 75.0 9.4 979 Honiara 30.8 52.0 17.3 637 Honiara Settlements 20.1 64.0 15.8 278 Isabel 20.6 75.4 3.9 281 Malaita 15.2 58.5 26.3 1465 Temotu 24.0 71.1 4.9 225 Western 23.6 64.8 11.6 812 Age/gender group Man 26.7 61.9 11.5 1264 Woman 11.5 67.8 20.7 1244 Young Man 21.9 67.4 10.7 1238 Young Woman 17.3 64.6 18.1 1211 All respondents 19.4 65.4 15.2 4957 No answer=15 respondents Respondents who did not think it was time for RAMSI to scale back its activities were asked when Solomon Islands would be ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities. Figure D.15 shows that the majority thought it would be ‘more than five years’, with 26% saying ‘more than 10 years’.
95 Figure D.15: When will it be time for RAMSI to scale back its activities? 100
90
80 n=3274 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10
1 3 years 4 5 years 6 10 years More than Undecided 10 years Table D.15 shows that residents of Honiara were most likely to say it should be ‘soon’, while Isabel respondents were most likely to say more than five years (67%). Respondents in Honiara Settlements (17%) and Malaita (15%) were most likely to be undecided. Male respondents were more likely than female respondents to suggest a medium term of four to 10 years. Table D.15: When will it be time for RAMSI to scale back its activities? Soon More than 10 (1 3 yrs) 4 5 yrs 6 10 yrs yrs Undecided % % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 8.7 19.4 31.4 38.4 2.1 242 Guadalcanal 8.8 30.5 39.5 15.1 6.1 735 Honiara 12.3 21.7 28.9 28.0 9.0 332 Honiara Settlements 5.5 20.9 22.5 34.6 16.5 182 Isabel 5.0 26.6 53.7 12.8 1.8 218 Malaita 6.9 25.2 30.6 22.4 14.9 872 Temotu 6.9 26.4 30.2 28.9 7.5 159 Western 6.6 20.6 26.6 38.4 7.9 534 Age/gender group Man 7.4 26.7 32.4 28.2 5.2 786 Woman 6.6 16.3 38.6 28.8 9.7 843 Young Man 9.1 36.6 26.8 21.1 6.5 836 Young Woman 7.9 19.5 33.7 23.9 15.0 809 All respondents 7.8 24.8 32.9 25.5 9.1 3274 All FGD participants were asked ‘What more does RAMSI need to do before it is ready to leave?’ The range of responses covered both social needs and infrastructure requirements. It included some suggestions that reflect a lack of understanding of RAMSI’s mandate. Participants also had varying ideas about when RAMSI should leave Solomon Islands and RAMSI’s future engagement with the SIG. Most inland communities in east Guadalcanal wanted RAMSI to restore and strengthen law and order, solve land disputes, stop corruption, capture all criminals, bring peace to all communities and assist with the state government proposals. They also wanted RAMSI to improve or build more schools and clinics, build more police posts, provide the local
96 police with better logistics and establish development projects in rural areas, that is, to deliver services that national and local government are not delivering. FGD participants in east Guadalcanal felt it was too early for RAMSI to leave or that RAMSI should not leave at all. However, there was a general a lack of awareness of the role and responsibilities of RAMSI. Some people in remote areas of Guadalcanal also stated that they did not feel the influence of RAMSI in their area. Participants in FGDs with coastal communities emphasised the social responsibility of RAMSI. They wanted RAMSI to capture all criminals, improve the economy, maintain law and order and transfer expertise to local police. Most rural FGDs considered RAMSI to be responsible not only for building the capacity of local police but also for recruiting more police. Suggestions reflecting a lack of understanding of RAMSI included wanting RAMSI to provide financial assistance to rural people, build more police posts, provide expert knowledge for farmers and even become an aid donor. Clearly the official mandate of RAMSI remains obscure to many in rural communities, even those relatively close to Honiara. This is despite the media, public relations and community awareness campaigns of RAMSI. In terms of timing, some participants felt that RAMSI and SIG should sign a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) specifying that if RAMSI leaves and civil conflicts erupt, as people seem to expect, then RAMSI could return to secure the country again. ‘For us before RAMSI leaves it must strengthen law and order. People are still frightened.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) ‘RAMSI should help the government to train our local police officers, so they would be able to handle a dispute if it happened in our country.’ (FGD, Young Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) Most individuals and groups interviewed in Honiara stressed the need for improvements to social infrastructure, including strengthening law and order, capacity building in all government agencies, empowering village leaders, eliminating the black market, stabilising the economy and improving civil society. Requests that RAMSI improve physical infrastructure were also common, and emphasise the need for significant improvements to roads, rural banking, police housing, providing logistics to the police and making RAMSI a bilateral aid program. Participants also requested that RAMSI survey the country to see where better services are needed. As regards the departure of RAMSI from the Solomon Islands, only four FGDs in Honiara did not want RAMSI to stay. They made comments such as ‘mi no laekem RAMSI tumas’, ‘RAMSI personnel were here as if on holidays’, ‘the early years of RAMSI were about guns, later sitting at desks’ and ‘RAMSI must go back, must not stay’. Most participants fear a return of civil unrest and, although they say RAMSI works only at the national and not at the provincial levels, they want RAMSI to stay around 10 years. ‘If RAMSI extends its contract, they must go down to the local people (grassroots level) and give information ... and try to find ways to engage youths in the community to avoid having problems.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, Honiara) ‘RAMSI should assist the government to get rid of all the corrupt practices that happen within the government offices.’ (FGD, Men, Honiara settlement) Participants in Isabel Province thought RAMSI should provide a list of social and physical infrastructure in the community before exiting the Solomon Islands. Among the social needs they mentioned were: to address corruption in the government ministries and the public service; to build the capacity of local Solomon Islands police; to build capacity in the public service; to control alcohol related incidents; to solve small disputes (rather than concentrate on solving the major disputes); and to provide law and order training for the chiefs. Many of these are already being addressed by various sections of the RAMSI administration but it is obvious
97 that participants were not well informed. Their comments suggest that village people remain distrustful of local police. ‘The presence of RAMSI makes us feel safe and we would [be] frightened if they went back … and we don’t trust our local police to work as well as RAMSI.’ (FGD, Women, Isabel) ‘Train local police so that people would feel confident in them like the RAMSI police.’ (FGD, Men, Isabel) Among the physical infrastructure needs mentioned by participants in Isabel were: to repair and improve the roads; to build local magistrate’s courts in provincial sub centres; to help build and equip schools; to build provincial police stations; to help facilitate the spending of the RCDF; to provide sanitation for schools; and to build community rest houses and halls. Participants’ perceptions of these tasks as the duties of RAMSI indicate a lack of understanding of the nature and meaning of the intervention. As to the timing of RAMSI’s departure, most participants in Isabel thought RAMSI should stay and extend its contract with SIG. ‘Too early for RAMSI to leave; it should extend its contract.’ ‘If RAMSI leaves something may happen again, at least RAMSI should not completely leave us.’ (FGD, Women, Isabel) ‘Lots of things happen in Honiara and we do not understand the work of RAMSI, because we do not see them come and do things in our community here.’ (FGD, Men, rural Isabel) Uncertainty about RAMSI’s role appears to be widespread. Many participants reported that they were ‘not sure what RAMSI is doing in the country’ and that ‘RAMSI needs to explain its role in the country to the community.’ Participants at meetings in Malaita mentioned a range of social issues that they want RAMSI to deal with before it leaves. They said law and order needs to be restored and strengthened because there is still criminal activity inside and outside the villages. They also want young people to be provided with opportunities, jobs and life skills. It was apparent that they still fear ex militants, and said that social life and village harmony is threatened by alcohol abuse especially production of homebrew and kwaso. ‘Most women here never attended schools and we need someone to come and educate us about the government and its work.’ (FGD, Women, rural Malaita) One reason for wanting RAMSI to stay that was often mentioned is that people distrust the local police and want chiefs empowered to be able to deal with local conflicts and disputes. ‘My worry now is, if RAMSI leaves who will look after us, because at the moment I don’t see the police perform their duties well like before.’ ‘RAMSI needs to train our local police, because every Saturday I go down to Auki and see people drunk everywhere and police doing nothing about it’. (FGDs, Men, rural Malaita) ‘What are RAMSI doing here, if they came to restore law and order then why are men who deserve life imprisonment all out and free now?’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Malaita) ‘RAMSI is good at security but local police are really not working well at the moment … they should not leave yet.’
98 (FGD, Women, rural Malaita). Most rural participants believe that RAMSI has a role in providing physical infrastructure such as roads, schools and water supplies. A minority thought the police should be armed in case of renewed civil unrest and that RAMSI should leave its logistics to the RSIPF. As to the timing of RAMSI’s departure, typical comments were ‘Don’t leave because things will become worse again’, ‘We are very worried if RAMSI returns home’ and ‘There will be no safety anymore.’ In particular, people fear the return of killings and the appearance of guns in the communities. FGD participants in Temotu wanted RAMSI to continue to help the SIG with law and order issues and to strengthen the relationship between RAMSI and the Solomon Islander people generally. They also want RAMSI to provide more policing in Lata and other centres and empower the chiefs to deal with local social problems. They expressed concern that SIG does not have clear ideas about its own sovereignty in relation to the position of RAMSI in the country and criticised RAMSI for not buying food and other services locally to support the local economy. Participants in one FGD in Temotu perceived and criticized RAMSI officers as ‘fraternising with Solomon Islands women’ but it is not known if there is any evidence that this had actually occurred. Temotu participants also said that before RAMSI leaves it should assist with infrastructure needs including roads, bridges, clinics, schools and wharves and to provide services in Lata equal to those in Honiara. Some participants said there should be scholarships for local students. Most participants in Western Province focused on RAMSI’s role in the provision of social infrastructure, which contrasts with the range of physical infrastructure listed in FGDs in elsewhere. Possibly this reflects the better state of physical infrastructure in Western Province. Western Province participants wanted RAMSI to continue strengthening law and order, to eliminate corruption and to investigate corrupt practices in national and local government and in the public service. Some participants in Western Province wanted more police to be trained and others suggested that RAMSI should build more police posts, provide the police with better logistics, collect all guns that remain hidden, and find and destroy marijuana plantations. One FGD commented that ‘RAMSI may have helped at national level but not at grassroots level’, meaning that efforts to strengthen the police have focus on Honiara, Guadalcanal and Malaita. This view was also expressed by the police officers interviewed in Western Province. A few participants suggested that RAMSI should help with the establishment of conservation forests in the Marovo region. Like participants elsewhere, Western Province participants feared RAMSI’s departure and expressed concern that conflict would arise again after RAMSI leaves. What does SIG need to do before RAMSI can leave Solomon Islands? FGD participants were also asked for their views on what SIG needs to do before RAMSI can leave Solomon Islands. Most had many ideas on what still needs to be done. Inland communities in east Guadalcanal said that SIG needs to be honest with the people, to learn from RAMSI’s achievements, secure proper reconciliation between Malaita and Guadalcanal and rehabilitate ex militants from both sides. It also needs to build more police posts, strengthen national and customary laws, revive traditional law and order and stop corruption in the public service. Rural groups also mentioned the need to improve health services. The points mentioned by coastal FGDs in Guadalcanal were similar. They added that SIG needs to become more capable and more self reliant, should formulate rural development plans and should ensure safety, security and trust in rural communities. They also said that SIG should empower local chiefs, provide equipment for rural farmers, fund farmers directly and not through the local MP, improve transport, water and sanitation, build a fishery centre in east Guadalcanal and build more police posts. Men in one FGD wanted SIG to arm all police and to order RAMSI to return all arms collected during the amnesties. Both inland and coastal communities remarked that they wanted more clarification on the role of the Constituency Development Officer (CDO) and that CDOs should be required to tour the electorate. ‘The Government must meet the demands of Guadalcanal and Malaita, before we do any reconciliation.’
99 ‘At the moment we only peace in the hand, but not peace in the mind yet, the government must take that into consideration.’ (LGDs, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) ‘While RAMSI is still here, the government should allow them to address the corruption that exists within all government ministries.’ (FGD, Young Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) Participants in Honiara also wanted SIG to strengthen civil society and the rule of law and to strengthen transparency and accountability within Government and the Public Service. Government workers were more likely to say that constitutional reform is needed and that it is important to educate the ordinary citizen about the role of the Leadership Code Commission, the Ombudsman’s Office, national Parliament and the Public Service Commission. They also considered it the duty of SIG to improve education, re establish rural banking, and build ‘growth centres’ in provincial regions. They said that too much development has occurred in Honiara and not enough in the provinces. ‘About 200 families will be displaced when the stadium is built here … and it’s the Government’s problem because they have centralized developments in Honiara.’ (SSI, Men, Honiara settlement, commenting on the proposed sports stadium development for the Festival of Pacific Arts to be built in eastern Honiara) Some participants thought that SIG is too dependent on RAMSI, and said that unless the intervention forces leave soon then the Government will lose its capacity to maintain law and order, reduce corruption and manage the economy without RAMSI’s assistance. ‘Train all the police officers and other public servants to be able to carry out the work just as RAMSI does.’ ‘Government with the help of RAMSI should look for work and other activities for youth to do, to keep them busy because they are now engaged in criminal activities in the town.’ ‘Build vocational schools in squatter settlements, like Mamana Water (Water Front) because we need to provide skill training for the youth.’ (FGD, Men, Honiara settlements) FGDs in Isabel Province community groups said that SIG has a great deal of social infrastructure to build before it would be able to function effectively without RAMSI assistance. They also thought that the RSIPF needed considerable capacity building so that citizens would respect the police as much as they respect RAMSI (some said ‘not fear the RSIPF’). Others in Isabel villages said internal migration between provinces and movement to and from Honiara should be controlled by SIG. Reconciliation between Malaita and Guadalcanal was seen as important as a means of resolving outstanding tensions, along with the restoration of law and order generally and the apprehension of all criminals. ‘Government should make a committee to work in collaboration with RAMSI … a separate body to look after our welfare.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, Isabel) ‘The movement of people, the government should enforce some strict rules to stop it, for example people from another province should not come to Isabel anymore.’ (FGD, Women Isabel) Some Isabel participants said SIG needs to collect all guns from ex militants, and Isabel needs a proper juvenile justice system and a magistrate’s court in Buala. Police posts needed to be built in remote areas and
100 roads throughout the islands should be repaired and rebuilt. A few participants thought the police should be armed. As regards the timing of RAMSI’s exit, most participants were of the opinion that RAMSI’s contract with SIG should be extended because people have little real confidence in the RSIPF but because they wanted an assurance that RAMSI could return if needed. Participants on Malaita stressed the need for SIG to provide more social infrastructure. They also said it needs to control corruption, instil good discipline among public servants and ministry officials, promote confidence in the government and its work, strengthen law and order, provide more training for local police officers, and ensure transparency in financial dealing among MPs and government officers. ‘The Government must train our local police, to restore law and order. So that when RAMSI leaves we should have no problems.’ (FGD, Men, rural Malaita) ‘The Government needs to monitor its employees, like in Auki we see police do nothing, people drink beer everywhere and the police never arrest anyone.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Malaita) ‘The Government needs to make a group to work just like RAMSI, to help the police.’ (FGD, Men, rural Malaita) Participants in Malaita also said there should be more vocational education, more rural police posts and more rural development, especially in Malaita, to make people return home. Lack of development in Malaita – the largest and most densely populated island – has historically been a source of grievance, while inequitable development has been a root cause for civic unrest. Participants in Malaita also mentioned the need for good roads, not only for economic development but also so that police could move around the communities more easily. ‘The Government should work on big projects like Aluta and Bina in every province, for all people to go back and work in their own provinces.’ ‘We need projects like cocoa driers to cook our own cocoa beans for us to sell, and it would also help us generate more income as well.’ (FGDs, Men, rural Malaita) In Western Province participants said SIG should strengthen law and order to prevent the Tensions from returning. While people recognise that RAMSI has created a good security environment, they want SIG to be capable and confident of standing on its own should RAMSI leave. They said that SIG should improve accountability and service delivery and develop reliable leaders. They also want their community leaders to be empowered and recognised in the law. Some suggested that increasing police budgets and improving their logistics would eliminate social problems. Other suggestions were that a security representative should be posted in each village, as in the colonial times. One FGD recommended that expatriates should hold the senior posts in the administration in order to eliminate the influence of wantoks. They said ‘we should go back to colonial times to get rid of corruption’ because that was when they had ‘law and order rather than just law’. Generally, FGD participants thought it was too early for RAMSI to leave and that RAMSI’s contract should be extended. Some said that if RAMSI does choose to go then SIG should invite another country to take its place. Rural participants said SIG should make police abide by the police service Code of Conduct and Government should provide more awareness training on the role of RAMSI in Solomon Islands.
101 Section E: Most Significant Change6 Respondents were asked about the most significant change in their lives in the past year, excluding natural and social events such as births, deaths and marriages, and how this had affected their lives. Table E.1 shows that 44% could not think of any significant change in their lives, while the majority of those reporting a change said it had been positive (82%). The most commonly mentioned change related to communications (23%), reflecting the substantial increase in mobile phone coverage in Solomon Islands in the past year. Almost half of those mentioning communications reported negative changes (43%), however, while changes in financial situation were reported as negative (53%) more than positive (43%). A wide range of other changes were mentioned, mostly changes for the better. Table E.1: What was the most significant change in your life in past year? Type Effect of change of change Better Same Worse % % % % (No.) No change 40.5 2014 Change in communications e.g. Internet /phone 22.9 54.7 2.0 43.3 1140 Change to own employment situation 6.1 83.0 4.3 12.7 301 Change to business situation 5.0 74.6 3.2 21.8 250 Change in health status 5.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 247 Change to education of self 4.6 75.1 3.1 21.0 230 Change in family situation 3.7 99.0 0.3 0.7 183 Change to financial situation 2.9 43.1 3.5 53.5 144 Change to education of family member 1.3 90.3 0.0 9.7 64 Change in household facilities e.g. water, electricity 0.8 100.0 0.0 0.0 38 Change to employment of family member 0.8 92.1 0.0 7.9 38 Change in housing / living standard 0.7 100.0 0.0 0.0 35 Change to place of residence 0.3 80.0 0.0 20.0 16 Change in household assets / appliances 0.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 7 Change in boat 0.1 80.0 0.0 20.0 5 Travel /holiday 0.1 33.3 33.3 33.3 3 Change in vehicle 0.0 50.0 0.0 50.0 2 Change to crops or livestock production /fishing 0.3 62.4 8.2 29.4 14 No details /other 1.7 82.0 2.0 15.8 85 Don't know 2.8 140 All respondents 100.0 82.0 2.0 15.8 4956 No answer = 16 respondents
6 The tables in this section cannot be displayed satisfactorily as figures because most of the percentages for type of change are very small. Nor can they be compared with the significant change data from the 2010 People’s Survey because in 2010 the types of change were not distinguished in the same way and many respondents reported natural and social events, such as births, deaths and marriages.
102 Table E.2 classifies most significant change mentioned by rural or urban residence and by gender. Because of the small percentages in many categories, this table does not show whether the change was better or worse. The table shows that urban and male respondents were more likely to report no change (50% and 45%). Of the rest, rural respondents were more likely to report a change in communications (25%) while urban people were a little more likely to report a change in employment (9% compared with 6%) or their own education (7% compared with 4%). Other differences by place of residence were small. There were no marked differences in responses of male and female. Table E.2: What was the most significant change in your life in the past year? (by residence and gender) Rural Urban Male Female All % % % % % (No.) No change 38.5 49.9 44.5 36.7 40.6 2014 Change in communications e.g. Internet /phone 25.2 13.3 23.1 22.9 23.0 1140 Change to own employment situation 5.5 8.6 7.2 5.0 6.1 301 Change to business situation 4.9 5.8 4.6 5.5 5.0 250 Change in health status 5.1 4.4 3.8 6.1 5.0 247 Change to education of self 4.1 7.1 4.2 5.1 4.6 230 Change in family situation 4.0 2.3 3.3 4.1 3.7 183 Change to financial situation 2.9 2.8 2.0 3.8 2.9 144 Change to education of family member 1.3 1.3 1.1 1.5 1.3 64 Change in household facilities e.g. water, 0.9 0.0 1.1 0.4 0.8 38 Changelii to employment of family member 0.6 1.3 0.2 1.3 0.8 38 Change in housing / living standard 0.8 0.3 0.5 0.9 0.7 35 Change to place of residence 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.5 0.3 16 Change in household assets / appliances 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.1 7 Change in boat 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 5 Travel / holiday 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 3 Change in vehicle 0.0 0.2 0.1 0.0 0.0 2 Change to crops or livestock production /fishing 0.3 0.0 0.4 0.2 0.3 14 No details /other 2.0 0.4 1.5 1.9 1.7 85 Don't know 3.0 2.0 1.9 3.7 2.8 140 All respondents 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 4956 No answer = 16 respondents Table E.3 shows the most significant change in the facilities in the respondent’s community in the past year. A wide range of changes were mentioned, with most having a positive effect, but ‘no change’ was the most common response (47%). Education facilities were most likely to have changed (15%), followed by communications (7%) which could include improved mobile phone coverage. Seven per cent reported a change to water supply, and 5% a change to a health centre. All other changes were reported by less than 5% of respondents.
103 Table E.3: What was the most significant change in the facilities in your community in the past year? Type Effect of change of changeBetter Same Worse % % % % (No.) No change 47.0 2324 Change to kindergarten /primary school /high school 15.3 91.9 1.1 7.0 759 Change to communications /phone /radio 6.6 96.2 2.2 1.6 325 Change to water supply 6.5 87.8 1.3 11.0 323 Change to electricity /solar /hydro etc. 5.1 98.8 0.8 0.4 251 Change to health centre 3.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 154 Change to church 2.7 96.2 1.5 2.3 134 Change to road 2.5 94.4 3.2 2.4 125 Change to other building 2.2 98.2 0.0 1.8 109 Change to community centre 1.8 93.3 5.6 1.1 89 Change to sanitation 0.8 97.6 2.4 0.0 42 Change to wharf 0.5 100.0 0.0 0.0 23 Sports facility 0.2 100.0 0.0 0.0 10 Change to market 0.1 66.7 16.7 16.7 6 Change to lighting / street lights 0.0 100.0 0.0 0.0 2 No details /other 0.9 65.2 4.3 30.4 46 Don't know 4.6 226 All respondents 100.0 91.6 2.5 5.6 4948 No answer = 24 respondents Classification by rural/urban and gender in Table E.4 shows that urban respondents were more likely to report no change (68% compared with 42% in rural areas). Of the rest, rural respondents were much more likely to report a change in a school (17% compared with 7%) or electricity supply (6% compared with 1%) and a little more likely to mention a change to water supply (7% compared with 3%). All other differences were quite small, as were differences between male and female respondents.
104 Table E.4: What was the most significant change in the facilities in your community in the past year? (by residence and gender) Rural Urban Male Female All % % % % % (No.) No change 42.1 68.4 48.4 45.5 47.0 2324 Change to kindergarten /primary school 17.4 6.5 14.6 16.1 15.3 759 /h h hl Change to communications /phone /radio 6.8 5.4 8.0 5.2 6.6 325 Change to water supply 7.4 2.7 7.0 6.1 6.5 323 Change to electricity /solar /hydro etc. 6.0 0.8 5.4 4.7 5.1 251 Change to health centre 3.5 1.3 2.2 4.1 3.1 154 Change to church 2.7 2.7 2.2 3.2 2.7 134 Change to road 2.4 3.3 3.6 1.4 2.5 125 Change to other building 2.2 2.2 2.3 2.1 2.2 109 Change to community centre 2.1 0.3 1.9 1.7 1.8 89 Change to sanitation 1.0 0.1 1.0 0.7 0.8 42 Change to wharf 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.6 0.5 23 Sports facility 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 10 Change to market 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 6 Change to lighting / street lights 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 No details /other 1.0 0.7 0.7 1.1 0.9 46 Don't know 4.5 4.8 2.0 7.2 4.6 226 All respondents 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 5.6 4948 No answer = 24 respondents Table E.5 shows the most significant other change in the respondent’s community. While the main reason for the question was to find out about socio economic changes, 12% of respondents chose to report a second change in facilities as the most significant other change in their community. This was the most common response after ‘no change’ or ‘don’t know’ (which together amounted to 64%). Changes in community relations were reported by 10% while all other changes were reported by no more than 4% of respondents. The most reported negative changes were population pressure (86% negative) and social problems (72% negative).
105 Table E.5: What was the most significant other change in your community in the past year? Type Effect of change of changeBetterSame Worse % % % % (No.) No change 58.8 2918 Other facilities (in addition to Table E.2) 11.7 97.4 0.7 1.9 579 Respect /community relations 9.8 47.0 1.9 51.1 485 Change in community activities for youth 3.7 64.8 2.2 33.0 185 Change in social problems (kwaso, disturbances etc.) 3.2 27.8 0.6 71.5 159 Change in organised community activities 1.5 89.5 0.0 10.5 76 Population pressure /increase or decrease 1.1 10.9 3.6 85.5 55 Change in employment opportunities in community 1.1 92.7 0.0 7.3 55 Change in chief /elders 0.7 91.2 0.0 8.8 37 Change in church /church leaders 0.7 94.6 2.7 2.7 37 Change in community financial situation 0.7 84.4 0.0 15.6 33 Change in environment 0.6 18.5 0.0 81.5 29 Change in logging /plantation /mining 0.4 43.8 6.3 50.0 18 Change in community activities for women 0.4 94.4 5.6 0.0 18 Change in teacher /health providers 0.3 69.2 0.0 30.8 13 Change in RSIPF / RAMSI presence 0.1 100.0 0.0 0.0 3 Change in MP /provincial member 0.0 0.0 50.0 50.0 2 No details /other 0.2 50.0 0.0 50.0 8 Don't know 5.0 249 All respondents 100.0 67.9 1.5 30.2 4959 No answer =13 respondents Table E.6 shows that urban respondents were more likely to say there had been no other change (74% compared with 55%) and male respondents more than female respondents (64% compared with 53%). Of the remainder, rural respondents were much more likely to mention another change in facilities (14% compared with 1%), and a little more likely to mention a change in respect or community relations (10% compared with 8%). All other differences were small, as were all differences by gender.
106 Table E.6: What was the most significant other change in your community in the past year? (by residence and gender)
Rural Urban Male Female All % % % % % (No.) No change 55.4 74.0 64.3 53.3 58.8 2918 Other facilities (in addition to E3) 14.0 1.2 10.7 12.7 11.7 579 Respect /community relations 10.3 7.6 9.1 10.5 9.8 485 Change in community activities for youth 4.0 2.7 3.9 3.5 3.7 185 Change in social problems (kwaso, disturbance etc.) 3.2 3.4 2.4 4.1 3.2 159 Change in organised community activities 1.7 0.7 1.1 2.0 1.5 76 Population pressure /increase or decrease 1.3 0.3 0.8 1.5 1.1 55 Change in employment opportunities in community 0.7 2.7 1.0 1.2 1.1 55 Change in chief /elders 0.9 0.0 0.6 0.9 0.7 37 Change in church /church leaders 0.7 1.1 0.7 0.8 0.7 37 Change in community financial situation 0.8 0.2 0.5 0.8 0.7 33 Change in environment 0.7 0.1 0.8 0.3 0.6 29 Change in logging /plantation /mining 0.4 0.0 0.1 0.6 0.4 18 Change in community activities for women 0.4 0.1 0.2 0.5 0.4 18 Change in teacher /health providers 0.3 0.0 0.2 0.3 0.3 13 Change in RSIPF / RAMSI presence 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 3 Change in MP /provincial member 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 2 No details /other 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.2 8 Don't know 4.9 5.6 3.2 6.8 5.0 249 Number of respondents 100.0 100.0 4959 100.0 100.0 4959 No answer =13 respondents Participants in the qualitative survey were not asked specifically about the most significant change, but some comments relate to significant change. The establishment of Telekom's 3G network and entry of BMobile into the market in competition with Telekom in the last year has clearly had a major impact on many Solomon Island communities. Observations in Honiara and provinces reflect an enormous uptake of mobile phones in the past year. Coverage has improved markedly and costs have come down significantly for mobile phone services, although not for internet, which is still a Telekom monopoly, and expensive and unreliable. Phone ‘top up’ locations are widespread and provide a new source of livelihoods for small stores and canteens. Reported negative aspects of this improvement in communications include the expense of maintaining a phone, unreliable connections, ‘sex texts’, opportunities for mobile dating, facilitation of illicit affairs (O2s) and pornography. World Bank FGD7 comments from Malaita that mobile phones increase ‘O2 business’ and family break up were confirmed by People’s Survey FGDs.
7 The World Bank survey of ‘Justice Delivered Locally’ was taking place at the same time as the People’s Survey.
107 Another concern raised was that people may be unaware that they are spending substantial amounts of household income on mobile phone services, and this may impact on their capacity to purchase food and other essentials. They also mentioned that wantoks may pressure them to pay for ‘top ups’. There were fewer mentions of problems than advantages, however. Being able to communicate with family members elsewhere and receive immediate information about important life events, such as births, deaths and illness, was especially valued by respondents in both rural and urban areas. Changes to clinics and schools were the most frequently mentioned positive change to services. There were also more complaints about schools and clinics, followed by roads and shipping. FGD participants also mentioned changes in respect and community relations, especially the negative effects of personal, social, property and land disputes and social problems due to kwaso and other disturbances.
108 Section F: Leadership Qualities of a good leader Tables F.1.a and F.1.b show that the quality of a good leader that respondents in both rural and urban areas mentioned most often was honesty (66%). Community consultation was mentioned by 36% overall, but more often in urban than in rural areas. Being respected and having good communication skills were less important in urban areas than rural areas. Focus on social issues was mentioned by only 19% and equitable funds distribution by 17%, with not much difference between rural and urban respondents. Urban respondents were much more likely to mention that a good leader should be a good Christian or church member (10% compared with 2%). Interestingly, Table F.1.b shows little difference by gender as regards mentioning being a good Christian or church member. On the other hand, female respondents were noticeably less likely to mention honesty and community consultation, and more likely to mention helping people who support them. Table F.1.a: What makes a good leader (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Honest way of doing things 65.6 63.3 65.2 Consults with community 35.1 40.9 36.2 Respected 36.8 26.8 35.0 Good communicators 36.7 24.9 34.6 Focus on social issues 19.4 17.7 19.1 Equitable funds distribution 16.2 19.3 16.7 Helps people who support them 13.0 8.6 12.2 Christian / good church member 2.2 10.4 3.7 Education 1.1 1.6 1.2 Plenty of money to help people 0.3 0.2 0.3 No details /other 0.4 0.2 0.4 Nothing special 0.3 0.8 0.4 Don't know 1.4 1.9 1.5 Number of respondents 4047 914 4961 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three responses per respondent.
109 Table F.1.b: What makes a good leader (by gender) Male Female All % % % Honest way of doing things 70.2 60.0 65.2 Consults with community 45.2 27.0 36.2 Respected 33.1 36.9 35.0 Good communicators 34.1 35.1 34.6 Focus on social issues 19.8 18.4 19.1 Equitable funds distribution 18.4 15.0 16.7 Helps people who support them 9.1 15.3 12.2 Christian / good church member 4.1 3.4 3.7 Education 1.2 1.2 1.2 Plenty of money to help people 0.4 0.2 0.3 No details /other 0.6 0.1 0.4 Nothing special 0.4 0.3 0.4 Don't know 0.8 2.2 1.5 Number of respondents 2504 2457 4961 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three responses per respondent. Figure F.1 compares these responses with 2010 perceptions of what makes women good leaders. Although the question asked was different, there are considerable similarities in the importance attached to the various qualities. Figure F.2 shows that in 2011 90% of respondents said that women make good leaders, compared with 84% in 2010. Figure F.1: What makes women good leaders (2010) and what makes a good leader (2011) 100 90 80 2010 70 60 2011 50 40
30 20 10 0
110 Figure F.2: Do women make good leaders? (2010 and 2011)
Table F.2 shows that respondents in Temotu were most likely to say women make good leaders (97%) and respondents in Choiseul (85%) and Malaita (86%) least likely. Men and Young Men were noticeably more likely than female respondents to say that women do not make good leaders. Table F.2: Do women make good leaders? Yes No Don't know % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 85.3 13.6 1.1 279 Guadalcanal 94.5 4.5 1.0 980 Honiara 92.0 7.2 0.8 638 Honiara Settlements 89.2 9.7 1.1 278 Isabel 94.3 5.7 0.0 281 Malaita 86.3 11.4 2.3 1471 Temotu 96.5 3.5 0.0 226 Western 90.3 9.2 0.5 815 Age/gender group Man 84.0 15.2 0.8 1267 Woman 93.2 4.7 2.1 1250 Young Man 88.3 10.7 1.1 1237 Young Woman 96.0 3.1 0.8 1214 All respondents 90.3 8.5 1.2 4968 No answer=4 respondents Satisfaction with political representatives Table F.3 shows that 32% of respondents were satisfied with their current representative in the national Parliament, i.e. the parliamentarian (MP) they elected in 2010. Residents of Honiara were least likely to be satisfied (13%) and most likely to be definitely not satisfied (65%) while those in Choiseul (47%) and Western Province (42%) were most likely to be satisfied. The main difference between age/gender groups was that Young Women were most likely to say they were satisfied (38%). The 2010 People’s Survey asked if respondents ‘had trust and confidence in their MP’ rather than satisfaction, so higher percentages saying ‘yes’ in 2010 are not comparable.
111 Table F.3: Is respondent satisfied with their national MP? Yes Partly No Don't know % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 47.0 11.8 40.9 0.4 279 Guadalcanal 35.2 15.4 45.4 4.0 980 Honiara 13.5 13.3 64.9 8.3 638 Honiara Settlements 32.0 11.9 48.9 7.2 278 Isabel 29.9 13.9 55.9 0.4 281 Malaita 29.5 15.4 46.7 8.4 1471 Temotu 30.2 8.4 56.0 5.3 225 Western 41.9 16.0 40.3 1.8 814 Age/gender group Man 29.9 18.1 49.3 2.7 1266 Woman 30.2 11.4 50.5 7.9 1250 Young Man 28.8 15.6 51.1 4.5 1238 Young Woman 38.4 12.5 42.8 6.3 1212 All respondents 31.8 14.4 48.5 5.3 4966 No answer=6 respondents Table F.4 shows that 60% of respondents overall were not satisfied with their local government representative. Dissatisfaction was highest in Honiara (68%) and Honiara Settlements (67%) which are represented by city councillors. Respondents in Isabel were most likely to be satisfied with their provincial member (34%) followed by respondents in Temotu (30%). There was less variation between age/gender groups than in Table F.3, which relates to national members. Table F.4: Are you satisfied with your provincial member or city councillor? Yes Partly No Don't know % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 23.7 11.5 62.4 2.5 279 Guadalcanal 22.0 22.4 51.4 4.1 980 Honiara 8.8 8.6 68.3 14.3 638 Honiara Settlements 8.3 15.5 66.9 9.4 278 Isabel 34.2 22.4 43.4 0.0 281 Malaita 8.7 16.9 62.8 11.6 1471 Temotu 29.8 11.6 53.3 5.3 225 Western 14.5 17.6 62.5 5.4 814 Age/gender group Man 13.7 18.7 62.5 5.1 1266 Woman 15.2 15.1 58.2 11.5 1250 Young Man 13.7 19.2 61.5 5.7 1238 Young Woman 19.6 13.7 57.4 9.2 1212 All respondents 15.5 16.7 59.9 7.9 4966 No answer=6 respondents
112 Figure F.4 compares respondents’ satisfaction with national and local government representatives. The 2007 and 2008 People’s Surveys asked how well politicians were doing their job rather than about satisfaction with their performance, but these surveys also found higher levels of satisfaction with national MPs’ performance than with that of local government representatives. Figure F.4: Comparison of satisfaction with national and local government politicians, 2011 100
90 MP n=4966 80 Local Gov. 70
60
% 50 40
30
20
10
0 Yes Partly No Don't know Table F.5 shows how many times the respondent’s national MP had visited their community in the past year. It shows that 61% said there has been no visit, 20% said one visit and 10% said more than one visit. More than one visit was most likely to be reported in Western (25%) and Honiara Settlements (19%). ‘Don’t know’ was quite a common response (9%), but it is not enough to make much impact on the overall pattern. Residents of Honiara were most likely to report no visit (74%) followed by residents of Temotu (70%). The main difference between gender groups was that more Young Women and Women did not know how often their MP had visited. Given that 36% mentioned community consultations as a quality of a good leader (Table F.1), it is possible that few or infrequent visits may be a factor contributing to low levels of satisfaction (Table F.3). Table F.5: How many times has your national MP visited your community in the past year? More than Once No visit Don't % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 8.6 42.4 40.6 8.3 278 Guadalcanal 4.1 20.4 65.2 10.3 980 Honiara 3.8 11.4 73.8 11.0 638 Honiara Settlements 19.1 15.5 54.0 11.5 278 Isabel 12.8 22.4 58.7 6.0 281 Malaita 6.6 21.4 61.7 10.3 1470 Temotu 7.5 15.9 69.9 6.6 226 Western 24.6 20.0 51.2 4.2 816 Age/gender group Man 10.6 17.9 66.9 4.7 1267 Woman 8.2 19.3 60.8 11.6 1249 Young Man 9.0 21.5 63.1 6.4 1238 Young Woman 11.8 22.8 52.2 13.2 1213 All respondents 9.9 20.4 60.8 8.9 4967 No answer=5 respondents
113 Figure F.5 compares data on MP consultations and MP visits. The comparison is not exact because the question asked in the 2007 2009 People’s Surveys was ‘in the past year has your current MP met with your community to discuss community needs?’ whereas in 2010 and 2011 it was ‘how many times has your MP visited your community in the past year?’ A visit necessarily precedes a consultation, however, and the pattern has been quite similar over time. Only in 2008 did more respondents report a consultation than reported no consultation, no visit or ‘don’t know’. Figure F.5: Comparison of ‘has MP consulted with community’ (2007 2009) and ‘has MP visited community’ (2010 2011) in past year?
Table F.6 shows that 8% of respondents said their local government representative had visited their community more than once, 15% said once and 68% said not at all. As for national MPs, the ‘don’t know’ response amounted to 9%, which is insufficient to change the overall pattern. Isabel respondents were most likely to report more than one visit (29%) and least likely to report no visits (44%), as well as least likely to report ‘don’t know’ (4%). Residents of Honiara and Malaita were most likely to report no visits (both 77%). Again there was not much difference between the age/gender groups other than female respondents being more likely to say ‘don’t know’. Table F.6: How many times has your provincial member visited in past year? More than once Once No visit Don't know % % % % Province () Choiseul 7.1 22.1 62.9 7.9 280 Guadalcanal 10.7 27.3 53.5 8.5 980 Honiara 4.7 5.0 77.4 12.9 637 Honiara Settlements 6.8 9.4 69.1 14.7 278 Isabel 29.2 23.1 43.8 3.9 281 Malaita 4.3 8.0 77.4 10.3 1471 Temotu 3.5 20.8 69.9 5.8 226 Western 10.5 16.4 68.0 5.0 816 Age/gender group Man 8.2 14.6 70.9 6.3 1267 Woman 9.0 11.6 68.6 10.8 1250 Young Man 7.8 19.0 66.9 6.3 1237 Young Woman 8.1 15.4 64.0 12.4 1215 All respondents 8.3 15.1 67.6 8.9 4969 No answer=3 respondents
114 Figure F.6 compares the number of visits of national MPs and local government representatives. It shows clearly that local government representatives are less likely to have visited communities, either once or more than once, and more likely to have not visited at all. Figure F.6: How many times have your national and provincial members visited in the past year? (2011) 100 90 MP n=4967/9 80 Local Gov. 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 More than Once No visit Don't know once Perceptions of what makes a good and bad MP These questions raised considerable interest among FGD participants. While lists of good characteristics tended to be simple and clear, participants tended to construct long and complex lists of negative characteristics, suggesting that many had first hand negative experiences of MP conduct. In east Guadalcanal the main attributes of a good MP were said to be being helpful, fair, honest, trustworthy and transparent in their dealings. The activities of a good MP included visiting communities, assisting with school and clinic needs, providing communities with solar power, upgrading local access roads, having vision and action plans for their constituency and understanding the needs of their people. It is also interesting that these FGD participants, who live close to Honiara, also expect their MP to be well educated, at least to university level. Coastal communities expected a good MP to be honest, accountable and transparent and to use the RCDF equitably. These larger and more accessible communities tended to expect a substantial return for their vote, mentioning that MPs should provide good transport, agricultural tools, school grants and funding for grassroots rural development as well as support for church and community groups. ‘We want the kind of MP who is honest and says something and does it … and who supports everybody whether you voted for him or not.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) The characteristics of a bad MP mentioned in both inland and coastal communities of east Guadalcanal included: dishonesty; misuse of funds, in particular the RCDF money; making false promises; ‘sweet talking’; telling lies to voters; never visiting communities; lacking education; not helping rural development; and generally practising favouritism and supporting their wantoks at the expense of their constituency. Some participants said they knew and disapproved of MPs who kept an ‘O2’ (mistress) and who lived permanently in Honiara rather than in their electorate. ‘We don’t like MPs who lie during election time, making lots of promises like building roads and providing roofing iron for our houses. We are not chickens here that MPs can lie to us all the time.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) 115 The main characteristics of a good MP mentioned in Honiara were that they should be transparent, accountable and fair. Most groups thought that the MP should also be well educated and literate and understand parliamentary policies and administrative procedures. Government officers said a good MP should have a proper understanding of their work, read bills and papers and attend to parliamentary business. In addition, a good MP must be honest, kind, trustworthy and a person who can talk with their people and learn from them. They are expected to provide financial assistance to people in need, to improve infrastructure and maintain a representative on local committees, especially school and clinic committees. ‘One good quality of a good MP now, they should be flexible to all people in the community, and adjust themselves to people, including the grassroots [people].’ (IFI, Male, Honiara) For participants in Honiara a bad MP is a ‘come back tomorrow’ sort of person or a ‘sleeping bêche de mer,’ – i.e. an inactive slug. They said bad MPs work for their own benefit, break promises, are easily compromised and are self serving. Participants who had worked closely with ‘bad’ MPs in Parliament rarely saw them contributing to parliamentary debates, but falling asleep easily in meetings. It was said that the ‘RCDF can make or break an MP’ because easy access to large sums of money with no accountability can corrupt a weak person. Other actions of bad MPs mentioned by participants were that they recommend their friends or wantoks for the position of Constituency Development Officer, do not help others, run their own businesses while serving in Parliament and are unreliable with no vision. One suggestion was that MPs who break the law should be barred from contesting parliamentary elections for 10 years. ‘Bad MPs all make promises for people but do nothing at all.’ (FGD, Women, Honiara) Participants in Isabel Province said a good MP should be well known to their people, respect their people, not be selfish, look after the community’s needs, be transparent in their dealings and accountable as regards use of the RCDF money, treat people equally, be honest and be committed to the future of the Solomon Islands and not just their own interests. Other comments were that a good MP has practical solutions to local problems: that is, they repair the roads, sponsor untrained teachers so they can gain qualifications, provide schools with equipment and visit their constituency and communities regularly. ‘We want an MP who, after we have voted for him, will visit us and listen to what we like to say.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, Isabel) The bad characteristics were readily identified by participants in Isabel Province, and included: favouring certain people, usually wantoks and family to receive help and money; having a ‘come back tomorrow’ attitude; becoming involved in bad deals; being unfriendly; saying one thing but doing another (the so called ‘squid technique’); being selfish; not listening to their people; and never cooperating or responding to the needs of rural people. ‘We don’t like an MP who does not know how to work closely with the [provincial] Premier.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, Isabel) The most important qualities of a good MP for FGD participants in Malaita Province were to: work honestly; be transparent; have good development visions and goals; be educated (at least to university Bachelor level according to one meeting); understand the needs of people, especially youth and women; respond to community needs; and use RCDF money to fund community services. A good MP should also assist with payment of school fees and support local farmers in the rehabilitation of their crops, with cocoa plantations specifically mentioned in one community. ‘We like an MP who will show us the way to get help and who understands the needs/hardship of our community.’
116 (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Malaita) The bad characteristics of an MP mentioned in Malaita were: misuse of public funds, especially the RCDF money; becoming involved in drinking or even being an alcoholic; being an unfriendly person; being dishonest and using public money for their own purposes; ignoring the needs of the people in their electorate; and being selective and giving assistance only to those who voted for them. ‘We don’t like an MP who drinks beer and shares community money only with their friends.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Malaita) A village priest in Temotu said a good MP would have to be a committed Christian and one who upheld the values and teachings of Christianity as well as a person who ‘put God on the compass in leadership’. Other Temotu participants wanted someone who was experienced and familiar with government systems, mature enough to make wise decisions, well educated, helpful to people with business problems, honest and transparent but also one who could be humble and able to come down to the community level and identify local problems and concerns. Other participants in Temotu thought a bad MP is one who fails in their duties to the Constitution and to the people, is a ‘come tomorrow’ type of person, is easily influenced and does not consider the needs of the people. As elsewhere, diverting RCDF money for personal use was mentioned as a bad characteristic. All participants in focus groups in Western Province said that a good MP should be helpful, accountable, a good leader, honest, and a person who responds to community needs and sticks to their promises. Also mentioned was that they should treat people fairly, meaning that they should not favour wantoks and their family, and should be approachable. ‘We want someone who understands the needs of all men, women and children or everybody.’ (FGD, Men. Rural Western Province) Participants in Western Province also mentioned ‘comeback tomorrow’ as a negative characteristic, along with favouring cronies and supporters. They said ‘haus blo MP full olowe nomoa’ during election campaigns. That is, a bad candidate is one who feeds and entertains their supporters during the campaign, knowing gifts have bought their votes. Bad MPs were also said to be uneducated, not visit communities and not help people in their electorate and to have ‘O2s’ (mistresses). Women in Parliament Figure F.7 shows that support for having women in Parliament has continued to exceed 85% since the question was first asked in the 2007 People’s Survey. Table F.7 shows that support for women candidates was highest in Guadalcanal (94%) and lowest in Malaita (84%) and Choiseul (86%). Lower levels of support for women in Honiara Settlements (88%) as compared to Honiara (92%) probably reflect the substantial populations from Malaita in the Settlements. Women and Young Women were more likely than their male counterparts to support women candidates (differences of more than 10%).
117 Figure F.7: Comparison of support for women in Parliament (2007 2011) 100
90 2007
80 2008
70 2009
60 2010 2011 % 50
40
30
20
10
0 Yes No Don't know Table F.7: Should there be women in Parliament? Yes No Don't know % % % (No ) Province Choiseul 85.7 14.3 0.0 280 Guadalcanal 93.8 4.6 1.6 978 Honiara 92.0 7.2 0.8 638 Honiara Settlements 87.8 11.9 0.4 278 Isabel 92.5 7.5 0.0 281 Malaita 83.5 14.2 2.3 1468 Temotu 93.4 6.2 0.4 226 Western 90.6 8.0 1.5 815 Age/gender group Man 82.8 16.4 0.7 1265 Woman 93.6 4.2 2.2 1250 Young Man 84.3 14.3 1.4 1238 Young Woman 95.9 2.8 1.3 1211 All respondents 89.1 9.5 1.4 4964 No answer=8 respondents Figure F.8 shows more support for the concept of special reserved seats for women as compared with 2010. Table F.8 shows that 91% of all respondents who said there should be women in Parliament also supported the concept of special reserved seats for women. Support for reserved seats was least in Honiara (82%) and Western (89%). There was also much less support among Men (82%) than among Young Men (88%), while almost all female respondents who thought there should be women in Parliament also supported reserved seats for women.
118 Figure F.8: Should there be special reserved seats for women? (2010 and 2011) 100 90 80 2010 70 2011 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No Don't know Table F.8: Should there be special reserved seats for women? Yes No Don't know % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 97.1 2.9 0.0 238 Guadalcanal 92.8 4.2 2.9 923 Honiara 82.2 14.8 3.1 589 Honiara Settlements 90.6 7.8 1.6 245 Isabel 92.0 3.8 4.2 262 Malaita 94.0 2.1 3.9 1234 Temotu 96.7 1.4 1.9 211 Western 89.3 10.4 0.3 738 Age/gender group Man 81.5 16.9 1.6 1060 Woman 96.6 1.6 1.8 1172 Young Man 88.0 6.2 5.8 1050 Young Woman 98.3 0.4 1.3 1158 All respondents 91.4 6.0 2.6 4440 Performance of national and local government Tables F.9.a and F.9.b shows respondents’ opinions about how national government is performing in providing basic services to the community and improving the economy. The most common response was ‘satisfactory’ (44%) with 8% saying ‘very well’ and 37% saying not well, while 10% didn’t know. Residents of Honiara Settlements and Honiara were by far the most likely to say ‘not well’ (57% and 58%), while respondents in Choiseul were most likely to say ‘very well’ (29%). Women were more likely to have a favourable opinion (13%) while younger age groups were most likely to say ‘not well’.
119 Table F.9.a: How is national government performance in providing basic services and improving the economy? Very well Satisfactory Not well Don't know (No.) % % % % Province Choiseul 28.9 48.9 19.6 2.5 280 Guadalcanal 7.2 48.7 36.9 7.3 978 Honiara 0.9 28.4 56.9 13.8 638 Honiara Settlements 5.8 25.9 57.6 10.8 278 Isabel 7.1 53.7 36.7 2.5 281 Malaita 5.7 45.2 31.7 17.3 1463 Temotu 11.7 56.5 27.4 4.5 223 Western 12.3 48.2 34.4 5.2 812 Age/gender group Man 3.9 56.0 36.0 4.1 1265 Woman 12.8 32.6 35.7 18.9 1246 Young Man 8.2 49.5 38.3 4.0 1235 Young Woman 7.7 38.9 39.2 14.2 1207 All respondents 8.1 44.3 37.3 10.3 4953 No answer=19 respondents Table F.9.b shows that 3% of respondents said local government was performing very well, and 29% said satisfactory, while 54% said performance was not good and 14% said they didn’t know. As for national government, Honiara residents were most likely to have negative opinions (67% and 64%), followed by 60% in Western. Residents of Isabel were most likely to have a positive opinion, but nonetheless 41% said performance was not good. Male respondents were most likely to be dissatisfied, while substantial percentages of female respondents did not have an opinion (24% and 16%). Table F.9.b: How is local government performance in providing basic services and improving the economy? Very well Satisfactory Not well Don't know % % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 5.0 40.7 51.4 2.9 280 Guadalcanal 3.9 38.2 48.6 9.4 980 Honiara 0.8 16.2 63.8 19.2 635 Honiara Settlements 0.0 17.6 67.3 15.1 278 Isabel 4.3 52.9 41.4 1.4 280 Malaita 1.2 23.9 50.8 24.1 1458 Temotu 6.2 41.8 49.3 2.7 225 Western 4.0 27.4 59.6 9.0 809 Age/gender group Man 2.0 25.0 63.3 9.8 1260 Woman 4.3 27.4 44.2 24.0 1244 Young Man 1.6 35.9 55.8 6.6 1236 Young Woman 2.7 29.3 51.8 16.2 1205 All respondents 2.7 29.4 53.8 14.1 4945 No answer=27 respondents Figure F.9 shows that more respondents were satisfied with national government’s performance in providing basic services and economic development than with the performance of local government. High percentages saying ‘don’t know’ to both questions may reflect poor access to the media as well as the infrequent visits from political representatives, as reported in Tables F.4 and F.5. 120 Figure F.9: Comparison of satisfaction with national and local government (2011) 100 90 National n=4953/45 80 Local 70 60 % 50 40 30
20 10 0 Very well Satisfactory Not well Don't know Figures F.9.a and F.9.b compare the performance of national and provincial government in providing basic services and improving the economy with responses to the same questions in 2007 2009. Figure F.9.a shows that satisfaction with national government’s performance was higher in 2007 than in 2009. Since then there has been a small increase in the percentages saying ‘very well’ or ‘satisfactory’ and a decline in the percentages saying ‘not well’. The percentage with no opinion was lower in 2011 than in previous years. Figure F.9.a: Satisfaction with national government performance (2007 2011)
Figure F.9.b shows that satisfaction with local government performance tended to decline from 2007 to 2009, with 2011 remaining around the same level as in 2009. There has been no noticeable reduction in the percentages having no opinion about local government.
121 Figure F.9.b: Satisfaction with local government performance (2007 2011) 100
90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2011 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Very well Satisfactory Not well Don't know Note: This question was not asked in 2010 Perceptions of priorities for Government Tables F.10.a and F.10.b show responses to a new question: ‘What should national government be doing (or doing more of) that would improve Solomon Islands?’ Respondents made a wide range of suggestions, but several common concerns emerged. Most frequently mentioned in both rural and urban areas was ‘more focus on rural development’ (35%), with some suggesting this ‘grassroots development’ should be achieved by government working with the churches. Urban residents were twice as likely as rural residents to mention economic programs and creation and improvement of jobs (44% compared with 22%). ‘Good policy and land reform’ and ‘improved education’ were each mentioned by 17% of respondents, and 14% mentioned ‘stop corruption’ or ‘use aid funds properly’. Other suggestions were made by less than 10% of respondents.
122 Table F.10.a: What should government be doing more of? (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Help ‘grassroots people’ /develop rural community /work with churches 36.4 28.4 34.9 Economic programs /create jobs /improve work conditions 22.3 44.1 26.4 Good policy /policy reform e.g. Land reform 17.1 14.9 16.7 Improve schools /education /develop vocational training etc. 17.9 10.3 16.5 Stop corruption and funds misuse etc. /use aid properly 13.3 16.9 13.9 Develop markets /export markets 13.1 7.1 12.0 Improve transport /roads or bridges in rural areas /develop infrastructure 8.4 7.7 8.3 Improve parliamentary procedures /MPs stay in parties and cooperate 8.2 8.7 8.3 Devolution of power to provinces 8.2 3.5 7.3 Good legislation e.g. law and order /cooperate with RAMSI 5.9 8.1 6.3 Develop agricultural sector or fisheries 6.2 4.4 5.8 Encourage investors, including overseas investors 3.3 7.1 4.0 Better health services 4.2 3.1 4.0 Develop tourism 1.8 1.9 1.8 Not allow foreign investments /logging /foreign businessmen 0.8 2.5 1.2 Reconciliation 0.9 1.8 1.0 More focus on women and youth issues 0.3 0.1 0.2 No details /other 2.0 4.8 2.6 Don't know 0.0 0.2 0.0 Number of respondents 4007 913 4920 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three responses per respondent. The main differences by gender in Table F.10.b were that female respondents were less likely to mention rural development (29% compared with 41% for males), educational improvements (13% compared with 20%) and development of infrastructure (3% compared with 14%). Female respondents were more likely to say government should expand markets (17% compared with 7%) and improve parliamentary procedures (11% compared with 6%).
123 Table F.10.b: What should government be doing more of? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Help grassroots people /develop rural community /work with churches 40.6 29.0 34.9 Economic programs /create jobs /improve work conditions 27.0 25.8 26.4 Good policy /policy reform e.g. Land reform 16.8 16.5 16.7 Improve schools /education /develop vocational training etc. 19.9 12.9 16.5 Stop corruption and funds misuse etc. /use aid properly 13.5 14.4 13.9 Develop mrkets /export markets 6.9 17.3 12.0 Improve transport /roads or bridges in rural areas /develop infrastructure 13.0 3.4 8.3 Improve parliamentary procedures /MPs stay in parties and cooperate 6.1 10.5 8.3 Devolution of power to provinces 6.0 8.7 7.3 Good legislation e.g. law and order /cooperate with RAMSI 5.8 6.8 6.3 Develop agricultural sector or fisheries 7.0 4.6 5.8 Encourage investors, including overseas investors 4.5 3.5 4.0 Better health services 6.0 1.9 4.0 Develop tourism 2.0 1.7 1.8 Not allow foreign investments /logging /foreign businessmen 1.0 1.3 1.2 Reconciliation 1.4 0.7 1.0 More focus on women and youth issues 0.0 0.5 0.2 No details /other 2.2 2.9 2.6 Don't know 0.0 0.1 0.1 Number of respondents 2497 2423 4920 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three responses per respondent. Figure F.10 classifies the many suggestions about what government should be doing into four major themes: ‘Economic’, ‘Policy and Governance’, ‘Basic services and Infrastructure’, and ‘Social and other’. It can be seen that by far the majority of suggestions related to various aspects of economic development (made by 85% of respondents) followed by improved policy and governance (made by 54% of respondents) and then by improved basic services and infrastructure (28% of respondents). Figure F.10: What should government be doing more of? (4 categories) (2011) 100
90 n= 4920 80
70
60 % 50 40
30
20
10
0 Economic Policy and Basic services Social and governance and other infrastructure Note: Multiple response chart. Percentages are totals of up to three responses per respondent.
124 Section G: Accountability Expected responses to incorrect official behaviour Section G of the questionnaire was a new sequence of questions concerned with how respondents would act if they became aware that a public official was behaving incorrectly. The first question asked a hypothetical question, whether the respondent would report such an event. Table G.1 and Figure G.1 show that 70% said they would report, 22% said they would not report and 9% didn’t know whether or not they would report. Respondents in Temotu (86%) Choiseul and Isabel (both 85%) were most likely to say they would report. An interesting finding was that, although residents of Honiara and Honiara Settlements have best access to the relevant agencies, they were much less likely than all except residents of Malaita to say they would not report. Male respondents were more likely than female respondents to say they would report, while Young men and Young Women were less likely to say ‘don’t know’. Table G.1: Would you report misuse of power or public money? Yes No Don't know (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 85.4 10.7 3.9 280 Guadalcanal 81.3 11.7 6.9 979 Honiara 68.5 25.4 6.1 638 Honiara Settlements 65.7 29.2 5.1 277 Isabel 85.1 13.8 1.1 282 Malaita 51.3 33.3 15.4 1470 Temotu 86.3 12.8 0.9 226 Western 75.8 15.7 8.5 815 Age/gender group Man 73.9 15.2 11.0 1266 Woman 58.0 27.4 14.6 1250 Young Man 77.1 19.2 3.7 1238 Young Woman 69.8 24.8 5.4 1213 All respondents 69.7 21.6 8.7 4967 No answer=5 respondents
125 Figure G.1: Would you report misuse of power or public money? (2011) 100 90 n = 4967 80 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10
Yes No Don't know Respondents who said they would report incorrect behaviour in a public official were asked to whom they would report. Tables G.2.a and G.2.b show that by far the majority of respondents would report to the police (59% overall), although the percentage was higher among rural than urban respondents (62% compared with 44%). The second most common response (20% overall) was that they would report to the offender’s supervisor or the Public Service Commission. Only small percentages suggested other avenues, of which ‘chief, church or elders’ were most common. Both male and female respondents were likely to say they would report to the police, but female respondents were more likely to say ‘chief, church or elders’ and less likely to say they would report to the offender’s supervisor or to the Public Service Commission. Table G.2.a: Who would you report to? (by residence)
Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Police 61.9 43.8 58.6 Their boss /responsible person /Public Service Commission 17.7 27.1 19.3 Chief, church or elders 6.6 1.9 5.8 Ombudsman 1.9 6.0 2.6 RAMSI 2.5 1.6 2.4 Leadership Code Commission 1.2 5.7 2.0 Transparency Solomon Islands 0.1 1.1 0.3 Media 0.2 0.3 0.2 No details /other 0.7 1.1 0.8 Don't know 7.2 11.3 7.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2837 617 3454
126 Table G.2.b: Who would you report to? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Police 55.8 62.0 58.6 Their boss /responsible person /Public Service Commission 23.4 14.4 19.3 Chief, church or elders 3.6 8.4 5.8 Ombudsman 3.8 1.2 2.6 RAMSI 1.0 4.0 2.4 Leadership Code Commission 2.5 1.4 2.0 Transparency Solomon Islands 0.3 0.4 0.3 Media 0.3 0.1 0.2 No details /other /wrong answer 1.0 0.6 0.8 Don't know 8.3 7.5 7.9 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 1886 1568 3454 Actual responses to incorrect official behaviour All respondents were then asked if they themselves had ever had knowledge of incorrect behaviour in a public official. Table G.3 shows that almost a quarter of respondents (23%) had first hand knowledge of official misuse of power or had been treated unfairly by a public official. These respondents were asked further questions about how they responded. Table G.3: Have you ever known an official was behaving incorrectly? Yes No % % (No.) Province Choiseul 31.8 68.2 280 Guadalcanal 30.0 70.0 974 Honiara 24.0 76.0 628 Honiara Settlements 28.8 71.2 278 Isabel 33.7 66.3 282 Malaita 13.0 87.0 1458 Temotu 34.1 65.9 226 Western 18.6 81.4 813
Age/gender group Man 19.9 80.1 1264 Woman 20.6 79.4 1246 Young Man 32.7 67.3 1226 Young Woman 17.9 82.1 1203 All responses 22.8 77.2 4939 No answer=33 respondents
127 Table G.4 shows that only 14% of respondents who had first hand experience of misuse of power or unfair treatment by a public official had reported their experience. Respondents in Malaita and Isabel were most likely to have reported (both 18%) and Men much more likely than other age/gender groups. Table G.4: Did you report the official’s incorrect behaviour? Yes No (No.) % % Province Choiseul 11.2 88.8 89 Guadalcanal 8.9 91.1 292 Honiara 13.2 86.8 151 Honiara Settlements 17.3 82.7 81 Isabel 17.7 82.3 96 Malaita 18.2 81.8 187 Temotu 16.9 83.1 77 Western 15.3 84.7 150
Age/gender group Man 21.4 78.6 252 Woman 12.5 87.5 256 Young Man 13.5 86.5 400 Young Woman 7.9 92.1 215 All respondents 14.0 86.0 1123 Figure G.4 compares the percentages saying they would report incorrect behaviour with those who actually did report an occurrence when they became aware of it. Figure G.4: Comparison of percentages who ‘would report’ and ‘did report’ (2011) 100 90 Would report 80 (n=4967) 70 Did report (n 1123) 60 % 50 40 30
20 10
Yes No Don't know Tables G.5.a and G.5.b show that, of those respondents who did report an event, most reported to the RSIPF (45%). Thirteen per cent reported to the Leadership Code Commission and 11% reported to the Ombudsman. Seventeen per cent of rural residents, but no urban residents, reported to their chief or church leader. Female
128 respondents were much more likely to report to a chief or church leader (Table G.5.b), while male respondents were much more likely to report to the Leadership Code Commission, the Ombudsman or the Auditor General’s Office. Table G.5.a: Who did you report to? (by residence) Honiara & Rural All Settlements % % % RSIPF 47.6 35.7 45.1 Chief or church leader 17.1 0.0 13.5 Leadership Code Commission 9.5 25.0 12.8 Ombudsman 9.5 17.9 11.3 Their boss /supervisor 5.7 17.9 8.3 Auditor General’s Office 4.8 0.0 3.8 No details /other 3.8 0.0 3.0 Don't remember 1.9 3.6 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 105 28 133 Table G.5.b: Who did you report to? (by gender) Male Female All % % % RSIPF 46.7 41.9 45.1 Chief or church leader 7.8 25.6 13.5 Leadership Code Commission 13.3 11.6 12.8 Ombudsman 13.3 7.0 11.3 Their boss /supervisor 7.8 9.3 8.3 Auditor General’s Office 4.4 2.3 3.8 No details /other /wrong answer 3.3 2.3 3.0 Don't remember 3.3 0.0 2.3 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 90 43 133 Table G.6 shows the reasons given by the 86% who did not report an instance of incorrect behaviour in a public official. The two main reasons were that they were afraid to report (46%) or didn’t know who to report to (25%). Only 10% said the officer was a friend or wantok. ‘Afraid to report’ was a more common response in rural than in urban areas (49% and 36%) but there was no difference in knowledge of who to report to. Urban respondents were more likely to say they didn’t think any action would be taken (14% compared with 2%). The main difference between the age/gender groups was that female respondents were much more likely to say they were afraid to report (57% compared with 38%). Similar percentages of male and female respondents said they didn’t know who they should report to.
129 Table G.6.a: Why didn't you report the incorrect behaviour you witnessed? (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Afraid to report 49.0 36.4 46.4 Didn’t know who to report to 24.5 25.3 24.7 Officer was my friend or wantok 9.9 12.6 10.4 No evidence 4.8 5.1 4.8 No trust that anything will be done 2.4 14.1 4.8 No access 1.7 1.5 1.7 No details /other /wrong answer 4.9 3.0 4.5 I forget / don't know 2.8 2.0 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 751 198 949 Table G.6.b: Why didn't you report the incorrect behaviour you witnessed? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Afraid to report 38.3 57.1 46.4 Didn’t know who to report to 25.3 23.8 24.7 Officer was my, friend or wantok 11.8 8.6 10.4 No evidence 7.2 1.7 4.8 No trust that anything will be done 6.5 2.7 4.8 No access 1.7 1.7 1.7 No details /other /wrong answer 5.2 3.7 4.5 I forget / don't know 4.1 0.7 2.6 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 541 408 949 FGD participants mentioned a few instances of incorrect behaviour and lack of accountability that they had observed among officials. Honiara public servants expressed dissatisfaction with the performance of some Technical Advisers (TAs) contracted to work within government departments. These expatriate TAs were said to be poorly educated ex public servants with little or no understanding of the social and cultural systems in Solomon Islands. They were described as rude and overbearing and said to speak badly to their Solomon Islander counterparts. There was also much criticism of the TA system in general from public servants. Temotu was said to be a province where foreign vessels, fishing boats and sailing yachts pass unchallenged by the Customs, Quarantine or Immigration departments. The issue of coastal surveillance was raised by several FGDs in Temotu and they recommended that a patrol boat should be stationed at Lata to serve the area. Other instances of incorrect behaviour and lack of accountability were mentioned in connection with the RSIPF (see Section D).
130 Section H: Elections Perceptions of the role of an MP This section focuses on factors influencing voting behaviour. Tables H.1.a and H.1.b show responses to the first multiple response question ‘what do you think is the main job of an MP?’ Eighty five per cent of respondents said it was ‘represent /get better conditions for their constituency’. Fewer than half as many mentioned ‘govern the country or make laws’ (35%) and 28% said ‘assist those who voted for them. All other suggestions were made by fewer than 8% of respondents. The main difference by residence was that rural residents were more likely to say ‘assist those who voted for them’ (29% compared with 20%). Male respondents were more likely to say ‘govern the country /make laws’ (44% compared with 25% for females) and female respondents were more likely to say ‘assist those who voted for him (35% compared with 21% for males). Table H.1.a: What do you think is the main job of an MP? (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % Represent /get better conditions for their constituency 84.2 86.9 84.7 Govern the country /make laws 35.3 32.7 34.8 Assist those who voted for them 29.4 20.3 27.7 Visit community every year /work closely with people 8.0 7.2 7.8 Focus on real development /make good development policy 2.3 1.6 2.1 Use funds properly (RCDF etc.) 1.6 2.0 1.7 Be responsible /be good 1.8 1.1 1.7 No details /other 0.7 0.0 0.6 Don't know 3.6 2.4 3.4 Number of respondents 4025 903 4928 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Table H.1.b: What do you think is the main job of an MP? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Represent /get better conditions for their constituency 87.3 82.2 84.7 Govern the country /make laws 44.3 25.2 34.8 Assist those who voted for them 20.7 34.9 27.7 Visit community every year /work closely with people 9.7 5.9 7.8 Focus on real development /make good development policy 2.7 1.6 2.1 Use funds properly (RCDF etc.) 1.6 1.8 1.7 Be responsible /be good 2.0 1.4 1.7 No details /other 0.7 0.5 0.6 Don't know 2.0 4.8 3.4 Number of respondents 2488 2440 4928 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
131 Figure H.1 groups categories to show perceptions of the main job of an MP compared with previous People’s Surveys. It shows an increase in responses relating to representing and working for their constituencies as a whole, paralleled by a decline in responses relating to assisting individuals and supporters. There is also an increase in the percentages mentioning ‘govern the country/make laws.’ Figure H.1: What is the main job of an MP? (2007 2011)
100
90 2007 80 2008 70 2009 60 2011 % 50 40 30 20 10 0
Sources of information about candidates The 2011 People’s Survey included two new questions to further explore voting behaviour. The first was ‘Where do you get information about candidates before elections?’ Figure H.2 shows that most respondents said they get their information directly from candidates (63%), followed by community leaders (36%) and their family (35%). Only 17% mentioned the radio, while 16% mentioned newspapers and other printed material.
132 Figure H.2: Where do you get information about candidates before elections? 100 90 80 70 60 n=4953 50 40 30 20 10 0
Table H.2.a shows that rural respondents were more likely to mention community leaders (40% compared with 17% for urban residents) and from their family (38% compared with 23%). Urban residents were more likely to consult newspapers and other printed material (21% compared with 14%). The main differences by gender were that female respondents were more likely to get information from their family (39% compared with 31% for males) and from community leaders (38% compared with 33%), and less likely to get information from candidates (54% compared with 72%) or printed material (10% compared with 22%).(Table H.2.b) Table H.2.a: Where do you get information about candidates? (by residence) Rural Honiara & All Settlements % % % From candidates 62.0 66.2 62.8 From community leaders 39.8 16.9 35.6 From my family 37.9 22.8 35.2 From the radio 16.8 19.4 17.3 From newspaper or other printed material 14.4 20.9 15.6 From others 1.6 4.7 2.2 From Electoral Office 1.0 1.2 1.1 No details /other 0.5 0.2 0.5 Forget /don't know 0.4 0.9 0.5 Don't get any information 1.9 5.5 2.6 Number of respondents 4041 912 4953 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Table H.2.b: Where do you get information about candidates? (by gender)
133 Male Female All % % % From candidates 71.9 53.6 62.8 From community leaders 32.8 38.4 35.6 From my family 31.4 38.9 35.2 From the radio 16.7 18.0 17.3 From newspaper or other printed material 21.5 9.6 15.6 From others 1.7 2.7 2.2 From Electoral Office 1.3 0.8 1.1 No details /other 0.6 0.4 0.5 Forget /don't know 0.4 0.5 0.5 Don't get any information 1.8 3.4 2.6 Number of respondents 2492 2461 4953 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Factors influencing choice of candidates Tables H.3.a and H.3.b show respondents’ reasons for voting for candidates in the last national election. The most common response was that the candidate was a good or trusted person or simply someone the respondent liked (34%). Nineteen per cent said the candidate made good promises, 18% said they had done good work in the community with another 18% saying the candidate is a good leader or MP. Eleven per cent and 7% respectively mentioned family or church affiliations. Only 5% said they were ‘told to vote for him/her’. The main differences by residence were that urban residents were more likely to respond to promises (31% compared with 17% in rural areas) and a little less likely than rural respondents to select a candidate because they liked them or thought them a good person. Urban residents were also a little less likely to mention that the candidate was from their family or tribe (7% compared with 12%).
134 Table H.3.a: Why did you choose the candidate you voted for? (by residence) Honiara & Rural Settlements All % % % A good person /I like /trust him/her 35.4 27.3 34.1 He /she made good promises 17.1 31.2 19.4 He/she has done good work in my community 18.7 13.9 17.9 Candidate is a good leader /good MP 18.1 14.4 17.5 I think he /she will help people 18.1 11.0 16.9 He /she is well educated 16.3 16.9 16.4 He/she is from my family /tribe 12.1 6.5 11.2 Church affiliation 6.9 7.6 7.0 He/she has helped me /my family 7.0 3.5 6.4 I was told to vote for him /her 4.4 7.5 4.9 He/she is from my community / I know them well 4.8 4.0 4.7 He /she gave me money or gifts 4.4 4.7 4.5 Has money /good business person /owns a business 2.5 0.6 2.2 I like that political party /policies 1.0 3.3 1.4 Good vision for the country 1.4 1.1 1.3 I thought he /she would win 1.0 0.8 1.0 No details /other 0.6 0.6 0.6 Don't know 6.9 7.6 1.4 Number of respondents 3578 706 4284 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
135 The main differences by gender shown in Table H.3.b are that women were less likely to choose candidates because of their personal qualities, i.e. because they liked or trusted them (30% compared with 38%), thought they were a good leader (11% compared with 24%) or thought them well educated (13% compared with 20%). They were a little more likely to mention ‘good promises’ (22% compared with 17%) but most other differences were only 3% or less. Table H.3.b: Why did you choose the candidate you voted for? (by gender) Male Female All % % % A good person /I like /trust him/her 38.3 30.0 34.1 He /she made good promises 17.0 21.8 19.4 He/she has done good work in my community 17.0 18.8 17.9 Candidate is a good leader /good MP 23.8 11.3 17.5 I think he /she will help people 15.5 18.3 16.9 He /she is well educated 19.9 12.9 16.4 He/she is from my family /tribe 9.9 12.5 11.2 Church affiliation 9.1 5.0 7.0 He/she has helped me /my family 5.8 7.1 6.4 I was told to vote for him /her 3.9 5.9 4.9 He/she is from my community / I know them well 4.6 4.7 4.7 He /she gave me money or gifts 3.0 5.9 4.5 Has money /good business person /owns a business 3.1 1.2 2.2 I like that political party /policies 2.2 0.6 1.4 Good vision for the country 1.9 0.7 1.3 I thought he /she would win 1.2 0.8 1.0 No details /other /wrong answer 0.9 0.3 0.6 Don't know 0.9 1.9 1.4 Number of respondents 2128 2156 4284 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Figure H.3 groups the above responses into seven main categories relating to the candidate’s qualities and other factors. This grouping enhances the pattern suggested in Table H.3.b, i.e. that male respondents are more likely to be influenced by the personal qualities of candidates and by their past performance in leadership or political positions, while females are more likely to be influenced by promises and gifts. Female voters are also a little more likely to say they were told how to vote.
136 Figure H.3: Comparison of factors influencing male and female voters (grouped) (2011)
FGD participants’ comments on why they voted for candidates suggested that they do analyse and discuss campaign strategies and the personal characteristics of candidates in national elections. While some participants openly stated that they supported a candidate because they were a family member or had some tribal affiliation, the majority of responses indicated that the campaign strategies and possible long term support by members were the main influences on their choice. Some participants mentioned that candidates abuse people’s trust by vote buying, and there was one reported case of promises to pay voters SBD30,000 per household for a family vote, as well as feasts and social functions. They said there is a common belief that if your candidate wins at the national election, then you and your community win. For that reason people openly vote for candidates who distribute cash inducements because they believe that candidates who are generous with money, for weddings and funerals or who repay debts, are owed a vote. Other participants said educated people have status and position and therefore illiterate people consider them to be the best candidates for a parliamentary seat. Poorly educated candidates were said to lack this important status. However, there was little evidence of real understanding of the nature of the electoral systems and of the importance of the power of the vote. It was said that votes are seen as just another ‘white man’s piece of paper.’ This lack of understanding of the importance of voting means poor people are easily bribed. In Polynesian communities the position of the chief is hereditary and people usually vote according to chiefly direction, out of respect rather than ignorance. FGDs elsewhere, however, suggest that even educated participants appear to have little real understanding of the meaning of the multi party democratic model.
137 ‘The basic principle behind the democratic system, it is freedom, freedom to do anything you wish … when freedom comes people do what they like. So long as freedom exists, corruption continues.’ (FGD, Men, Honiara) Participants in Isabel Province gave various reasons for voting for their current MP, including that the person was from their family or line or was a relative, that they believed the candidate would do good things for the constituency or that they thought that the person would be a good voice for them in national Parliament. They also voted for candidates who made electoral promises of improvements to health, education, law and justice. ‘I voted because, I want an MP to support us and to speak out for us in Parliament.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, Isabel) In Western Province only one FGD reported ‘blind voting’, that is, electing someone completely unknown to them. As they want improvements to their lives and infrastructure they are more likely to choose a candidate or returning MP whom they know will ‘do things that help us and our lifestyle’. This usually means voting for someone who has honoured their promises in the past.
138 Section I: Resolution of disputes Frequency of disputes Figure I.1 shows that 85% of respondents said they had been involved in a major argument (bigfala raoa) or dispute with another person in the past year. These percentages are not comparable with previous People’s Surveys, which asked about family rather than their own involvement (2007 2009) or only about ‘dispiuts’ (2010), a term normally perceived as referring specifically to land disputes. Figure I.1: Have you been involved in a major argument or dispute in the past year? 100 90 80 70 n=4963 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No Table I.1 shows that respondents in Isabel (25%) and Guadalcanal (21%) were most likely to say they had been involved in major arguments or disputes, with Men and Young Men more likely to report such involvement than their female counterparts. Table I.1: Have you been involved in a major argument or dispute in the past year? Yes No % % (No.) Province Choiseul 15.0 85.0 280 Guadalcanal 20.6 79.4 979 Honiara 15.1 84.9 637 Honiara Settlements 14.4 85.6 277 Isabel 24.5 75.5 282 Malaita 11.1 88.9 1469 Temotu 16.0 84.0 225 Western 12.8 87.2 814
Age/gender group Man 20.1 79.9 1265 Woman 11.5 88.5 1249 Young Man 17.9 82.1 1237 Young Woman 10.9 89.1 1212 All respondents 15.2 84.8 4963
139 No answer=9 respondents Resolution of major arguments and disputes This section explores use of traditional and modern justice. The 2011 People’s Survey introduced a new series of questions on how various types of arguments and disputes are resolved, and whether respondents would expect to pay for assistance to resolve them. Only one answer was permitted for each of these questions. Table I.2.a shows that by far the majority of respondents said they would seek help from a chief (60%) or the church (20%) to resolve an argument within the family or community, with only 15% mentioning the RSIPF. There were marked differences between rural and urban respondents, however, with urban respondents much less likely to ask a chief (39% compared with 64% for rural respondents) and much more likely to ask the RSIPF (34% compared with 11%). There was almost no difference in the percentages who said they would seek help from the church. Table I.2.a: Where would you seek help to resolve a major argument in your family or community? (by residence) Rural Honiara & All Settlements % % % Chief 64.2 38.9 59.6 Church 20.7 19.1 20.4 RSIPF 10.6 33.9 14.9 Elders 1.7 1.1 1.6 Someone I trust 0.7 1.5 0.9 Big Man 0.2 0.2 0.2 Government court 0.2 0.1 0.2 MP /provincial leader 0.0 0.0 0.0 NGO /Health worker /teacher 0.0 0.0 0.0 No details /other 0.1 0.3 0.2 No one /keep within family 1.1 4.2 1.7 Don't know 0.4 0.7 0.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 4046 915 4961 No answer=11 respondents Table I.2.b shows that female respondents were less likely to seek help from a chief (53% compared with 66% for males) and more likely to seek help from the church (23% compared with 18%) or the RSIPF (18% compared with 12%).
140 Table I.2.b: Where would you seek help to resolve a major argument in your family or community? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Chief 66.2 52.8 59.6 Church 17.9 22.9 20.4 RSIPF 11.9 17.9 14.9 Elders 1.7 1.4 1.6 Someone I trust 0.5 1.2 0.9 Big Man 0.2 0.3 0.2 Government court 0.2 0.1 0.2 MP /provincial leader 0.0 0.0 0.0 NGO /Health worker /teacher 0.0 0.0 0.0 No details /other 0.1 0.2 0.2 No one /keep within family 1.1 2.3 1.7 Don't know 0.1 0.8 0.4 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2504 2457 4961 No answer=11 respondents Figure I.2 compares the sources of help rural and urban respondents and male and female respondents would seek for a major argument within their family or community. Figure I.2: Source of help to resolve a major family or community argument (by residence and gender) 100
90 Rural Male Female 80 Urban
70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0 Chief Church Police Other Chief Church Police Other 141 Table I.3 shows that 36% said they would expect to pay for assistance to resolve a family or community dispute, but there was much variation between provinces. Respondents in Guadalcanal and Temotu were most likely to say they would expect to pay (76% and 75%), while those in Western were least likely (12%). Men were much more likely than Women to say they would expect to pay for this assistance (42% and 31%). Table I.3: Would you expect to pay for assistance to resolve an argument in your family or community? Yes No Don't know (No.) % % % Province Choiseul 27.5 72.5 0.0 280 Guadalcanal 75.6 22.9 1.5 980 Honiara 24.6 72.7 2.7 637 Honiara Settlements 21.6 77.3 1.1 278 Isabel 50.0 48.9 1.1 282 Malaita 22.2 72.6 5.3 1466 Temotu 74.7 23.6 1.8 225 Western 12.2 85.1 2.7 813 Age/gender group Man 41.5 57.2 1.3 1266 Woman 30.6 66.3 3.1 1247 Young Man 37.4 59.6 3.0 1239 Young Woman 32.9 63.0 4.1 1209 All respondents 35.6 61.5 2.8 4961 No answer=11 respondents
142 Tables I.4.a and I.4.b show where respondents would seek assistance to resolve a land dispute. Chiefs were by far the main source of assistance with land disputes (71%) with only 14% of respondents mentioning government or land courts. Chiefs were mentioned much more often in rural than in urban areas (77% compared with 42%) while urban respondents were much more likely to mention government or land courts (34% compared with 9%). Urban respondents were also a little more likely to mention the RSIPF (9% compared with 5%). Female respondents were more likely to mention ‘chief’ (77% compared with 64%) and the RSIPF (9% compared with 2%) (Table I.4.b).There was no gender difference in the percentages mentioning government or land courts. Figure I.4 highlights these differences by residence and gender. Table I.4.a: Who would you ask to help you resolve a land dispute? (by residence) Honiara & Rural All Settlements % % % Chief 77.4 41.8 70.8 Government court or land court 9.4 33.8 13.9 RSIPF 5.0 8.5 5.6 Church 2.9 1.4 2.6 Big Man /elders 0.3 1.5 0.5 Lands office / city lands 0.3 1.0 0.5 RAMSI 0.2 0.5 0.3 Lawyer / magistrate 0.1 0.1 0.1 No details/other 3.2 0.9 2.8 No one 0.2 9.0 1.8 Don't know 1.0 1.4 1.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 4048 916 4964 No answer=8 respondents
143 Table I.4.b: Who would you ask to help you resolve a land dispute? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Chief 77.3 64.2 70.8 Government court or land court 13.9 13.9 13.9 RSIPF 2.4 8.9 5.6 Church 1.8 3.8 2.8 Big Man /elders 2.2 3.1 2.6 Lands office / city lands 1.8 1.8 1.8 RAMSI 0.0 0.5 0.3 Lawyer / magistrate 0.0 0.2 0.1 No details/other 0.1 0.8 0.5 No one 0.2 0.8 0.5 Don't know 0.2 2.0 1.1 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2505 2459 4964 No answer=8 respondents Figure I.4: Source of help to resolve a land dispute (by residence and gender)
100
90
80 Rural Male Female Urban 70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10
0 Chief Court RSIPF Other Chief Court RSIPF Other
144 Table I.5 shows that 63% of all respondents said they would expect to pay for assistance to resolve a land dispute, but, as for other disputes, there were substantial differences by province. Respondents in Isabel were most likely to say they would expect to pay (86%), followed by respondents in Guadalcanal (85%), whereas respondents in Choiseul were least likely (30%). Male respondents were more likely than female respondents to say they would expect to pay for assistance with a land dispute. Table I.5: Would you expect to pay for assistance to resolve a land dispute? Yes No Don't k % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 29.6 70.4 0.0 280 Guadalcanal 85.3 12.9 1.8 978 Honiara 57.5 38.9 3.6 635 Honiara Settlements 55.4 41.0 3.6 278 Isabel 85.8 13.5 0.7 282 Malaita 63.7 30.5 5.7 1467 Temotu 78.6 20.1 1.3 224 Western 38.0 59.8 2.2 814 Age/gender group Man 77.3 20.1 2.5 1266 Woman 57.3 38.8 3.9 1247 Young Man 65.4 33.1 1.5 1238 Young Woman 49.3 45.8 4.9 1207 All respondents 62.5 34.3 3.2 4958 No answer=14 respondents Tables I.6.a and I.6.b show where respondents would seek help to resolve a major argument with a person or group outside their community. As for the other types of major disagreement, most respondents would turn to their chief to resolve a major argument outside their community (61%). Differences between rural and urban respondents were even greater, while the RSIPF was more likely to be asked to assist. Overall, 26% of respondents said they would seek help from the RSIPF, but this response was more than twice as common among urban respondents (54% compared with 19%). The only other source mentioned quite frequently was the church (8% overall). Female respondents were less likely to say they would seek help from their chief (56% compared with 66% for males) and a little more likely to turn to the RSIPF (29% compared with 24%) or the church (10% compared with 6%).
145 Table I.6.a: Who would you ask to help resolve a major argument with people outside your community? (by residence) Honiara & Rural All Settlements % % % Chief 67.1 34.4 61.1 RSIPF 19.1 54.0 25.6 Church 8.1 6.9 7.9 Village elders /community leaders 3.3 1.0 2.9 Government court or lawyer 0.9 0.5 0.8 No details /other 0.3 0.8 0.4 No one 0.4 1.5 0.6 Don't know 0.7 0.9 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 4048 916 4964 No answer=8 respondents Table I.6.b: Who would you ask to help resolve a major argument with people outside your community? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Chief 65.6 56.4 61.1 RSIPF 23.6 27.5 25.6 Church 5.8 10.0 7.9 Village elders /community leaders 3.7 2.0 2.9 Government court or lawyer 0.4 1.3 0.8 No details /other 0.4 0.5 0.4 No one 0.3 0.9 0.6 Don't know 0.1 1.4 0.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 Number of respondents 2506 2458 4964 No answer=8 respondents
146 Figure I.6 compares the sources of help mentioned by rural and urban residents and by males and females. It shows clearly that urban respondents were much more likely to seek help from the police. It also shows that males were more likely to approach a chief while female respondents were more likely to seek help from the police. Figure I.6: Help to resolve a major argument with people outside community (by residence and gender) 100 90 Rural Male 80 Urban Female 70 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0
Table I.7 shows that 46% of respondents would expect to pay for assistance to resolve a major argument with an individual or group outside their community. Again there was much variation between provinces, and the pattern was similar to that for a major argument within the family or community. Respondents in Temotu were most likely to expect to pay (77%) followed by respondents in Guadalcanal. Respondents in Western were least likely to expect to pay (23%). Male respondents were more likely than female respondents to expect to pay.
147 Table I.7: Would you expect to pay for assistance to resolve a major argument with people dispute outside your community? Yes No Don't know % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 24.6 75.4 0.0 280 Guadalcanal 74.7 24.5 0.8 979 Honiara 26.9 72.3 0.8 635 Honiara Settlements 24.2 73.3 2.5 277 Isabel 68.4 24.5 7.1 282 Malaita 47.0 44.7 8.3 1466 Temotu 77.2 21.4 1.3 224 Western 23.3 75.1 1.6 814
Age/gender group Man 52.6 45.7 1.7 1266 Woman 42.4 54.3 3.4 1246 Young Man 53.0 41.2 5.8 1237 Young Woman 35.9 60.6 3.5 1208 All respondents 46.1 50.4 3.6 4957 No answer=5 respondents Figure I.7 compares expectations as regards paying for assistance to resolve different types of dispute. It shows that respondents were more likely to expect to pay for assistance to resolve a dispute outside their community as compared to a dispute within their family or community, and most likely to expect to pay for assistance with a land dispute. Figure I.7: Would you expect to pay for help to resolve different types of dispute? 100
90 Yes No 80 Don't know 70
60
% 50
40
30
20
10 0 Dispute in family Land dispute Outside or community community
148 Satisfaction with dispute resolution All respondents were asked if they were satisfied with the methods of resolving major arguments and disputes available to them. Table I.8 and Figure I.8 show that the majority of respondents (83%) said they were satisfied. Respondents in Honiara were most likely to be satisfied (86%) and those in Temotu least likely (76%), but this is a relatively small range at the provincial level. Of the age/gender groups, Young Men were least likely to be satisfied (78%). Table I.8: Are you satisfied with the methods of resolving major arguments and disputes available to you? Yes No Don't know % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 83.9 15.7 0.4 280 Guadalcanal 82.9 16.0 1.0 979 Honiara 85.9 11.0 3.1 638 Honiara Settlements 80.9 15.8 3.2 278 Isabel 82.6 15.6 1.8 282 Malaita 80.7 11.2 8.0 1468 Temotu 76.4 21.8 1.8 225 Western 85.0 13.9 1.1 811
Age/gender group Man 85.5 13.6 0.9 1266 Woman 82.2 14.5 3.3 1247 Young Man 77.8 18.5 3.7 1238 Young Woman 85.0 8.6 6.4 1210 All respondents 82.6 13.8 3.5 4961 No answer=11 respondents Figure I.8: Are you satisfied with the methods of resolving major arguments and disputes available to you? 100 90 80 70 n=4961 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Yes No Don't know
149 Respondents who said they were not satisfied with the methods available to them were asked what would make resolution of disputes and arguments better for them. Tables I.9.a and I.9.b show that a wide range of suggestions were made, but in both rural and urban areas traditional or local justice was mentioned much more often than the modern justice system. Fairer local justice (i.e. without favouritism) was mentioned by 50% of respondents, and strengthening kastom laws and the role of chiefs was mentioned by 24%. Sixteen per cent wanted more access to the RSIPF, while all other suggestions were made by less than 10% of respondents. Urban respondents were more likely to suggest fairer local justice (56% compared with 49% in rural areas) while rural respondents were more likely to suggest strengthening local justice, i.e. kastom laws and chiefs’ roles (12% compared with 26%). Rural respondents were also more likely to mention more access to the RSIPF (18% compared with 8%). The main differences between genders were that female respondents were more likely than males to suggest more resolution of arguments and disputes by the church and by prayer (8% compared with 1%). Female respondents were also more likely to mention fairer local justice (53% compared with 47%), and less likely to mention strengthening local justice (21% compared with 26%) and more respect for chiefs and kastom (5% compared with 10%). Table I.9.a: What would make resolution of major arguments and disputes better for you? (by residence) Rural Honiara & All Settlements % % % Fairer local justice, no favourites or nepotism 48.6 55.8 49.8 Strengthen kastom laws /chiefs' roles 26.4 11.5 23.9 More access to RSIPF 18.1 8.0 16.4 More respect for chiefs /elders /kastom 7.4 11.5 8.1 More or cheaper government or local courts in rural areas 8.3 1.8 7.2 More respect for family /community cooperation 4.3 7.1 4.7 Easier access to Magistrates' Court in Honiara 5.3 0.0 4.4 Church to settle or reconcile more disputes / prayer 3.7 4.4 3.8 More community policing 2.7 3.5 2.8 More Big Men or influential people should settle disputes 1.8 0.9 1.6 Easier access to Customary Land Appeal Court in Honiara 1.8 0.0 1.5 Family or senior family member should settle disputes 0.5 1.8 0.7 Involve more women in dispute resolution 0.7 0.9 0.7 Hold more frequent traditional courts 0.4 0.0 0.3 No details /other 3.0 3.5 3.1 Don't know 1.8 6.2 2.5 Number of respondents 564 113 677 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
150 Table I.9.b: What would make resolution of major arguments and disputes better for you? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Fairer local justice, no favourites or nepotism 47.4 53.2 49.8 Strengthen kastom laws /chiefs' roles 25.9 21.1 23.9 More access to RSIPF 15.6 17.5 16.4 More respect for chiefs /elders /kastom 10.3 5.0 8.1 More or cheaper government or local courts in rural areas 8.1 6.1 7.2 More respect for family /community cooperation 4.3 5.4 4.7 Easier access to Magistrates' Court in Honiara 5.8 2.5 4.4 Church to settle or reconcile more disputes / prayer 1.3 7.5 3.8 More community policing 2.0 3.9 2.8 More Big Men or influential people should settle disputes 2.3 0.7 1.6 Easier access to Customary Land Appeal Court in Honiara 2.3 0.4 1.5 Family or senior family member should settle disputes 0.3 1.4 0.7 Involve more women in dispute resolution 0.3 1.4 0.7 Hold more frequent traditional courts 0.5 0.0 0.3 No details /other 4.0 1.8 3.1 Don't know 1.0 4.6 2.5 Number of respondents 397 280 677 Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Figure I.9 groups responses into two categories ‘improvements to traditional justice’ and ‘improvements to modern justice’. It shows that respondents tended to be much more focused on improving and strengthening traditional forms of justice as compared to modern justice. Figure I.9: Suggested improvements to traditional and modern justice 100 90 80 Rural Male Female 70 Urban 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Traditional Modern Traditional Modern Note: Multiple response chart. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
151 FGD comments on dispute resolution The problems with accessing the formal justice system, and its apparent failure to meet the needs of rural people, was a key theme in FGDs. Courts were perceived as a place of last resort for people who cannot resolve major disagreements locally or who find chiefs and church leaders cannot deal with major issues (such as land disputes, murder cases or repeat offenders). Most participants saw the formal justice system as expensive, adversarial and possibly aggravating a dispute. Generally only major conflicts, like major criminal activity, rape and murder, would be referred to the police. Small conflicts are solved by local chiefs and the church leaders, but if chiefs could not solve an issue then it would be referred on. Certain serious cases, such as grievous bodily harm, malicious damage and land disputes would be taken to the police, even though, as noted in Section D, there is considerable dissatisfaction with the way the RSIPF responds to requests for assistance. Major land disputes that could not be solved by chiefs are taken to the magistrate’s court. In Western Province participants stated that major issues like drug and alcohol abuse, land conflicts (especially those involving logging), repeated stealing and property theft are often referred to the police and courts. Guadalcanal participants said that all their disagreements were solved in the traditional way and none were taken to court, although a murder case would be referred to the police. All inland groups in Guadalcanal reported that local chiefs and church leaders, or pastors, dealt with the disagreements that arise within communities. Problems are reported to the police only if they continue. All coastal communities also reported that chiefs, church leaders and community elders resolved local conflicts and especially any family disagreements. Some land cases were taken to the magistrate’s court for resolution but only if local mediators could not solve them. The position of community chief, church leaders and community elders is high especially in the east Guadalcanal villages surveyed. ‘We have our own chiefs in the village to solve disputes, to solve problems like fighting, and if they cannot solve the problems they would be reported to the police to deal with it.’ (LGD, Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women, rural Guadalcanal) FGD participants in Isabel Province said the position of kastom chiefs and church leaders is still strong and most complaints or disputes are referred to local chiefs, tribal chiefs or to the Maringe House of Chiefs. Some said they wished that chiefs, church leaders and the police would work together. They said that if is believed that a chief would be biased in some way then people would take the matter to the police. Other FGD participants said they did not involve the police in local disagreements and had little to say about the formal justice system. ‘Our chiefs deal with problems in three categories, small, medium and large … which the Maringe House of Chiefs deals looks after. Village chiefs deal with small problems, tribal chiefs deal with medium problems and the Maringe House of Chiefs deals with bigger problems.’ (FGD, Men, Isabel) Almost all FGDs in Malaita Province stated that they prefer chiefs and church leaders or pastors to deal with minor disagreements within villages. The chief and church leaders have considerable power, especially in some rural areas. Only if the chiefs cannot resolve conflicts will people go to the police but the police are considered to be weak in conflict resolution. Police in South Malaita said they are poorly resourced to deal with crime. Their OBM is often without fuel, their employment conditions are poor and pay low and most police housing is in need of repair. In the urban communities and squatter settlements of Honiara there are many factions and rivalries. This means that people with different cultural and social values congregate together, while there is also conflict between Western world views and traditional notions of justice and kastom. Most people cannot afford to engage town lawyers to bring or defend a civil (non criminal) case, especially because lawyers ask for payment up front regardless of the legal outcome of the case. Participants pointed out that illiterate people
152 do not understand the role and procedures of the Public Solicitor’s Office or the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Rural people often do not have access to a local court house. In the past the resident magistrate from Gizo in Western Province visited Seghe to conduct a magistrate’s court, but this has become an infrequent event. Participants said that, regardless of the outcome of a case, kastom compensation is still required to formally settle a disagreement. It is also less confrontational and more socially and culturally acceptable to seek justice from respected chiefs and elders than to attempt to use a potentially threatening criminal or civil justice system. Even so, some participants considered the formal justice system important and said that it needs to be more active locally. ‘I think using the church leaders and chiefs to solve disputes is not good here, and we should use the court. People should be satisfied with its decisions.’ (FGD, Men, Western) FGD participants in the inland communities of east Guadalcanal emphasised the need to begin by attempting to resolve disagreements within the local community because protagonists were usually from the same community, often from the same family, and should respect this fact, even if they are in conflict. The evidence collected from all communities suggest that kastom conflict resolution is still the preferred option in most places, reflecting both the strength of kastom and culture and the desire to keep conflicts managed within the family or community. Lack of confidence in the police also encourages the use of local chiefs, church leaders and village elders to solve village arguments and conflicts. These people are not empowered to resolve major disagreements but some participants suggested that Houses or Councils of Chiefs should be established to formalise their powers. ‘If the chiefs had legal backing up, they would have more power to solve big disagreements in the community.’ (SSI, Men, Honiara) Coastal communities in Guadalcanal tend to be large and well served by transport and are often open to different cultural or settler groups. Despite this, FGD participants from these villages said that other obstacles may prevent them taking matters to court when this is perceived as appropriate. Firstly, there was a general lack of a police presence in these communities and, as noted in Section D, people lack confidence in the RSIPF. Another obstacle is a general lack of understanding of the court system. ‘We don’t understand the court system. Although we have problems we remain silent and do nothing about them.’ (FGD, Women, rural Guadalcanal) Participants also said that intimidation, low level criminality and bullying exist in many east Guadalcanal communities and people fear consequences if they attempt to seek justice. The experiences of these communities, which are within 50 kilometres of Honiara, suggest that crime is increasing within some rural communities and that criminals have little respect for the rule of law and order. A few Isabel participants said that witchcraft, another specifically local obstacle, discourages people from reporting crime to police and courts. They said some people in this province hold strong beliefs and they wanted to know what the RSIPF and RAMSI would do about the witchcraft practiced in rural and especially remote communities. Sorcery was mentioned as a constraint by one group of participants in Malaita. They said that in some rural communities there is a very real fear of sorcery (kelema) and opponents will engage a sorcerer to harm a person or their family. Even the threat can be sufficient to stop people taking legal action as it is a tool of power and coercion. Sorcery is hard to prove, however, and police will not respond to complaints of this nature, sometimes because they are themselves frightened of sorcery. ‘Something is stopping us from reporting crime to the police now, we are afraid of reporting the offender, afterwards he can come back to cause trouble and use sorcery.’
153 ‘It is hard to deal with sorcery here. Even if we have strong evidence to prove a man killed another, the law cannot take action against him … so that means sorcery will continue.’ (FGD, Men, rural Malaita). Participants in Temotu said that kinship relationships and the fear of damaging a family and its reputation can stop people taking a major disagreement to court or even reporting it to police. People feel that the lack of police response and perceptions of the police as ineffective also discourage them from reporting crimes. They said all conflict resolution is handled by chiefs and church leaders. No inland community mentioned the police as mediators in conflict resolution, and most coastal communities also preferred chiefs to handle problems. Police were only called in for cases of alcohol abuse or disobedience to the chiefs, or where the chiefs could not handle a matter. It was also apparent that in Temotu, there is a very real fear of revenge and retaliation, not only by the opponent or perpetrator of the crime, but also by the so called ‘Wild Man’. They said this person has been described by many people. He is said to live in the forests and attacks men, especially young men, who later die slowly from the effects of his attacks. While belief in sorcery in Isabel and Malaita and the ‘Wild Man’ of Nendo are difficult to comprehend in a Western context, they are very real threats to some Solomon Islanders. In the Western Province the Seventh Day Adventist Church (SDA) is strong and widely respected. The SDA resolution process involves talk between conflicting parties, and may involve village chiefs and prayer, and parties must shake hands publicly. There is no punishment or rebuke but also little or no compensation. Church leaders do not resolve land disputes. If chiefs cannot resolve a land dispute it is referred to police and the courts. However, there were generally few references to the use of the police as conflict mediators because they are not respected. Payment for resolution of disagreements When asked about payments for resolution of disagreements, all FGD participants said that church leaders and pastors were not paid to act as mediators in conflict resolution, although sometimes they were housed and fed during their deliberations, as a matter of courtesy. Nor is payment part of the SDA mediation process. In contrast, chiefs are paid, with the amount of the payment varying according to the nature and seriousness of the matter. The figure mentioned by most groups in east Guadalcanal was in the order of 30% of the compensation payment or fine, but this is sometimes paid in shell money, pigs or taro as well as in cash. This is especially true in large cases such as land settlements, reconciliation or murder. Other participants said that it is generally assumed that chiefs should be paid between SBD50 and SBD100 as commission for mediation. Chiefs from an outside community who are asked to come and mediate were paid SBD100, housed, fed and given transport. In cases of stealing the usual fees are from SBD50 100. In the cases of a land dispute that may be difficult to resolve, however, a chief may be paid as much as SBD1,000. In Malaita land disputes cost about SBD100 to resolve locally, but if taken to court then the cost is much more, as both legal fees and court costs are involved. Police in South Malaita said that court fees can range from SBD500 2,000. ‘Our chiefs know how to solve all the disagreements in the community here, with the help of church … and we know that we pay $50 that’s all.’ (FGD, Men, rural Malaita) Minor disagreements like boy/girl relationships, swearing and disrespect are often settled by the payment of a fine. In the case of boy/girl relationships in Malaita the boy’s family must pay compensation to the girl’s family for damage to her reputation, regardless of her personal position in the affair. Compensation is usually one string of shell money and one pig. In Temotu Province, in cases of stealing the fines paid may be SBD50 100 but in premarital affairs the payments are more. In such cases the boy’s family might pay the girl’s family
154 SBD200 or SBD500 if she is pregnant. In extramarital affairs between a married woman and a youth or a man, then the male’s family must pay the husband about SBD1,000. Overall, comments from FGD participants suggest only limited contact with the formal justice system and a general lack of understanding of the nature of formal models of justice. Many distrust the police, while there is a widespread belief that approaching the formal justice system may worsen the conflict. Moreover, serious conflicts like rape may be hidden because of shame and gossip, so the formal justice system is used only for matters that cannot be managed by chiefs and elders, such as murder. Even if a case is settled in court, kastom compensation is still required to complete the reconciliation process. The role of women in conflict resolution Tables I.10.a, I.10.b and Figure I.10 show responses to a question on what types of disagreements women help to resolve. While 65% said women participate in resolution of family disagreements and 24% said women help to resolve disagreements about community, only 12% said women helped to resolve disputes about land and money. Rural respondents were more likely to say women participated in some form of resolution of disagreements, while urban respondents were more likely to say women do not participate (35% compared with 27%). An interesting feature of Table I.10.b is that female respondents were less likely than men to say women participate in any of the forms of resolution mentioned. Table I.10.a: Do women help to resolve disagreements in your community? (by residence) Rural Honiara & All Settlements % % % Yes, disagreements in family 66.3 58.4 64.9 Yes, disagreements about community 26.4 11.2 23.6 Yes, disagreements about money 12.5 12.2 12.4 Yes, land disputes 12.3 10.6 12.0 Anything to do with women 6.9 3.7 6.3 Anything to do with church 0.1 1.9 0.4 No details /other 0.6 1.6 0.8 No 27.4 34.6 28.7 Don't know 2.0 1.3 1.9 Number of respondents 4046 916 4962 No answer=10 respondents Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent.
155 Table I.10.b: Do women help to resolve disagreements in your community? (by gender) Male Female All % % % Yes, disagreements in family 70.5 59.2 64.9 Yes, disagreements about community 30.3 16.8 23.6 Yes, disagreements about money 16.9 7.0 12.0 Yes, disagreements about money 14.7 10.1 12.4 Anything to do with church 0.6 0.3 0.4 Anything to do with women 8.7 3.9 6.3 No details /other 1.0 0.6 0.8 No 24.4 33.2 28.7 Don't know 0.7 3.1 1.9 Number of respondents 2505 2457 4962 No answer=10 respondents Note: Multiple response table. Percentages are totals of up to three answers per respondent. Figure I.10: Participation of women in resolution of disagreements in rural and urban areas
156 Preferred gender of helper Only female respondents were asked the final question in the questionnaire: ‘If you were involved in a dispute and needed the help of another person, would you prefer to ask a man or a woman?’ Table I.11 and Figure I.11 show that, overall, female respondents were more than three times as likely to say they would prefer to seek help from a man (70% compared with 20%). Only 7% of women in Choiseul and Isabel said they would prefer to ask a woman, compared with 25% in Guadalcanal and Honiara and 23% in Western. Women in Guadalcanal (18%) and Malaita (11%) were most likely to say ‘no difference’. Young Women were less likely to say ‘no difference’ (7% compared with 12% for Women) and a little more likely to say they would prefer to seek help from a man. Table I.11: If you needed help, would you prefer to ask a man or a woman? Prefer Prefer No man woman difference % % % (No.) Province Choiseul 93.4 6.6 0.0 137 Guadalcanal 56.6 25.0 17.6 484 Honiara 63.3 25.2 9.9 313 Honiara Settlements 73.2 21.8 4.9 142 Isabel 92.1 6.5 0.7 139 Malaita 70.6 17.9 11.4 720 Temotu 84.7 12.6 1.8 111 Western 69.1 23.2 7.2 401 Age/gender group Man Woman 68.9 18.2 12.2 1245 Young Man Young Woman 71.0 21.5 7.1 1202 All respondents 69.9 19.8 9.7 2447 Don’t know = 15 respondents Figure I.11: If you needed help, would you prefer to ask a man or a woman? (2011) 100
90 80 70 n=2432 60 % 50 40 30 20 10 0 Man Woman No difference
157 Section 2: Cross Cutting Issues 2.1 Capacity building A continuing theme throughout this report is the need for Solomon Islands to build capacity, both physical infrastructure and human resources development. Widespread community awareness and concern about the need for capacity building is especially evident in FGDs about what more RAMSI and SIG need to do before RAMSI can leave Solomon Islands, and Question F.10 in the questionnaire, which asked what SIG should be doing, or doing more of, to improve Solomon Islands. Many participants and respondents mentioned the importance of improving quality and access to education to facilitate employment and the augmentation of livelihoods. Improvements to transport infrastructure were also perceived as essential to increase income earning opportunities as well as access to basic services. Although mentioned less often, more access to electricity would also facilitate income earning opportunities, especially in remote areas. The multiple consequences of limited access to banks are apparent in the preceding analysis. The perception is that not having ready access to a bank is not simply an inconvenience in Solomon Islands; it stunts business development because of lack of access to credit. It encourages officials to leave their posts in order to access their salaries and even to demand cash bribes. It also fosters high levels of theft and robbery, often crimes against women, because small traders are known to carry cash and/or keep it in their houses. The need for more skills development is mentioned in various contexts in this report, including transfer of more skills to government officials, upgrading the skills of teachers and health personnel, and upgrading the skills and capacity of the RSIPF. It is also clear by implication that more skills in governance are needed, at both the national and provincial levels. A key finding in relation to what RAMSI and SIG need to do before RAMSI leaves Solomon Islands is that respondents and participants tend not to make a clear distinction between RAMSI’s mandate and the responsibilities of national and provincial government. Many things they expect RAMSI to do are responsibilities of national or provincial government. However, as RAMSI is perceived as more capable and there is considerable dissatisfaction with government performance in delivering services (Tables F.9.a and F.9.b), people have unrealistic expectations that RAMSI should take on additional roles such as development of infrastructure. 2.2 Gender Issues As in previous years, the survey data reveal some consistent differences between male and female respondents, but there are few surprises. Comparing People’s Surveys over time suggest that Women and Young Women are increasingly confident to speak out about their needs and about things they are not happy with. There is also evidence that, overall, the education gap between males and females is closing, with the mean years of education of Young Women only a little less than that of Young Men, whereas there is a substantial difference between Men and Women (Figure A.7). What is clear, however, is that there are still considerable differences between provinces and between rural and urban areas in the status of women. Some specific examples of gender differences in this report are the following: Female respondents in general were more likely to use road transport and less likely to use small boats, but Women were more likely to use large boats. Compared with other age/gender groups, Young Women were more likely to say they had access to a mobile phone. Female respondents were more likely than male respondents to say they earn money from selling and around half as likely to say they have paid work. Female respondents were also most likely to say their main opportunity to increase their income was to sell more. Family obligations were the main obstacles for female respondents with regard to increasing their income.
158 Female respondents who tried to start a business were a little more likely to report problems with wantoks and customers. Female respondents were more likely to be currently doing business, but much less likely to have ever earned SBD7,800 in one year or ever paid tax. Female respondents were less likely to have an account with a bank or other financial institution. Female respondents were much less likely to receive information on growing crops from an agricultural advisor. Around half as many respondents reported females working away from home as males working away from home. Female respondents were less likely to say they feel safe in their community, household or in Honiara. Female respondents were less likely to have asked the RSIPF for help in the past year but more likely to be satisfied with the help they received and more likely than males of the same age group to say the RSIPF treated them fairly and with respect. Female respondents were more likely to support the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands and less likely to say it is time for RAMSI to scale back its activities. Female respondents were more likely to say women make good leaders, more likely to say there should be women in parliament and more likely to say they would vote for a woman candidate. Women were much less likely to say they would report misuse of power or public money, but Young Women were more likely than older Women to say they would report such activity. Female respondents were less likely to receive information directly from electoral candidates and more likely to receive it from their family or community. Female respondents were more likely than males to say they would seek help from the RSIPF for any type of dispute. The main disputes women help to settle are disputes within the family, with less than 25 % of respondents saying that women help to resolve any other kind of dispute. Around 70% of female respondents said they would prefer to seek help to resolve a dispute from a man than from a woman (male respondents were not asked this question). 2.3 Accountability and corruption As in previous People’s Surveys, the data presented here contain many references to problems with accountability and corruption, especially in the FGDs. Although people are quick to complain about such things, it seems they are often reluctant to do anything about them, either because they do not know how to lodge a complaint, or because they fear reprisals if they do. This is particularly true in the case of problems with the RSIPF (Section D), but also applies to public officials in general. Section G shows a mismatch between what people say they would do if they encountered a problem of mismanagement or dishonesty and what they actually do. Some new questions on what participants think are the good and bad qualities of an MP and why respondents voted as they did in the last election (Section H) provide some interesting insights into how people perceive their representatives. The qualities listed were generally what would be expected of good and bad parliamentary performers anywhere, and participants and respondents were disparaging or critical of malpractices, including under performing and bribery. On the other hand, many appeared to take an opportunistic approach and vote in a way that is most likely to bring immediate benefits to them and their family rather than taking a long term or national view. This is probably a reflection of the generally low expectations of government and lack of capacity to ensure government delivers basic services and provides economic opportunities. It points to the need for continuing awareness raising about government and official responsibility. One aspect of this is the need for awareness raising on the nature and purpose of the taxation system. Questions and discussions on tax (Section C) show not only a very small taxation base, but also very little knowledge of the nature of tax and how taxes should be used.
159 Concluding remarks This report has presented the findings of the 2011 People’s Survey. It is the fifth in a series of annual surveys of topics of community perceptions and experience of government and governance in Solomon Islands. The 2011 People’s Survey has included a special focus and additional questions on access to services and business and employment than in previous years and new questions on perceptions of the role of SIG and RAMSI. There is also more emphasis on comparison of data over time than in 2010, with reinstatement of some questions that were not asked last year. The sample for the questionnaire based survey comprised communities in the four core areas surveyed every year – Western, Guadalcanal, Malaita and Honiara – plus northern Choiseul, southern Isabel and Temotu. FGDs were conducted in all except Choiseul. As in previous years, roughly equal numbers of Men, Women, Young Men and Young Women were interviewed and participated in discussions. Both the quantitative and qualitative findings are generally consistent with the previous People’s Surveys. Most of the changes reported were small and in the expected direction. There are no real surprises in the findings. Additional questions have provided more information on household and business finances and factors influencing voting behaviour. New topics include perceptions of the underlying problems in Solomon Islands and what more RAMSI and SIG need to do before Solomon Islands is ready for RAMSI to leave. Results should provide valuable insights for policy makers and the community.
160 Annex One: Tabulation of FGD responses How do people here earn an income? Annex One Table 1A: Rural income sources Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Marketing/selling 247 Vegetables (15), root crops (15), fruits and nuts (7)¸ coconuts Fresh produce 55 (5), other (13) Betel nut, leaf, 14 tobacco Cooked foods 31 Cakes (10), pudding (20), cooked meals (1) Canteen 13 Small store 12 Kerosene 1 Cocoa (20), copra (14), betel nut wholesale (9), nambo (6), Cash crops 50 other (1) Handicrafts 38 Baskets, weaving (17), carvings (9), coconut oil (4) , shell (8) Sea products 28 Fishing (19), bêche de mer (4), mud crabs (3), shellfish (2) Animal products 21 Pigs (11), poultry (5), birds/flying fox (5) Logging 17 Sawn timber (15), royalties (2) Business 5 Tourism (4), building construction (1) Teacher(2), unspecified (3), church (2), conservation project Paid jobs – formal 9 (2) Paid jobs – informal 8 Casual labour (6), porters (2) Other 5 Land sales (2), bride price (2), remittance from town (1) Annex One Table 1B: Urban income sources No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Informal selling 54 Betel nut/leaf/tobacco 16 Includes cigarettes/tobacco Cooked food 9 Includes BBQ fish/chips, cakes Fresh food 8 Includes vegetable, fruit, fish Piggery/pigs/poultry 4 Handicrafts 4 Refreshments 2 Canteen/ small store 2 Other 2 Firewood (1), brick making (1) Includes black market alcohol sale, kwaso, gambling, Illegal 7 prostitution Businesses 22 Hospitality 4 Beer shops (2), clubs (2) Accommodation services 3 Personal services 2 Beauty salon (1), hairdressing (1) Catering / food stall 1 Consultancy 1 Floral arrangements 1 Paid jobs formal 2 Employed by government work, business Includes house girl, washing clothes, weeding, casual Paid jobs informal 6 work Parents, friends 2
161 What problems stop people from increasing their income? Annex One Table 2A: Rural obstacles to increasing income No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response breakdown responses Logistics/Transport 66 Costs – freight, fares 16 Includes shipping and OBM costs Unreliable, irregular 12 No road/road access 11 Too far/distance 10 Weather 10 Bad weather (4) floods (3), rain (2), rough seas (1) No proper market/rest 7 Market house (4), rest house (3) house Economic obstacles 32 Too many sellers 8 Labour costs 5 Access to land 4 Credit/kaon 3 Prices/costs high 3 Lack of cash 2 Low prices 2 Copra No banking/credit 2 Raw materials 2 Shortage of shell and wood No help for business 1 Other 24 Laziness (3), lack of motivation (1), not serious (1), jealous Attitudes 6 (1), short sightedness (1) Obligations 5 Family (3), Community (2) For example beer, gambling, smoking and betel nut, bride Other spending 4 price, compensation No jobs or projects 4 Pests 3 Stealing from gardens 2 Annex One Table 2B: Urban obstacles to increasing income No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses No market space 4 Lack of market venues (3), lack of space (1) Staff 3 Shortage of skilled staff (1), housing(1), training new staff (1) Costs 3 Expensive power (1), communications (1), taxes (1) Lack of knowledge and skills (1), lack of motivation (1), spending Personal 3 on alcohol (1) No jobs 2 Competition 1 Too many sellers Black market 1 Damages legitimate sellers No government help for 1 business
162 How did you get your produce or goods to market? Annex One Table 3: Obstacles to marketing No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Transport problems 59 No access (9), poor roads (6), flooding (3), road blocks (3), too far to Road access 23 walk (2) Transport costs 17 Fares and freights road, sea, air (12), OBM most expensive (5) No wharves (5), unreliable, irregular shipping (5), unpleasant, Sea access 16 unhygienic (2), no good for copra Other 3 Lack of transport, unreliable transport, weather Marketing 14 Market outlets 5 Market , rest house (3), over supply, don't know profitability (2) Labour 3 Need more staff (2), costs (1) Land 3 Disputes (1), regulations (1), poor landlords (1) Other costs 3 What needs to be improved to increase the marketing of crops/goods? Annex One Table 4: Improvements to be made for marketing Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Transport 35 Roads 23 Improve access (16), upgrading roads (6), more trucks (1) Sea 8 Wharves (4), improve shipping (2), lower freight and fares (2) Transport fresh food, copra/cocoa to market, subsidise transport, Other 4 provide transport Market 35 infrastructure Market house 21 Village (4), sub centre (4), provincial centres (3) Improve market 2 To reduce transport costs, sell to schools, hospitals and hotels access Training 2 Management, book keeping¸ life skills Improve market value (chain), downstream processing, market forest products, financial assistance for agriculture, development to rural areas, Other 10 create growth centres, open up land for development, create palm oil centres in Malaita and Temotu, reforestation
163 How do you access credit or loan for your business? Annex One Table 5: Access and barriers to credit Response No. of Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Type responses Access to 35 credit Difficult access (4) 1, securities/assets required (3), high interest rates (2)2, Bank credit 13 don’t lend to farmers and small holders Credit unions 10 Sources included household savings; own money; relatives; overseas sources, Other sources 12 Central Bank of Solomon Islands' (CBSI) Export Guarantee scheme3; Equity of credit Fund4. Barriers to 30 access Cost of High charges (6), costs of travel to bank (5) 6, checking balance (2) 7, no 14 banking interest paid (1) Quality of 11 Poor service (4), can’t access cash requested (4), need a proper branch (3) banking Banking Difficulty/don’t know how to open account (3), complicated requirements and 5 procedures criteria (2) Some or few use (5), business people, teachers (3), police (2), public servants Who uses? 12 (1), nurses (1) Not available Money kept at home (7), don’t use (4), no access (3), no confidence to or do not 18 deposit cash (2), rural banking service no longer available (1), other (1) access 1 rural people, poor people, for small scale loans 2 16 20% interest rate depending on bank 3 $50,000 to $1m up to 70% of collateral, accessed through commercial bank, has never worked 4 Supplement Equity Fund $300 to $50,000 accessed through Ministry of Planning 5 yachts have to go Honiara to change money 6 up to $1000 for OBM and engine in Western 7 $20 to ring Honiara to check balance What kinds of taxes do you pay? Annex One Table 6: Types of taxes Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown National taxes 42 GST/goods tax 20 Especially on mobile phone credit PAYE/Income tax 11 Producers tax 6 Copra, cocoa, timber, palm oil Company tax 3 National Provident Fund (NPF) 2 Local/provincial taxes 35 Licence fees * 13 For example on canteen, chainsaw , dogs, truck, vehicle Market fees * 10 Business licences * 6 Basic rates 5 Adult head tax paid in Honiara and Temotu Fines and penalties 1 Other 10 No tax paid 7 Don’t know/understand 3 * People interpret market fees and licences to be taxes
164 What does the government do with the money and what facilities are supported by taxes? Annex One Table 7: Facilities understood to be supported/strengthened by taxes Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Education 25 Schools 11 Books / materials 4 Buildings 3 Grants 3 Teachers’ salaries 2 Water tanks 1 Education 1 Health 21 Medical supplies 7 Clinics 6 Hospitals 6 Services 2 Other 11 Roads 3 Water supplies 2 Prisons 2 Wharves 1 Agriculture 1 projects Build infrastructure 1 Clean sub station 1 Government 9 Salaries 5 Daily 1 administration Public service 1 Fuel 1 Other 3 Ward grants 2 Respondent believed that facilities were provided solely by international Donors 1 donors. Nothing supported 7
165 What problems do you have with services and infrastructure in the area? Annex One Table 8: Problems with health services and infrastructure Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Access 19 Transport problems 6 Too far 5 Respondent has to walk one hour or more No clinic, clinic closed 5 Want own clinic/aid post 3 Staff 14 Not sufficiently qualified 3 Want a doctor or registered nurse Unreliable/sleep 3 Absenteeism 2 Late opening/early closing 2 Lack of housing 2 Give priority to others 1 Unspecified 1 Medicines /Treatment /Supply 13 Medicine or treatments inadequate 9 Emergencies not handled well 1 Simple ailments only 1 Instruments 1 Stationery 1 Facilities 6 No clinic/hospital vehicles 3 Water and sanitation 1 Poor (unspecified) 1 Very good clinic 1 Seghe linked to Uepi Resort Cost 6 For transport 5 For blood slides and dressings 1 Other 4 Subsistence health care system 1 Deaths occur in middle bush and 2 Malaita and Western canoe Women deliver in canoes 1 Western
166 Annex One Table 9: Problems with education services and related infrastructure Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Facilities /Buildings /Resources 21 Supplies/stationery/books 6 Poor/not good enough 5 Staff houses 3 Classrooms 2 No proper library 1 No science lab 1 Poor water/sanitation 1 No boarding school 1 Poor dormitories 1 Teachers 19 Attendance/absenteeism 11 Unqualified/poor quality 4 Misuse school grants 2 No visit from Education 1 Director Lack dedication 1 Access /cost 10 Distance 5 (3 5 km, delays the age that children start school) Education not free/expensive 2 No school transport 1 Sent home if fees not paid 1 Hard to access government 1 funds
167 Annex One Table 10: How services and infrastructure could be improved Response Type No. of Responses Roads and access 24 Maintain/improve road 11 Build new road 7 Build bridges 3 Government needs to help 1 Own community truck 1 Remove road blocks 1 Other transport 11 Improve/new wharves 5 More shipping 4 Community OBM and canoe 1 Subsidise air fares 1 Education services 11 Improve schools 7 Lower school fees 2 Rural Training Centre 1 Bible school 1 Health services 6 Better clinic/more centres 5 Emergency health care 1 Infrastructure 6 Communication antennae 1 Copra and cocoa dryer 1 Community hall 1 Market place 1 Roofing iron 1 Rebuild Aola sub centre 1 Other 13 Water 5 Sanitation 2 Police post/patrol 2 Regular visits by government 2 officers Agriculture sub station 1 Provide electricity 1 (settlement)
168 Annex One Table 11: What do you do when you have a problem with services and infrastructure? No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Go to higher 43 authorities Member of 12 National MP (8)***, provincial MP (2), other candidates *(2) Parliament Provincial 10 Provincial government (6), education (1) administration officers (3)** authorities National ministries 10 Responses included education, health, and public servants, Other Overseas organisations (3), police (2), churches (2), dive resort (2), media 11 organisations (Solomon Star), SDA mission Take action locally 25 Committees 15 School committee (10), health committee (5) Community 4 Chief and community leaders (3), parents and teachers Other 6 Go own way (3), go to another school or clinic (2), ask around (1) No action 26 Give up (5) don’t go to authorities (3)*, do nothing (2), no options (2), lack Do nothing 15 confidence (2), just talk about it (1) Don’t know who to go to (5), don’t know where to go (3), don’t know Don’t know 11 what to do (3) * Financial constraints and transport difficulties to get to Honiara to discuss issues of concern with the relevant Ministry. Village people also said they could not go to offices in Honiara because they are not welcome in these offices ** ‘Provincial administration office does nothing and forgets about us; public servants ignore demands or say there is no budget' *** ‘MP forgets about us, ignores issues, is in Honiara most of the time’ Annex One Table 12: Responses to problems with the performance of a government worker Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Go to higher 13 authorities Provincial Health (3), education (3), administration (2), provincial government (1), 10 authorities agriculture+ (1) National ministries 3 Education (1), health (1), other (1) Take action locally 17 Committees 10 School board / committee (6), health committee (4) Community 6 Community action*(4), chief and community leaders (2) Other 1 Local head nurse No action 20 No response from authorities (5), don’t complain – just accept **(5), Do nothing 11 afraid to report (1) Don’t know who to go to *** (4), don’t know where to go (3), don’t Don’t know 9 know how to deal with, police drinking and failure to do duties (2) + Provincial government weak and neglects us, nothing positive will emerge, agriculture officers never visit or provide technical support * Community helped teacher with problem, warn them and encourage them, talk to teachers ** Just accept absenteeism, afraid of ill treatment by worker, don’t have power or capacity to raise it with nurse, don’t talk face to face, and avoid disagreement *** If we know who to go to, we wouldn’t mind doing so
169 Annex One Table 13: What makes a good MP? Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Character 59 Understands people 18 All levels, rural people, women and youth, needs Honest, trustworthy 15 Approachable/friendly 5 Well educated 5 Respects constituents 3 Loving, kind 3 Committed Christian 3 No O2 2 Unselfish 2 Willing to learn/ideas 2 Clean record 1 Constituency work 125 Helps his constituency 15 Responses included assistance with school fees, help with Personal assistance 13 finances, and funerals. Improves schools 12 Responses included fair distribution of Rural Constituency Equitable, fair 11 Development Fund (RCDF). Listens and consults 10 Improves roads 8 Visits regularly 7 Keeps his promises 7 Transparent 7 Accountability 5 Improves clinics 5 Assists churches 5 Assists agriculture 5 Improve well being 3 Improve housing 2 Works through 2 committees Partnership/networks 2 Helps in disasters 1 Helps with festivities 1 Assists water supply 1 Assists youth 1 Works with donors 1 Seeks funding 1 National level 18 Has vision and plans 8 Has leadership 5 Thinks nationally 3 Knows how government 2 works
170 Annex One Table 14: What makes a bad MP? Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Character 26 O2, unfaithful 6 Corrupt 4 Selfish/self serving 4 Lazy 4 Drinks too much 2 Criminal record 2 Sick person 1 Easily compromised 1 Bad reputation 1 Not a good Christian 1 Constituency work 134 Don’t keep promises 20 Does not help/assist 19 Ignores needs/neglects voters Not visit community 16 Bias/favouritism 14 To their voters, family wantoks, own denomination RCDF distribution 14 Refuses requests, biased distribution to MP friends Liar/dishonest 9 Come back tomorrow 7 Doesn’t listen 6 Not transparent 6 Transparent and accountable Misuses money 6 Sweet talks 5 At election time, also pays voters Doesn’t talk 5 To constituents, top down approach Nothing changes 4 No change to roads, livelihoods CDO not helpful 3 National level 16 Unreliable politician 7 Not well educated 3 No plans or vision 2 No collaboration 2 With others, other MPs No allegiance 1 Breaches electoral act 1 Spends > $50,000 on election
171 Annex One Table 15: Why did people vote for their MP in the last election? No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Benefits 49 Voters expect Unspecified (12), financial assistance (4), projects (3), during sickness 25 benefits and/or death (4), business (1), water supply (1) Promises made by 12 Pre election ‘sweet talk’ (6), promises of RCDF (6) MP Previous help 7 MP or candidate helped before (7) Representation 5 Want their representative in Parliament (5) MPs policies 39 Education/schools (7), improves community needs (5), build clinics Address needs 19 (3), roads (3), better services Of the community (4), prioritises needs (3), meets needs (2), of youth Understands needs 11 (1), disadvantaged people (1) Good plans and policies (4), strategies (2), stand against bad policies Development plans 9 (2), party manifesto (1) Voter manipulation 37 Vote buying 26 Money paid or promised (18), material gifts (5), devil’s night (3) Want to change MP (3), ‘dummy’ votes (1), split opposition (1), vote Tactical voting 7 for likely winner (1), negotiation with MP (1) Manipulation of rolls (eligible and ineligible voters); MPs/CDOs find Voter registration 4 out who voted for him Personal 34 Wantok (7), family (4), church (3), friends (3), clan/tribe (2), ethnic Allegiance 23 group (2), school (1), vote for who they know (1) Character 11 Integrity, good character (11) Other 10 It’s the law/duty/right to vote (8), guessing (1), don’t care (1)
172 Annex One Table 16: What more should RAMSI do before leaving? No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Law and Order 61 Alcohol (9), guns (4), street behaviour (2), drugs, (2),traffic (1) , Control specific crimes 22 capture criminals (1), corruption (1), illegal fishing (1), patrol “hotspots” (1) Improve law and order 21 Including maintain law and order Community policing 6 Police posts (3), community laws and enforcement (3) Solve disputes 3 Land disputes (2), unspecified (1) More courts 3 Included more magistrates, courts at provincial and sub centres Work with chiefs 2 Visit communities 2 Developing the 2 economy Strengthen police force 36 Training 12 Included field officers and equipping police with weapons Improve police work ethic (6),boost confidence and trust (2), Professionalism 9 develop capacity (1) improve logistics (6), more officers (1), more provincial stations (1), Structures 9 reform Honiara HQ (1) Strengthen police (2), work more closely with local police (1), follow Other 6 Solomon Islands not Australian policy (1), provide maintenance for “RAMSI babies” (1), not specified (1) Economic 12 Improve the economy 5 Unemployment 5 Programs for unemployed youths (4), programs for graduates (1) Control prices 2 Local level 35 Service Delivery 12 Schools (8), clinics (4) Agriculture (4), improve rural economies (3), fund rural areas (2), link Rural Development 10 producers and markets, assist rural development (1) Infrastructure 6 Roads (2), water (2), hydroelectricity (1), rural banking (1) Grassroots projects (1), implement RCDF funds (1), help community Community 4 level (1), be more friendly / down to earth (1) Technical skills 3 provide skills and knowledge (incl. book keeping) (2), other (1) Governance 26 Stop corruption 10 In government (8), in private sector (2) Nurses and teachers (2), set standards (1), work ethic (1), strengthen Capacity building 5 provincial government departments (1) Improve recruitment and cross cultural skills (3), work more closely Advisors 6 with Solomon Islanders (2), transfer expertise (1) Prioritise work (1), address key issues (1), handover to government Other 3 (1) Reconciliation 2 Between Malaita and Guadalcanal, true process not just money (2)
173 Annex One Table 17: What does the Solomon Islands Government need to do before RAMSI is ready to leave? No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Law and Order 22 Restore/maintain 9 Community policing 4 Empower local chiefs 4 Revive traditional law 2 Capture all remaining 2 arms Improve judiciary system 1 Improve police force 27 Professional training 11 Provide training, creating discipline, honest, trustworthy Provide housing, equipment, facilities, communications, Better resources 6 transport More trust and respect 6 End wantok system, end corruption Arm the RSIPF 4 Economic 62 Help village level, decentralise to all provinces, income Rural development 19 generating, small scale development, employment for youths, rest house, training centres, credit unions, farmers’ equipment Repair, revitalise, upgrade; improve water and sanitation, rural Infrastructure and access 16 and mobile banking; transport – roads, shipping wharves and airfields, Proper budgeting and allocation, transparency, accountability, Economic reform 12 strengthen economy, get help with finance and from donors Service delivery 9 Improve services, schools, clinics, Land reform 2 Other 4 Improve quality and quantity of exports, onshore fisheries Governance 30 Stop corruption 5 Support institutions 5 Build strength, function and effectiveness of government Training in SI and overseas, skills development, employ new Capacity building 5 graduates, deploy more staff to rural areas Between Malaita and Guadalcanal, all provinces, rehabilitate Reconciliation 5 ex militants, address tension issues Need honest and reliable leaders, governing for the whole Leadership 3 county Implement policies 2 Constitutional reform 2 State/provincial government Control migration 2 Support NGOs 1
174 Annex One Table 18: What kinds of disputes do you have in your community? Response Type No. of Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Land Disputes 63 Non specific disputes 16 Logging 16 Garden areas/boundaries 8 Disputes between 5 clans/tribes Land boundaries 4 Housing areas and claims 3 Access to water 3 supply/source Access to gardens 2 Access to e mail station 1 Business and mining 2 Royalties and money 2 Trespassing 1 Personal – family disputes 48 Boy/girl – premarital, under 14 age Domestic/family fights 10 Husband or wife row, 6 violence Between parents re marriage 6 Between families 4 02/mistress – extramarital 4 Creeping/peeping Tom 2 Between communities 2 Property disputes 31 Stealing/general 12 Stealing crops, pigs 6 Stealing from house 4 Wilful damage/vandalism 4 Demands with menace 2 Road blocks 2 Arson 1 Political and religious 11 Electoral politics/rivalry 3 RCDF/community projects 3 Church sects/disagreements 3 Leadership competition 2 Alcohol related disputes 75 Illegal alcohol 20 Production of kwaso, homebrew, black market Disturbances and swearing 16 Fighting and violence 10 Includes Domestic Violence Property damage and 9 stealing Harm to relationships 8 Manslaughter, rape 2 Unspecified offences 2
175 Other 8 Police involved in drinking 4 Police don’t control drinking 3 More night clubs 1 Personal and Social causes 32 O2 – extramarital affairs 6 Boy/girl – premarital, under 4 age Husband/wife/family 3 Clan, tribe, culture 3 differences Witchcraft and sorcery 3 Compensation/tabus 3 breached Jealousy 2 Hatred and payback 2 Poor family governance 2 Male dominance, 2 overspending family money Disrespect 1 Jokes gone wrong 1 Land dispute causes 25 Population pressure 6 Contested/new claims on 5 land Logging/illegal harvesting 4 Development 2 Brothers arguing over 1 property Unclaimed land 1 Individual use of land 1 Lack of land records 1 Unwritten genealogy Damage to property 2 Road blocks/road extortion 2 Other causes 24 Gossip 4 Electoral politics/rivalry 3 Nothing to do/unemployed 3 New sects, church 3 disagreement Weakened kastom and 2 church Weak chiefs/community 2 government Lost discipline/respect for 2 law New power structures 2 Conflict of interest, old vs 2 youth Money 1
176 Annex One Table 19: Who deals with/solves these disputes? No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Chiefs and community leaders 45 Elders 6 Tribal chiefs 5 House of Chiefs 3 Village chiefs 3 Traditional leaders 2 Chairman 1 Spokesman 1 Community leaders 24 Responses included Priest, Pastor, Catechist, Church leaders, Church leaders 28 Elders, other church workers Other responses 26 Reconciliation 9 Compensation to both parties 3 Family 4 Self 3 Police/courts 3 Community 2 Disputing parties 2 Annex One Table 20: Types of disputes resolved by chiefs and churches Response Type No. of responses Additional Comment or Response Breakdown Land disputes 12 Responses included garden boundaries and tribal boundaries Minor offences 5 Small raoa not serious matters such as murders Domestic 4 Responses included domestic violence Affairs 2 Included both premarital and extramarital affairs Stealing 2 Fighting 2 Gambling 2 Swearing 1 Reconciliation 4
177 Annex One Table 21: What payments are made to each side and to the mediator? No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Payments to chief / mediator Cash 34 $50 $100 10 $1000 for land disputes 3 $20 1 30% of compensation 5 50% 1 Unspecified percentage 4 Unspecified cash 7 More cash for settling fights and property damage and outside 2 chief Cash 1 No payment 6 For church leaders 5 For smaller disputes 1 Payments to both sides or one side Responses included compensation in money, food, or both; pregnancy typically $500 $1000; $200 for premarital, $1000 for Cash 7 extramarital affairs (Temotu); Fines for swearing approx. $10 $20, Stealing $50 $100 Non cash 24 Shell money 7 Food , rice, tobacco and tea 7 Pigs 6 Taro 4 No payment 14 West/SDA 7 Church 5 Small disputes 1 Food 1 Other 6 Court costs 4 Fines 1 Work punishment 1
178 Annex One Table 22: What disputes are taken to the police or court? Response Type No. of responses Criminal cases 21 Fighting and public disturbances 8 Murder 6 Stealing/theft 3 Domestic violence 2 Property damage 1 Rape 1 Civil cases 13 Land disputes 12 unresolved/challenged Divorce 1 Other 8 Chiefs not respected/undermined 3 Serious disputes/raoa 2 Chiefs and church cannot handle 2 Annex One Table 23: Why are disputes not taken to the police or court? Response Type No. of responses Personal and social 33 Fear of retaliation, harm, safety 23 Would affect kinship, family, friendship 10 Relating to Police 34 Too slow, don’t come, don’t respond 18 Wantokism, favouritism, bias 5 No post or presence, too far away 5 Don’t or can’t solve, inadequate 4 Cases dropped, referred back to 2 community Resolved by parties or community 32 Solved by chiefs and/or churches 8 Small/not big enough disputes 7 Parties reconcile or solve themselves 7 Traditional/compensation used 5 Feel sorry, pardon or forgive offender 5 Relating to Courts 12 Not available, too far, too slow 6 Too costly 2 Don’t understand how and where to go 2 Sorcery hard to deal with or prove 2 Unspecified 11
179 Annex One Table 24: How police could be improved No. of Response Type Additional Comment or Response Breakdown responses Ways to improve 46 Typical responses: perform duties properly, apply policies and Professionalism 9 protocols, enforce the law, respond to and follow up crimes Eliminate wantokism 9 Including posting outside of own province Improve discipline and 6 trust Increase patrols and visits 5 Including in rural areas Respondents suggested: empower and strengthen police, provide Improve quality 4 more support to police, and improve leadership Give additional powers 4 Arm police 2 Rapid response unit 1 Police integrity unit 1 Get tougher with 3 Police should make criminals afraid criminals Address social issues 2 Especially around drinking Resourcing 34 Logistics 9 Vehicles and OBMs (6), fuel (1), trucks (1), helicopter (1) Better facilities 7 More police stations and posts (4), better housing (3) Better conditions 7 Salaries and incentives (5), supplies (2) Capacity building/training 6 Personnel 5 More manpower (3), female officers, fairer recruitment
180 Annex Two: Questions on the Qualitative Guide Sheets Economic Governance How do people here earn an income? What problems stop people from increasing their income? How do you get your produce or goods to market? Apart from transport, what are the other costs in bringing produce to market? What needs to be improved to increase the marketing of crops/goods? How do you access credit or a loan for your business? What kinds of taxes do you pay? What does the government do with the tax money and what facilities are supported by taxes? Machinery of Government What problems do you have with services and infrastructure in the area? What do you do when you have a problem with services and infrastructure? What do you do if you have a problem with the performance of a government worker? What makes a good MP? What makes a bad MP? Why did people from here vote for your local MP in the last election? What more does RAMSI need to do before it is ready to leave? What does the Solomon Island Government need to do before RAMSI is ready to leave? Law and Justice What kind of disputes do you have in this community? Who deals with these disputes? What payments are made to each side and to the mediator? What disputes are taken to court? What are the reasons that stop you/your community taking disputes to court?
181 Annex Three: People’s Survey Questionnaire DATA ENTRY BOX Revision needed?
Ia______ Circle all questions that need coding: No: ______ Nomoa______ A.3 B.4 B.6 B.8 B.9 B.10 B.12 Entered by: Checked by: B.13 B.15 C.2 C.3 C.4 C.6 C.12 C.13 C.14 ______ D.7 D.9 D.12 E.1 E.3 E.5 F.1 F.10 G.2 G.5 G.6 H.1 H.2 H.3 I.2 I.4 I.6 I.9 I.10 PEOPLE’S SURVEY 2011
Province Team No:______ Interviewer Name:______ ______EA:______ Respondent type: Ward No:______ Man (30+) Ward Name:______ Woman (30+) Young Man (Under 30) Young Woman (Under 30) Date______ Village Name: Time of interview______ ______
Respondent’s name: Interviewer’s total today______ ______ Interviewer’s grand total______
182 SECTION A. BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.1 Man Man Mere Woman A.2 Hao old nao iu? How old are you now? ______yia A.3 Wea nao iu stap distaem? Where is your main home now? Disfala ples Nara ples (raetem) ______ A.4 Hao meni yia nao iu go lo primari skul? How many years did you go to primary school? ______yia (If ‘0’ GO TO SECTION B) A.5 Hao meni yia nao iu go lo secondri skul? How many years did you go to secondary school? ______yia (If ‘0’ GO TO SECTION B) A.6 Hao meni yia nao iu go studi afta secondri skul? How many years did you study after secondary school? ______yia
183 SECTION B. ACCESS TO SERVICES AND INFORMATION B.1 Hao long nao hem savve tekem iu fo kasem helt servis wea stap kolsap lo iu? How long does it take to get from your community to the nearest health facility? Insaet sem komiuniti In the same community No winim wanfala aoa Less than one hour 1 2 aoas 1 2 hours Haf de Half a day Ful de All day Winim wanfala de More than one day No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer B.2 Waswe, iu visitim eni klinik o hospital las ia? (2010 2011) Did you visit a health facility in the last year? Ia Yes Nomoa [GO TO B.5] No No ansa [GO TO B.5] No answer B.3 Waswe, iu satisfae tu lo olketa helt sevis iu risivim las yia? Were you satisfied with the health services you received last year? Ia [GO TO B.5] Yes Samfala taem Sometimes No satisfae nomoa No No ansa [GO TO B.5] No answer B.4 Wae nao iu no satisfae wetem olketa helt sevis iu risivim? (winim wan ansa OK) Why weren’t you always satisfied with the health services you received? Problem wetem nes dokta (wakaman) Problem with staff No garem meresin Medicine not available No garem gudfala ples & olketa samting fo tritim pipol Inadequate facilities Tritmen no waka, siki no finis Treatment ineffective Kostim staka seleni, ekspensive tumas Cost too much Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No ansa No answer B.5 Hao long nao hem savve tekem iu fo kasem praemari skul wea stap kolsap lo iu? How long does it take to get from your community to the nearest primary school? Insaet sem komiuniti In the same community No winim wanfala aoa Less than one hour 1 2 aoas 1 2 hours Haf de Half a day Ful de All day Winim wanfala de More than one day No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
184 B.6 Waswe, iu garem eni pikinini blo iu lo primari skul? Do you have any children at primary school? Ia (raetem numba) Yes Nomoa [GO TO B.9] No B.7 Waswe, iu satisfae wetem primary skul blo pikinini blo iu? Are you satisfied with your children’s primary school? Ia [GO TO B.9] Yes Samfala taem Sometimes No satisfae nomoa No No ansa [GO TO B.9] No answer B.8 Wae nao iu no satisfae olowe wetem primary skul blo pikinini blo iu? (winim wan ansa OK) Why aren’t you always satisfied with your children’s primary school? Problem wetem olket tisa Problem with teachers Problem wetem haos an olketa samting fo skul Problem with building /facilities /resources Problem fo attendim or hem expensive tumas Problem with access or cost Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No ansa No answer B.9 Wat kaen transpot nao iu iusim? (winim wan ansa OK) What kinds of transport do you use? Truk, bus, ka Road transport OBM, kanu Small boat Bigfala bot / sip Large boat/ship Plen Air transport Nara wan moa (raetem) ______Other No iusim eni transpot [GO TO B.13] Never use transport B.10 Long olketa wat taem nao iu savve iusim transpot? (winim wan ansa OK) When do you use transport? Visit family,olketa fren, sios o go plei Visit family and friends, church, sport, recreation Go fo skul o helt sevis Access education and health facilities Go long maket o salem olketa samting Access market Go fisin / mekem kaikai Fishing/producing food Bisnis, waka lo bisnis Business activities Go lo bank an samfala ofisol waka Banking and official business Nara wan moa (raetem) ______Other No ansa No answer B.11 Waswe, iu satsifae wetem transport wea iu iusim? Are you satisfied with the transport available to you? Ia [GO TO B.13] Very good Nomoa Not so good No savve [GO TO B.13] Don’t know
185 No ansa [GO TO B.13] No answer B.12 Wat nao iu lukim mas chens fo mekem transpot hem kamap gud fo iu? (winim wan ansa OK) What would make transport better for you? Mekem olketa niu o gudfala rod New or better roads/tracks Mekem olketa niu o gudfala waf New or better wharf Chip fea an fiul Cheaper fares and/ or fuel Staka transpot, olowe More frequent public transport Staka ples fo tekem transpot More places to catch public transport Transpot blo mifala seleva My own transport Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer B.13 Wea nao iu tekem wata blo iu fo drink en kuk? (winim wan ansa OK) Where do you get water for drinking and cooking? Tap insaet haus Piped to house Komiuniti stanpaep Community tap or standpipe Rein tank blo haus Household raintank Rein tank blo komiuniti Community raintank Wel wea hem kava or oloketa wakem gud Protected well Wel wea hem open en no kava gut Unprotected well Riva/strim/wata kam out lo graun River/stream/spring Nara wan moa (raetem) ______Other No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer B.14 Waswe, iu garem wata fo drink en kuk olowei? Do you always have water for drinking and cooking? Ia, kam evridei [GO TO B.16] Available every day Hem kam samfala dei Available some days Hem no ran gud staka taem No water often No savve [GO TO B.16] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO B.16] No answer B.15 Wat nao mein problem wetem watasos blo iufala? (winim wan ansa OK) What are the main problems with your water source? Tank, paep o pam olketa brek Broken tank, pump or pipes Wata farawe, no inaf, savve draeap Source to far away, insufficient, dries up Wata deti, olketa polutim, spoilem Dirty, polluted Dispiut, raoa o no iusim gud Disputes, misuse Nara wan moa (raetem)______ No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer B.16 Waswe, iu garem eletrik paoa insaet lo haus blo iu? Do you have electricity in your home?
186 Ia, eletrik forom mein saplae Yes, electricity from main supply Ia, solar paoa Yes, solar power Ia, smol genereta Yes, small generator Ia, nara kaen eletrik paoa Yes, other kind of electric power (raetim)______Other Nomoa eletrik paoa No electricity No ansa No answer B.17 Waswe, iu savve iusim telefon insaet lo komiuniti blo iu? (winim wan ansa OK) Can you use a phone in your community? Ia, fixed fon Yes, landline Ia, mobile fon Yes, mobile phone No eni fon, garem redio No phone only radio No enting No phone or radio No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
187 SECTION C. HOUSEHOLD AND BUSINESS FINANCES C.1 Hao nao iu lukim saed lo seleni blo iu lo haus distaem, kompearem kam wetem las 2 fala yias? (stat kam lo 2009) How is the financial situation of your household compared with 2 years ago? Hem lelebet gud Better Semsem nomoa The same Hem barava go daon Worse No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer C.2 Hao nao iu savve tekem seleni? (winim wan ansa OK) How do you usually get money? Wesis lo waka blo mi Paid work Mi garem bisnis blo mi selefa Own business Selem olketa samting Sell something Garem selini lo famili From family Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No garem wei fo garem seleni olowe No regular access to money No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer C.3 Wat nao samfala wei iu lukim bae hem helpem iu fo inkrisim seleni blo iu? (winim wan ansa OK) What opportunities are there for you to increase your income? Garem niu waka Get a new job Statem o garem bisnis seleva Start or expand own business Selem staka samting Sell more Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other Mi no garem eni wei moa fo faendem seleni No opportunities No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer C.4 Waswe, eni samting stopem iu fo inkrisim seleni blo iu? Is anything preventing you from increasing your income? Ia (raetem)______ Nomoa No No savve Don’t know C.5 Waswe, iu bin trae fo statem eni bisnis lo las 2 fala yias? (stat kam lo 2009) Have you tried to start a business in the last 2 years? Ia Yes Nomoa [GO TO C.7] No
188 No ansa [GO TO C.7] No answer C.6 Waswe, iu garem eni problem tu, taem iu trae fo statim bisnis blo iu? (winim wan ansa OK) Did you have any problems when you tried to start your business? No savve tekem eni seleni o kapital lo bank Can’t get bank finance or capital Problem wetem wantok, family o pipol e.g. kaon Wantoks and customers, e.g. credit, jealous Smol profit, no staka seleni lo pipol Not enough profit, cash flow too small No savve baem transport o kago hem ekspensiv Can’t afford to buy or transport stock No savve lukaftarem o ranem bisnis Lack of management skills Problem wetem laesin o gavman Problems with licence, officials Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other Nomoa problem No problems No ansa No answer C.7 Waswe, iu duim eni bisnis distaem nao? Do you do any kind of business now? Ia Yes Nomoa No No ansa No answer C.8 Waswe, iu savve nao iu savve enim insaet wanfala yia bifoa gavman savve taksim iu? How much are you allowed to earn in one year before you have to start paying tax? $7,000 $8,000 $7,000 $8,000 Winim $8,000 More than $8000 Unda $7,000 Less than $7000 No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer C.9 Waswe, iu paem taks tu taem iu tekem wesis o seleni from eni bisnis blo iu? Have you ever paid tax? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer C.10 Waswe, eni taem bifoa iu enim $7,800 o winim go moa insaet lo wanfala yia from bisnis o from waka blo iu? Have you ever earned $7,800 or more in one year from wages or from your own business? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer C.11 Waswe, iu garem eni bank akaont o seving akaont lo eni nara ples, eksampol kredit iunian? (winim wan ansa OK) Do you have a savings account with a bank or other savings organisation?
189 Ia, bank Yes, bank Ia, nara wan moa Yes, other Nomoa No No ansa No answer C.12 Sapos iu nidim seleni fo statem bisnis, wea nao bae iu savve garem? If you needed money to start a business, where would you get it? Bank o nara ples fo lonem seleni [GO TO C.14] Bank or other financial organization Famili o wantok Family or wantok Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No savve [GO TO C.14] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO C.14] No answer C.13 Wae nao iu no savve aplae fo samfala seleni lo bank o nara ples for lonem seleni? Why wouldn’t you apply for a loan from a bank or financial institution? No savve hao fo aplae Don’t know how to apply Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer C.14 Wea nao iu savve gogo fo tekem infomasin lo hao fo growem olketa krop o mekem gaden? Where do you usually get information on growing crops or gardening? Ekstenson ofisa blo agrikalsa Agricultural extension officer Niuspepa, redio, telefon, TV Media (newspaper, radio, phone messages Famili o komiuniti Family, community Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No garem eni infomasin [GO TO C.16] Don’t get information No savve [GO TO C.16] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO C.16] No answer C.15 Wat taem nao iu las tekem infomason from datfala, ia? (C.14) When did you last get information from this source? Insaet las mans Within last month 2 6 fala mans go finis 2 6 months ago 7 12 mans go finis 7 12 months ago Winim wanfala ia go finis nao More than a year ago Nating nao Never No savve Don’t know C.16 Waswe, eni memba insaet lo famili blo iu hemi waka fo seleni lo nara ples? (eksampol: waka lo Honiara; waka lo eni kampani olsem, waka lo narafala kantri) (winim wan ansa OK) Does anyone in your family work in a wage job away from home (e.g….)? Ia (man) Yes (man)
190 Ia (mere) Yes (woman) Nomoa [GO TO SECTION D] No No savve [GO TO SECTION D] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO SECTION D] No answer C.17 Waswe, disfala famili memba, hem savve sendem seleni kam fo haushol blo iu tu? Does this person send money to your household? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
191 SECTION D. SAFETY D.1 Wanem nao iu savve talem abaotim loa an oda situason lo komiuniti blo iu? How would you describe the law and order situation in your community? Seif and pisful Safe and peaceful Samfala taem loa an oda problem Sometimes problems Staka problems Many problems No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer D.2 Waswe, iu fil seif nomoa lo komiuniti blo iu? Do you feel safe in your community? Olowe All the time Samfala taem Some of the time Nomoa stret Hardly ever No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer D.3 Wat taem nao iu fil moa seif, lo naet o lo dei taem? Do you feel safer in the day or night? Lo de taem Safer in the day Lo naet taem Safer at night Semsem nomoa No difference No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer D.4 Waswe, iu fil seif lo haushol blo iu? Do you feel safe in your household? Olowe All the time Samfala taem Some of the time Barava nomoa nao Hardly ever No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer D.5 [for village] Sapos iu go lo Honiara, iu fil seif tu? [for Honiara] Taem iu walkabout lo taon, iu fil seif tu? Do you feel safe in Honiara? Olowe All the time Samfala taem Some of the time Barava nomoa nao Hardly ever No kasim Honiara iet Never been to Honiara No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
192 D6 Waswe, iu go fo askem lokal polis (RSIPF) fo helpem iu lo las yia? (stat kam lo 2010) Have you asked the RSIPF for any help in the last year? Ia Yes Nomoa [GO TO D.10] No No laek fo talem [GO TO D.10] Wouldn’t like to say No ansa [GO TO D.10] No answer D7 Wat nao disfala help hem fo? (D.6) (winim wan ansa OK) What was this help for? Stiling Theft Makem fraet, hitim o gare kil Violence or assault Komiuniti dispiut Community dispute Problem wetem distebim, mekem staka nois o kwaso o drags Disturbances Nara wan moa Other (raetem)______ No laek fo talem Wouldn’t like to say No ansa No answer D.8 Waswe, iu satisfae tu aboutem disfala help? Were you satisfied with this help? Ia [GO TO D.10] Yes Nomoa No No laek fo talem [GO TO D.10] Wouldn’t like to say No ansa [GO TO D.10] No answer D.9 Wae nao iu no satisfae? Why weren’t you satisfied? (raetem)______ D.10 Waswe, lo tingting blo iu olketa lokal polis (RSIPF) respectem en tritim pipol blo iumi gud tu? Do you think RSIPF treats people fairly and with respect? Ia Yes Samfala taem Sometimes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer D.11 Waswe, tingting blo iu olketa RSIPF improvim waka blo olketa insaet lo las 5 fala yias? (stat kam lo 2006) Do you think the RSIPF has improved in the past 5 years? Ia Yes Samfala taem Sometimes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
193 D.12 Wanem nao olketa mein samting wea savve kousim bigfala raoa, trabol an problem lo Solomon Island? (winim wan ansa OK) What are the main causes of conflict and problems in Solomon Islands? (raetem) 1)______ 2)______ 3)______ No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer D.13 Waswe, iu sapotem stei blo RAMSI lo Solomon Islands? Do you support the presence of RAMSI in Solomon Islands? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve, no mekem ap maen iet Don’t know/ Undecided No ansa No answer D.14 Waswe, lo tingting blo iu Solomon Islands hem redi nao, fo RAMSI hem stat fo kat daon lo olketa waka hem duim lo hia? Do you think Solomon Islands is ready for RAMSI to scale back its activities? Ia [GO TO SECTION E] Yes Nomoa No No savve, no mekem ap maen iet [GO TO SECTION E] Don’t know/ Undecided No ansa [GO TO SECTION E] No answer D.15 Sapos nomoa, olsem wat taem nao iu tingting bae Solomon Islands hem redi fo RAMSI hem stat kat daon lo olketa waka blo hem? If not, will it be soon? Ia, barava kolsap (1 3 yias) Yes, very soon Ia, lelebet kolsap (4 5 yias) Yes, quite soon Samfala taem (6 10 yias) Some time Nomoa o winim 10 yias Not very soon No savve, no mekem ap maen iet Don’t know/ Undecided No ansa No answer
194 SECTION E. MOST SIGNIFICANT CHANGE E.1 Wat nao wan big chens insaet lo laef blo iu lo las yia? (2010 2011) (eksampol: waka, bisnis, edukasin, helt, komunikesin) What is the biggest change in your life in the past year? (e.g. work, business, education, health, communication) (raetem)______ No chens [GO TO E.3] No change No savve [GO TO E.3] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO E.3] No answer E.2 Wat nao disfala chens hem duim lo laef blo iu? What is the effect of this change in your life? Barava gud Improvement Semsem nomoa No change Barava no gud Worse No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer E.3 Wat nao wanfala big chens lo olketa faciliti lo komiuniti blo iu lo las yia? (2010 2011) What is the biggest change in your community facilities in the past year? [raetem)______ No eni chens lo faciliti No change No savve [GO TO E.5] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO E.5] No answer E.4 Wat nao disfala chens hem duim lo komiuniti blo iu? What’s the effect of this change in facilities? Barava gud Improvement Semsem nomoa No change Barava no gud Worse No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer E.5 Wat nao nara bigfala chens moa lo komiuniti blo iu lo las yia? (2010 2011) What is the biggest other change in your community in the past year? (raetem)______ No narafala chens [GO TO SECTION F] No change No savve [GO TO SECTION F] Don’t know E.6 Wat nao disfala nara chens hem duim lo komiuniti blo iu? What’s the effect of this other change? Barava gud Improvement Semsem nomoa No change Barava no gud Worse No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
195 SECTION F. LEADERSHIP F.1 Wat nao savve mekem wanfala lida, fo olsem wanfala gud lida? (winim wan ansa OK) What makes a good leader? Savve toktok gud en klia Good communicators Pipol ting hae lo hem Respected Tingting strong lo skul, helt an famili Focus on social issues Seleni olketa saerem stret an onest lo everi wan Equitable funds distribution Savve mekem disisin wetem pipol lo komiuniti Consults with community Onest lo wei olketa duim olketa samting Honest way of doing things Helpem pipol hu sapotem olketa Helps people who support them Nara wan moa (raetem) ______Other Nating spesol Nothing particular No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer F.2 Waswe, iu tingim olketa mere savve mekem gud lida? Do you think women make good leaders? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer F.3 Waswe, iu satisfae tu wetem waka blo nasinol MP blo iu? Are you satisfied with the performance of your national MP? Ia Yes Samfala taem Sometimes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer F.4 [For village] Waswe, iu satisfae tu wetem waka blo provinsol memba blo iu? Are you satisfied with the performance of your provincial member? [For Honiara] Waswe, iu satisfae tu wetem waka blo city kaonsela blo iu? Ia Yes Samfala taem Sometimes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer F.5 Insaet lo las yia, hao meni taem nao nasional MP blo iu hem visitim komiuniti blo iu? How many times has your national MP visited your community last year? Winim wan fala taem More than once Wan fala taem nomoa Once Nomoa stret Not at all No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
196 F.6 [For village] Insaet lo las yia, hao meni taem nao memba blo provins blo iu hem visitim komiuniti blo iu? How many times has your provincial member visited your community last year? [For Honiara] Insaet lo las yia, hao meni taem nao city kaonsela blo iu hem visitim komiuniti blo iu? Winim wan fala taem More than once Wan fala taem nomoa Once Nomoa stret Not at all No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer F.7 Waswe, iu tingim iumi sud garem samfala mere insaet lo Nasinol Palamen tu? Do you think there should be women MPs in the National Parliament? Ia Yes Nomoa [GO TO F.9] No No savve [GO TO F.9] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO F.9] No answer F.8 Waswe, iu tingim Nasional Palamen sud garem samfala niu sits fo olketa mere? Do you think there should be special seats reserved for women MPs? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer F.9 Hao nao waka blo gavman distaem lo saed fo givim kam olketa gud sevisis lo komiuniti an kamapem gud moa saed lo seleni insaet lo kantri? How is Government’s performance in providing basic services to the community and improving the economy? A) Nasinol Gavman National Government Barava gud tumas Very well Lelebet gud Satisfactory Nating gud Not well No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer B) Gavman blo Provins o City Kaonsel Provincial Government Barave gud tumas Very well Lelebet gud Satisfactory Nating gud Not well No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer F.10 Wanem nao nasinol gavman sud duim gud o duim moa fo kamapem strong an improvim Solomon Islands? (winim wan ansa OK) What should the national government be doing (or doing more of) that would improve Solomon Islands? (raetem) 1) ______ 2) ______ 3) ______ No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer 197 SECTION G. ACCOUNTABILITY G.1 Sapos iu savve wanfala gavman wakaman hem misiusim paoa, spoelem publik seleni an raverave, o sapos wanfala ofisa hem tritim iu nogud o no stret, waswe, bae iu ripotem? If you knew a government official was misusing power or public money, or if you were treated unfairly by an official, would you report it? Ia Yes Nomoa [GO TO G.3] No No savve [GO TO G.3] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO G.3] No answer G.2 Hu nao bae iu ripot lo hem? Who would you report to? (raetem)______ No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer G.3 Waswe, iu savve eni wakaman lo gavman wea hem bin misiusim paoa, seleni o tritim iu nogud bifoa? Have you ever known an official was misuing power or money or treating you unfairly? Ia Yes Nomoa [GO TO SECTION H] No No ansa [GO TO SECTION H] No answer G.4 Waswe, iu ripotem hem? Did you report it? Ia Yes Nomoa [GO TO G.6] No No ansa [GO TO SECTION H] No answer G.5 Hu nao iu ripotem lo hem? Who did you report to? Lidasip Kod Komisin Leadership Code Commission Ombudsman Ombudsman Audita Generol Ofis Auditor General’s Office RSIPF RSIPF Sif o sios lida Chief or church leader Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other Fogetem nao Can’t remember No ansa No answer [GO TO SECTION H] G.6 Wae nao iu no ripotem? Why didn’t you report it? No savve hu nao fo ripot lo hem Didn’t know who to report to Mi fraet fo ripotem hem Afraid to report Hem wantok, fren blo mi Officer was my, friend or wantok Nara wan moa (raetem) ______Other No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
198 SECTION H. ELECTIONS H.1 Wat nao iu tingim hem mein waka blo honorable MP? (winin wan ansa OK) What do you think is the main job of an MP? Lukaotem kandri an mekem olketa loa Govern the country/make laws Helpem fo pipol hu votem olketa go lo palamen Assist those who voted for them Getem beta laef fo pipol lo konstituensi Get better conditions for all people in the constituency Nara wan moa (raetem)______ Nara wan moa (raetem)______ No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer H.2 Wea nao iu savve tekem infomesin abaotem kandidet bifoa eni elekson? (winim wan ansa OK) Where do you get information about candidates before elections? Olketa kandidet seleva From candidates Redio, TV From the radio Niuspepa, nara pepa Newspaper, other printed Famili blo mi From my family Olketa komiuniti lida From community leaders Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No garem eni infomesin Didn’t get any information Fogetem nao Can’t remember No ansa No answer H.3 Wae nao iu siusim disfala candidate wea iu votem insaet lo las nasinol elekson? (2010) (winim wan ansa) Why did you choose the candidate you voted for in the last national election? Mein rison (raetem)______Main reason Mektu rison (raetem)______Other (1) Mektri rison (raetem) ______Other (2) No savve Don’t know Mi no vot / No ansa Didn’t vote /No answer
199 SECTION I. RESOLUTION OF DISPUTES I.1 Waswe, iu seleva involve lo eni bigfala raoa o dispiut wetem eni wan lo las yia? In the past year, have you been involved in a dispute with another person? Ia Yes Nomoa No No ansa No answer
I.2 Sapos iu garem wanfala big raoa insaet lo famili o komiuniti blo iu, an laek fo gaerem help, hu nao bae iu laek fo ripot lo hem? (WANFALA ansa nomoa) If you had a dispute in your family or with someone in your community, who would you ask for assistance? Sif Chief Sios Church RSIPF Police Gavman kot Government court Nara wan nao (raetem) ______Other No eni wan Wouldn’t ask for assistance No save Don’t know No ansa No answer I.3 Waswe, iu tingse bae iu pei fo help fo solvem datfala raoa? Would you expect to pay for assistance with resolving a dispute with family or community? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer I.4 Sapos iu garem wanfala lan dispiut an laek fo garem help, hu nao bae iu laek fo ripot lo hem? (WANFALA ansa nomoa) If you had a dispute about land, who would you ask for assistance? (ONE answer) Sif Chief Sios Church Gavman kot oa lan kot Government court or land court Nara wan moa (raetem) ______Other No eni wan Wouldn’t ask for assistance No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer I.5 Waswe, iu tingse bae iu pei fo help fo solvem datfala lan dispiut? Would you expect to pay for assistance with resolving a land dispute? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer
200 I.6 Sapos iu garem wanfala raoa o dispiut wetem eni wan lo nara komiuniti an laek fo garem help, hu nao bae iu laek fo ripot lo hem? (WANFALA ansa nomoa) If you had a dispute with someone outside your community, who would you ask for assistance? Sif Chief Sios Church RSIPF Police Gavman kot oa loia Government court or lawyer Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other No eni wan Wouldn’t ask for help No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer I.7 Waswe, iu tingse bae iu pei for help fo solvem datfala raoa o dispiut? Would you expect to pay for assistance with resolving another kind of dispute outside your community? Ia Yes Nomoa No No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer I.8 Waswe, iu satisfae tu lo olketa wei fo solvem olketa bigfala raoa o dispiut wea hem avelabol fo iu? Are you satisfied with ways of resolving disputes that are available to you? Ia [GO TO 1.10] Yes Nomoa No No savve [GO TO I.10] Don’t know No ansa [GO TO I.10] No answer I.9 Wat nao bae savve mekem gud go moa fo iu hao fo solvem olketa raoa o dispiut? (winim wan ansa OK) What would make dispute resolution better for you? (raetem)______ (raetem)______ (raetem)______ No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer I.10 Waswe, lo ples blo iu, olketa mere savve help fo solvem raoa o dispiut tu? (winim wan ansa OK) In your community, do women help resolve disputes? Ia, disput lo famili Yes, disputes in family Ia, disput lo lan Yes, land disputes Ia, disput lo seleni Yes, disagreements about money Ia, disput lo loa blo komiuniti Yes, disputes about community rules Nara wan moa (raetem)______Other dispute Nomoa No, women don’t resolve disputes No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer MEN AND YOUNG MEN FINISH HERE, WOMEN AND YOUNG WOMEN GO TO LAST QUESTION
201 I.11 Waswe, sapos iu involve insaet wanfala bigfala raoa o dispiut an nidim help blo nara man o mere, hu nao bae iu tingting strong fo askem, man o mere? If you were involved in a dispute and needed the help of another person, would you prefer to ask a man or a woman? Priferem man Prefer to ask man Priferem mere No, prefer to ask a woman Semsem nomoa No difference No savve Don’t know No ansa No answer Tanggio tumas for givim kam taem blo iu fo ansam olketa kuestin
202
O!ce of the Special Coordinator Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI) Tel: (+677) 25122 [email protected] www.ramsi.org
Copies of the 2011 People’s Survey are available to download from www.ramsi.org
4 people’s survey 2007summary