FORUM’S FIJI ‘PLAN’ CAUSING NEW SPLIT

Laisa Taga - Editor-inchief


The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (ForumSec) and the Forum Leaders appear to be contradicting each other on their position regarding Fiji.
While the Forum Leaders have suspended Fiji, a report commissioned by the ForumSec has criticised this.
It says Fiji’s suspension from the Forum is a major setback for regional co-operation and integration.
The criticism is contained in a draft report titled “The Pacific Plan: The First Three Years”. It is compiled by Kiribati’s Makurita Baaro, a former Forum Secretariat senior adviser.
In her 36-page draft report dated May 25, 2009, obtained by LETTER FROM SUVA, Ms Baaro did not mince her words. She said that Fiji’s suspension would pose a major challenge to regional solidarity and the Pacific Plan.
She said: “Already, there are differing views and an increasing polarisation amongst the Forum membership on this very sensitive issue and the subject is one that has real potential to create fragmentation and a major division amongst Forum members.
“The second equally important challenge is the practical implication of the suspension. Most if not all of the initiatives under the Pacific Plan have such a central role for Fiji being the central converging point in the region, especially for some of the Smaller Islands States, for trade, shipping, air service, education, health, and Fiji is home and headquarters for a number of regional organisations including the Secretariat of the Pacific Islands Forum.
“While the political situation in Fiji may be viewed to be beyond the terms of reference for this review, it is pertinent to this review in that the suspension of Fiji from the Forum will have far reaching and major implications, not only on regional solidarity but also on the implementation of the many initiatives under the Pacific Plan.”
It is therefore important, she said, that immediate regional action under the Biketawa Declaration be taken to re-open dialogue with Fiji. This is to assist Fiji’s passage and return to democratic governance and to full participation in the Forum. Not for the Pacific Plan, but for the people of Fiji and the people of the region who are after all, the intended beneficiaries of the Pacific Plan.
She said one of the major challenges to the Pacific Plan commonly referred to in all the consultations is the political environment of the Pacific Plan.
“It is widely accepted that one of the most important preconditions for the successful implementation of the Pacific Plan, or any other plan for that matter, is political stability.
“Political instability will not only affect and derail focus from the implementation of national development strategies and the delivery of services to the people at the national level but also affects the region as a whole as recognised by Forum Leaders when they adopted the Biketawa in 2000.”
Whether she is airing her own view or that of her government, no one knows. But her position appears to be along the same lines as that of her government as announced by President Anote Tong.
The Pacific Plan, a political document that consolidates a group of responses to major challenges facing the Pacific region, was endorsed by the Leaders in 2005.
It contained 47 initiatives supported by 15 strategies which were then grouped under four pillars—economic growth, sustainable development, good governance and security.
The Pacific Plan’s objective is to further strengthen regional cooperation and regional integration in all areas where there is demonstrated added value for members to work together.
Ms Baaro was commissioned by the ForumSec to conduct an independent review of the progress of the Pacific Plan three years after it was implemented.
Her report will be tabled at the next PPAC (Pacific Plan Action Committee) meeting scheduled to be held in Fiji in July before it is tabled at the Forum Officials Committee meeting and in August in Cairns at the Leaders Forum.

Pacific Plan—unifying initiative
“In all the consultations, there was expressed support all around for the Pacific Plan as a symbolic regional document; referred to as a ‘flagship’ in the most recent meeting of the Pacific Plan Action Committee, which enshrines for the rest of the world, Forum Leaders and the region’s commitment and resolve to work together to address common challenges that are best addressed collectively. No-one in the consultations has come out to say the Pacific Plan has no relevance.
“In a few of the meetings, the Pacific Plan has been likened to ‘motherhood’, a good solid concept that no-one can really speak against except to suggest ways in which it can be strengthened.
“The general sense is that all stakeholders, including Forum member countries and territories, development partners, civil society, private sector organisations and regional organisations alike, generally feel good about the Pacific Plan and that it is perhaps the first unifying initiative within the Forum since the unqualified regional solidarity voicing the region’s strong resistance to nuclear testing in the region and the region’s unified support for a ban on drift-net fishing.”
Despite overall support for the Pacific Plan, there are issues and challenges that need to be addressed to strengthen it and ensure it’s still relevant to Forum members.
Eleven issues have been identified by the report. And amongst these, is the lack of resources, described as the major flaw of the Pacific Plan.
Apparently there were no resources allocated specifically for the implementation of the Pacific Plan. And as a result, some Forum members have suggested placing a moratorium on priorities taken up by leaders for the next three years to allow time to implement those already endorsed by the leaders.
Talking about priorities, the report is of the view that the plan has too many priorities. There is a need to sift through all the priorities to identify only a few that have the potential to have real and practical impact on the lives of the Pacific people for implementation each year.
It called on the leaders to revisit discussions on the Pacific Fund which was endorsed by the leaders in 2005. This fund could be used to finance the implementation of the various initiatives and priorities in the Pacific Plan.
Three years after the implementation of the Pacific Plan there are still questions about what it is.
“Majority of the consultations seem to indicate relatively little awareness in most line ministries of what the Pacific Plan is. During a lot of the meetings, there is an almost defensive response implying ‘what the hell is the Pacific Plan anyway and if it is that important to warrant sending an old hag at considerable expense around the region to review, then why do I not know what it is?’ ”
Other issues raised by the report are:
• Weak reporting from members on the implementation of the plan.
• Co-ordination of national preparedness for regional and international engagement.
• Smaller Islands States—feeling marginalised and left out.
• More co-ordination amongst CROP (Council of Regional Organisations of the Pacific) agencies.
• Strengthened role of CROP agencies.
• A need for a catalyst/driver in between Forum meetings.
On governance, the report highlighted the need for the PPAC membership to remain at the highest level to ensure its strong oversight role is intact and for the Pacific Plan Office to become part of the Forum Secretary-General’s office. Its role should also include CROP co-ordination.
The report also highlighted the need to give the Pacific Plan “more teeth and substance”.
And Ms Baaro’s parting shot:“The Pacific Islands Forum and the larger Pacific region is at a crossroad and the decisions taken on ‘which road in the junction’ the region decides to take over the next few months will indeed determine the face of regionalism and the fate of the Pacific Plan and all the good intentions built into its development. The ultimate decision on where to go rests with the Forum members.”