Need to keep people’s issues on the agenda


Femm ministerial delegates were reminded during one sponsored lunchtime briefing of the need to keep people in the picture when it comes to economic development.

But much of the 2006 debate, behind closed doors, scored a large minus on keeping the people’s issues on the agenda.

In his short briefing to delegates during a UN-hosted lunch a day before the FEMM Ministerial statement was released, UN Resident coordinator, Richard Dictus, noted that it was important to consider that growing strong Pacific economies depended very much on healthy, educated Pacific Islanders.

The point was timely, given an admittance by ministers and country delegates that the ‘softer’ social issues closer to the demographic realities of the region were absent from the FEMM agenda.

“But we do acknowledge the intersectoral links with other areas, whose ministers and policy leaders are not at this meeting; and you do have to consider that this is an economic policy meeting above all else.”

Common areas where economics intersects with just about every other aspect of development have been a key concept.

But the FEMM process itself has yet to accommodate that, other than a firm acceptance that intersectionality itself is a term worth throwing around.

Dictus was also foreshadowing his post-FEMM launch of a comprehensive Pacific Framework for Action for 2008 to 2012.

The framework puts economic growth and poverty reduction as one corner of a development square; the other three being good governance and human rights, social and protection services, and environmental management.

Two other keywords weave through all the four key areas—equitable outcomes and gender equality.

And with the MDGs (Millennium Development Goals) being a current buzzword for Pacific planners, the absence of specific attention at this summit also suggested some truth to the notion when the goals were first announced, that the Pacific region might not meet the MDGs—and in some countries a reversal of gains is actually being seen.

USP observer to FEMM, Dr Ana Taufe’ulungaki was sitting on her hands and biting her tongue for much of her first stint at the Pacific Economic Ministerial meeting.

But she reminded herself that observer status gave her an incentive “to take my view, on a personal level, outside of the formal sessions” in networking with delegates.

That personal level doesn’t necessarily mean Taufe’ulungaki minced words on her reactions to FEMM 2006.

She says the meeting revealed a “one dimensional approach to economic development, particularly where there is no mention of the cultural context and the socio-political issues which are associated with economic development.”

She felt there was ‘only peripheral’ mention of the politics of economics in discussion only, not as a core focus.

But the biggest gap picked up by this Pacific scholar was culture.

She says without the cultural dimension being taken into account, economic issues will not thrive or grow. She points to the land issue as an example.

She warns if investment doesn’t take the cultural context of landuse and ownership into account where ever they are in the region, “nothing will be resolved long-term”.

In economic terms, “land would simply be a commodity to be developed and sold on the market. But to Pacific Islanders who see land as central to their sense of identity, the concept of the vanua is critical.

“If you don’t deal with that concept, the economic issues won’t be addressed long-term, and will probably falter.”

Bougainville’s situation highlights how development can fall by the wayside and become negative if not dealt with in the context of cultural meaning given to land.

“I’m rather disappointed; not only with the process which I think was flawed, but the papers presented which I feel only highlighted western perspectives and models.”

Taufe’ulungaki’s comment on the process and content was equally scathing when it came to the level of discussion by regional participants.

“As an observer, I was very concerned about the participation and contribution of the ministers. Perhaps the process of FEMM which has been inundated with concept papers and consultant reports didn’t allow them to do justice to the critical issues involved.”

For UNIFEM’s national programme specialist Laisa Bale-Tuinamoala, FEMM often sees the continuance of issues raised in past years.

The cost of doing business in the region is something that was raised at the last FEMM and taken to another level this time round.  

As an observer, there’s a chance to soak up process and mingle informally with the participants, which development lobbyists argue can be as important as what happens in the meetings proper.

In her second time at FEMM, she’s picked up on a lot more analysis for the Pacific, looking into stumbling blocks for economic growth, with governance as a key issue.

Her personal view? “Sometimes they talk about the economic and financial issues but they don’t consider the social implications and dimensions to that which we need to consider as well.

“There’s been discussions about economic growth but not equitable economic growth. I guess that’s where organisations like ours (the UN agencies) come in and we talk about not just growing as an economy but ensuring that everyone gets a piece of the pie.”

Bale-Tuinamoala says the post-FEMM partners meeting allows agencies like hers to sit alongside other observers and respond to the FEMM issues raised.

It’s been UNIFEM’s fourth year of involvement and already the agency has been able to work in partnership with the Pacific islands Forum on the social implications of trade agreements. Other FEMM observers this year included the SPC, ADB, IMF, PFTAC, UNFPA, World Bank, and PIPSO.