Pacific Plan: Desperately seeking spin


If the FEMM 2006 feedback is anything to go by, then the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) has missed a key ingredient in its big launch of the Pacific Plan—its spin and PR.

While short-term media consultants quickly took up posts at Pacific Islands Forum’s Suva headquarters in 2004 to counter all information queries and devise a communications strategy for the plan, there are clear grumbles of discontent from some officials and observers keen to keep some distance between their national priorities and the plan.

Its perception as yet another ‘imported’ sleek package tailored to the agenda’s of Australia/New Zealand begs the question—where did all the publicity go?

“It was a top-down plan conceived as an Australian and New Zealand thing with their special summit on Pacific leaders in Auckland, where this plan was adopted.

“And because of that, there’s a feeling of resentment,” says Tuvalu’s former prime minister, Bikenibeu Paeniu.

At the FEMM 2006, Paeniu was even less disposed to talk about the Australian Pacific 20/20 document which was handed around at FEMM, saying more time for acceptance and discussion by Pacific Islanders is needed.

The 20/20 document sets Australia’s views on its engagement with the region without a question mark to seek endorsement from FEMM, seemed to be missed. But what’s clearly surprising is the lack of high-level awareness which would better inform attitudes to the Pacific Plan.

“For me, as it is, I really see it as a shopping list by outsiders which was endorsed by our Pacific leaders without a full understanding of the connections and intersections within it,” said one observer.

USP academic Dr Ana Taufe’ulungaki says when Pacific leaders first broached the idea of the plan, “culture was very central to the whole thing. But in the outcomes document, there is no real mention of it and how it relates to other components of the plan.”

Her view would grate with that of Dr Robbie Robertson of the USP’s Institute of Pacific Islands Development and Governance.

Robertson hails the plan as a leading commitment to regionalism; and disagrees with criticisms of it being an Australian or New Zealand plan.

His reminder of the plan being the end product of a consultative process run by a Pacific Eminent Persons Group and its very pro-Pacific members points to evidence of an albeit elite Pacific ownership.

As for direction, there was also the lengthy secondment of the current SPC director-general from his Suva-based second in command post at the time, to work with putting the plan together.

And while Pacific women felt disenfranchised by the lack of an eminent female on the EPG, the consultations in-country were aimed at providing them with access to voice their views on the regional plan.

The result is an umbrella document embracing regionalism as the way forward. While any document would have trouble trying to mean something to all people; the plan sets out to be as inclusive as possible, and depending on how it is supported, it will grow from its basic framework to try and fill the gaps already identified by those who feel ‘left out’.

The ownership issue, however, shows that like other regional documents, commitments and frameworks before it, the Pacific Plan is suffering from lack of spin.

The smart Pacific blue folder with word documents inside, launched with all the fanfare PIFS could muster more than 12 months ago, was not in evidence at FEMM 2006.

“I think it means well,” noted PNG’s head of delegation, Bart Philemon. His view that the plan is lacking real meat doesn’t mean it should be ignored.

“We need to take up the wisdom expressed in peace, harmony, security and economic prosperity for Pacific islanders, and translate that dream from being a vision statement to reality in our  economic sectors.”
In that sense, says Philemon, FEMM really needs to look seriously at how it can help the region “realise the dream” inherent in the Pacific Plan.

Samoa was also gracious about the plan’s intent, noting that when the consultation team turned up in Apia, the government was just finishing off on public feedback into its Social Development Strategy, “so we had no problems seeing where we could dovetail our national strategies to the Pacific Plan in terms of all the sectors.

“It’s a very broad document and so we’ve had no problem linking into it,” says Finance CEO, Henauri Petana.

Two other acronyms thrown around at the FEMM 2006 have also seen their share of confusion, with UNIFEM coming to the rescue to help countries interpret PICTA and PACER agreements and how they will impact Forum islands nations.

UNIFEM’s Laisa Bale-Tuinamoala observes from her in-country awareness work on PICTA that feedback from officials adds up to a feeling of not being consulted.

“Often we find that decisions made at a higher level are not filtering down.”

She says there’s little that UNIFEM or anyone else can do about questioning how a government informs itself.

But it is perhaps that very question which provides the all important clue when it comes to ensuring the Pacific Plan gets back its ownership rights—at least in the eyes of those responsible for its implementation.