RIF report disastrous for FFA, he says

Samisoni Pareti
Feleti Teo joined the Pacific Islands Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) at a time when questions about the future of the regional fisheries body were being raised.

As the Tuvalu national wrapped up his six-year term as director of the Honiara-based agency, some of those questions are still lingering, including one that could determine the very existence of the organisation.

In a move aimed at rationalising and harmonising the various regional organisations that operate in the Pacific, the Regional Institutional Framework (RIF) Report had recommended the absorption of the work of FFA by the Noumea-based Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) and Suva’s Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat.

In one of his last duties as head of FFA, Teo puts up a vigorous defence against the recommendation of the RIF Report, dismissing it as “too simplistic” and “unjustified”.

“I’ve made it very clear to the meeting of Forum officials that to simply divide up FFA into technical and political functions and give those political functions to the Forum Secretariat and technical functions to SPC, would be disastrous,” Teo told journalists on the eve of his departure as FFA director.

“It would undermine all the milestones and achievements FFA has achieved over the last 27 years and what we are now trying to promote through our assistance to member countries in terms of fisheries management and fisheries development, which are the two strategic programmes we currently have in an integrated approach, a more holistic approach.

“In such an approach, you can’t really dissect issues into their political compartment or technical. It has to be integrated to be successful.

“So I did make a very strong statement to the officials that the approach taken by the RIF Report is too simplistic an approach and the way they handled the so-called technical institutions like  FFA is I think unwarranted.
It had no respect for its history and achievements over the years.

“To simply fold it up and give it away either to the Forum Secretariat or SPC I think does a lot of injustice to the achievements of the organisation.”

Equally questionable for FFA and one Teo felt would be interesting to monitor in the coming months is the future of the islands’ multilateral fisheries treaty with the United States.

Under that treaty, the United States Government and its tuna industry pays an annual fee for US purse seiners to fish in Pacific waters. Forty US boats are allowed to fish in the region’s waters annually.

But by the last count in late October this year, only 13 boats are left to take up the provisions of the treaty. And this is worrying, said Teo.

“The current fuel price at the moment makes it just un-economical for these boats to continue fishing which is a serious consideration for FFA member countries.

“Because the lower the number of US vessels, the most likely that might impact on the treaty itself because the US Government pays a significant component of the fee.

“The US industry people are quite concerned whether it’s going to be 9 boats left or 10 boats when the US will come in and pull out their support.

“Unfortunately for FFA member countries, it’s an issue that is well beyond our control and we can’t do anything about it.

“Although there were some arrangements last year, our members agreed to waive some of the fees to vessel operators because under the fee structure of the treaty, there’s a component that is paid by the industry and the bulk is paid by the US Government.

“Before that, US$3 million in fees were shared by 40 vessels, now it’s shared by 13.”

Questions about the future of the treaty or even FFA are nothing new, according to Teo, who resigned as Attorney-General of Tuvalu in 2000 to become the agency’s  director.

Such questions he said were even around before he joined six years ago.

“When I came into FFA, there were a lot of questions being asked as to what is the role of FFA in relation to the new Tuna Commission.

“Quite a lot of people were of the view that once this new fisheries commission comes into operation, there might be no need for FFA.”

To quell those doubting Thomases, Teo said two strategic planning exercises produced clear roles FFA should play. And more than five years later, the FFA he believes has proven its place and worth in fisheries management and development in the Pacific.

“The FFA’s main role as far as the Tuna Commission is concerned is to prepare our members.

“Every time the Tuna Commission meets, FFA meets prior to that.

“In that pre-commission meetings, we develop negotiating briefs for member countries and when we go through those briefs we try and find areas where there’s commonality of interests and therefore confirm common positions and those positions will be taken to the Commission.

“The decision-making mechanism of the commission acknowledges the existence of the FFA as a group, so that kind of confirm the solidarity our members bring to the commission.

“The commission’s decision-making process requires decisions in the first place to be made by consensus but if consensus is not reached, then there’s a two-chamber decision making process.

“On the one chamber is all FFA member countries, then on the other are the non-FFA members.

“For a commission decision to be approved, it has to be agreed by both chambers.

“In other words, FFA membership can actually block decisions if they are not in agreement, and the same of course, if the distant water fishing nations want to block certain decisions.

“The other chamber of course doesn’t usually act in a cohesive way than we are in the FFA chamber because of the FFA secretariat’s role in coordinating our position.”

The outgoing FFA director who holds a masters in law degree believes a similar exercise and detailed analysis is required before members of FFA decide on its future.

“I think to be fair to those technical organisations, there should be a detailed assessment and analysis of how those organisations would perform under the proposed regional institutional framework relative to how they have been performing up to now.

“For the FFA’s governing council to approve the new framework, there has to be very convincing arguments that FFA under its current strategic framework will be better delivered under the proposed regional institutional framework and its current structure.

“But in my reading of the report and I made this clear to the Forum officials, I can’t find any justification in the report that will help put that case to the FFA governing council.”

On fisheries negotiations with the European Union, Teo agreed FFA members’ bargaining position had not been helped by the decision of three member countries—Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati and Solomon Islands—to pursue bilateral fisheries agreement with the EU, as opposed to a multilateral approach favoured by other Forum islands countries.

But Teo is one of those advocating a compromise, pursuing a two-layer approach agreement with the Europeans.

“It would give us more leverage if we agree on a sort of an umbrella multilateral framework with the EU and this does not preclude the conclusion of bilateral arrangements.

“The idea there is to have a multilateral framework that governs the administration of bilaterals.

“In other words, the EU can still conclude bilateral access but it would be done within a multilateral framework and the rationale for this is to promote consistency in the conditions of access. The EU is still having difficulties accepting a multilateral framework.

“They want to acknowledge the importance of fisheries in their EPA negotiations but I don’t think they are yet to be convinced that a multilateral framework better suits their interest.”