Is it politics or economics at play over demise of regional body?

Robert Matau




SOPAC will cease to exist as a regional geoscience organisation in less than four months, a meeting of Pacific islands government officials have resolved.
In a plan devised by a joint meeting of the governing councils of three regional agencies (SPREP, SOPAC and SPC) in Suva last month, bulk of the functions of Pacific Islands Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC), currently headquartered in Fiji, will be turned into a division of the Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC) from January 1, 2010.
On this date too, several of SOPAC’s other programmes especially those relating to the environment like climate change and meteorology will be transferred to the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme (SPREP) based in Apia, Samoa.
The decision of the three governing councils will now go before the Pacific Islands Leaders at their summit this month in Cairns, Australia, for endorsement.
Once that approval is granted, the SOPAC Council will vote for its official demise at its annual session planned for Vanuatu in October.
Compromise: The decision to make SOPAC a division of SPC is seen by many as a compromise brokered over earlier proposals made under the Regional Institutional Framework (RIF) for the rationalisation of all regional organisations in the Pacific.
Commentators told ISLANDS BUSINESS that economics influenced the councils’ decision as relocating SOPAC to Noumea where the main headquarters of SPC is located or to SPREP (Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme) in Apia, would be too costly.
In proposing to make SOPAC a division of SPC, the councils say no relocation of staff or equipment would need to happen except for the few programmes that are being moved to SPREP.
The joint meeting of the three governing councils was held behind closed doors at Novotel Tradewinds Hotel in Lami near Suva, and sources say the Fiji delegation supported by several other governments put up a strong bid to save SOPAC.
Fiji delegates argued that if something was not broken why then the need to fix it.
They complained that it seemed the move to dismantle the regional body was more to do with attempts to punish the host government and that the proponents of the move were not listening to what SOPAC wanted.
“Fiji wonders whether it has ownership of this process. We were not at Alofi [Forum in 2008] and our voice was not even allowed to be echoed there.
“It now looks more certain that we won’t be at Cairns either,” a member of the Fiji delegation told this magazine.
ISLANDS BUSINESS was told donor nations like the United States who had earlier supported the push for reforms of the regional bodies opposed the relocation of SOPAC out of Fiji because of the huge costs involved.
“If Australia and Samoa think it is wise to move SOPAC out of Suva, then they can go and find the funds for themselves,” said a source close to the US delegation to the joint governing councils meeting.
“I mean if there is nothing wrong with SOPAC’s current activities, why move it or disband it.”

What the joint governing councils of SPC, SPREP and SOPAC decided ICT Outreach Programme (a) With respect to the ICT Outreach Programme of SOPAC, the joint meeting of the governing bodies: (i) endorsed the integration of the ICT Outreach Programme of SOPAC into the Digital Strategy component of the proposed, new division of Economic Development, Energy, Transport, Infrastructure and Communication of SPC from January 2010; (ii) noted that the final implementation plan will be presented to the meetings of the respective governing bodies of SPC and SOPAC in October 2009; and (iii) noted further that the GIS and remote sensing functions constitute an integral part of the core scientific work of SOPAC and will transfer to SPC from January 2010. Energy Programme b) With respect to the Energy Programme of SOPAC, the joint meeting of the governing bodies: (i) endorsed the decision taken by the Pacific Energy Ministers in Tonga in April 2009 in which Energy Ministers: a) agreed that regional and donor coordination and delivery of energy services to Pacific Islands countries be strengthened and delivered through one energy agency and through one programme contributing to the development of a stronger energy sector and improved service to member countries; and b) in this context, noted that there was a need to ensure that energy policy and climate change policy remained separate, where environmental aspects are managed by SPREP and energy sector activities by SPC so as to ensure that the socio-economic aspects of energy were adequately addressed; (ii) recognised the interrelationship and links between energy and climate change and the need to address energy policy in relation to climate change as an integral part of the final implementation plan for rationalisation of the energy programme of SOPAC; (iii) noted that this plan will be presented for consideration to the meetings of the governing body of SPREP in September and of SOPAC and SPC in October 2009 to enable implementation from January 2010. SOPAC Core Work Programme c) With respect to the balance of the SOPAC core work programme, the joint meeting of the governing bodies: (i) welcomed the commitment by members to strengthen SPREP as the region’s lead environmental agency, including through support for the implementation of the approved decisions relating to the independent corporate review of SPREP; (ii) agreed that the following specific SOPAC functions be transferred to SPREP from January 2010: the Pacific Islands Global Ocean Observing System, the Islands Climate Update, the Climate and Meteorological Database, and the component of the energy sector relating to monitoring and evaluation of greenhouse gases and the clean development mechanism (CDM); (iii) agreed that the remaining functions of SOPAC be transferred to SPC as a new geoscience division from January 2010 based on the final implementation plan to be presented to and considered by the governing bodies of SOPAC and SPC in October 2009; (iv) encouraged SPREP and SPC to optimise linkages between their work programmes and activities in the area of environment to strengthen service delivery and coordination; and (v) agreed that progress with the transfer of SOPAC functions be reported to the annual meetings of the governing bodies and Pacific Plan Action Committee.

Sitting on the fence: Australia backed by Samoa and Niue, the magazine was told, were lobbying long and hard about moving SOPAC out of Suva to Apia.
New Zealand, sources say, was non-committal and played a sitting-on-the-fence posture during the meeting.
France, on the other hand, like the United States, showed support to keep SOPAC in Suva and Fiji, undeniably happy with the status quo.
But what worked against Fiji was the decision taken by the Forum Islands Leaders at their 2007 summit in Tonga, in which they had explicitly stated that in accordance with the RIF (Regional Institution Framework) report, SOPAC would need to be absorbed into either SPREP or SPC.
Frank Bainimarama’s decision to stay away from the 2008 summit in Niue didn’t help either, because Forum leaders reiterated their decision on SOPAC there and demanded they would like to see a timeline of the merger at their next meeting in Cairns.
Delegates at the Novotel Tradewinds meeting it seemed were unswayed by a KPMG report that detailed the huge costs of dismantling the regional body.
For instance, the KPMG report states that SOPAC could stand to lose its funding of US$26,300,000 from the European Union.
The current annual budget of SPC is US$78.09 million, SOPAC US$17.19 million while SPREP has a budget of US$7.65 million.
In the end, majority of the delegates were looking beyond the money, voting to let SOPAC remain in Suva, but as a division of SPC and not as a wholly independent legal body on its own.
It is not clear yet what organisational structure this development would bring.
But the KPMG report had suggested that once SOPAC becomes a division of SPC—one of 10—the office of the director of SOPAC will be downgraded to a divisional director  level and all three programme managers at SOPAC will be re-classified as deputy directors.
Without a job will be the deputy director at SOPAC as well as its Corporate Services Manager.
The latter could remain but the position will be downgraded to a senior corporate services manager level.
In their estimations, KPMG said the “one off cost” of turning SOPAC into a SPC division would be US$239,700 as opposed to US$1,477,400 if SOPAC is merged into SPREP.
In terms of recurrent costs, a SOPAC/SPREP merger would cost US$270,300 whilst a saving of US$461,300 would be made if it becomes a division within SPC.
Page 29 of the KPMG report gave a breakdown of the savings of SOPAC becoming part of SPC.
With the SOPAC director becoming an SPC divisional director, this would save USD$27,000.
A SOPAC director’s remuneration package is pegged at US$174,000 per annum whilst an SPC divisional director carries a salary of US$147,000.
Savings of US$129,00 will also be made from the redundant post of SOPAC deputy director.
Some money will also be gained from the downgrading of the SOPAC Corporate Services Manager’s post which carries a salary of US$123,000 to a Senior Corporate Services Manager position at US$118,000.