CONTROVERSIAL FUNDING BID TURNED DOWN

Laisa Taga - Editor-in-Chief


The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat has been forced to relook at its projects submitted to the European Union for funding under EDF (European Development Fund) 10.
This follows the decision by the Europeans not to fund two of the projects. One is the controversial Office of the Chief Trade Adviser for PACER Plus Related Activities (OCTA).
The rejection is seen as a triumph for Fiji—especially—and Papua New Guinea and an embarrassing rebuff to strong Australian and New Zealand influence at the Forum Secretariat.
Under EDF 10 funding, 26 million Euros (approximately A$36 million) is available to the Forum member countries of the ACP (African, Caribbean, Pacific) group.
The Suva-based Forum Secretariat came under heavy fire from Fiji and PNG, the Forum’s biggest islands members, for including OCTA for funding under EDF 10.
One regional political observer had told LETTER FROM SUVA that money for OCTA should be given by Australia and New Zealand rather than come from EDF.
This observer, who is close to what happens at the Forum Secretariat in suburban Suva, said: “The Europeans are giving money for EPAs (Economic Partnership Agreements), so Australia and New Zealand should cough up for the PACER negotiations. Why should EDF funding fund OCTA?”
The Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus is a new regional trade and economic agreement being largely pushed by Australia and New Zealand. It involves Australia, New Zealand and the Forum Islands Countries. Fiji is threatening action over its exclusion from the negotiations and says this is illegal.
European Union Head of Delegation for the Pacific Wiepke Van Der Goot was clear in a letter to Forum Secretariat’s Acting Secretary-General Feleti Teo. He said because of the controversial nature of OCTA and the limited information available on its legal status, it should be excluded.
Mr Van Der Goot, who is based in Suva, wrote in the way that diplomats write: “Taking into consideration the fact that the OCTA sub-project seems very controversial with important divergence of views expressed by some ACP countries, that we have limited information so far on the legal status of this office, that this sub-project is requesting a substantial co-financing of Euro 7 million (out of a total cost of approximately Euro 10 million), that the main activities seem to overlap those to be under the second sub-project (PITAP) and the fifth one (Hub and Spoke), we strongly recommend further discussions on this between PIFS, PACP and the EU delegation in order to come to a consensus.
“Consequently, we suggest removing this sub-project from the Annual Action Plan (AAP) 2010 in order to avoid delaying the other sub-projects.
“Once an agreement is reached on the level of EDF support to be given to OCTA and clarification given on the legal status of the new entity, PIFS (Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat) will be able to include the sub-project under the AAP 2011 exercise,” Mr Van Der Goot said in his letter to Mr Teo, dated December 7, 2009. A copy of this was obtained by LETTER FROM SUVA.
Stripped of its diplomatic niceties, the European letter is seen as something of a diplomatic slap to the Forum Secretariat and those who pushed this proposal.
The Forum Secretariat was also told that its project priorities (Identification Fische) should be better articulated around the AfT (Aid for Trade) strategy and in co-ordination with existing regional and national programmes.
It should also provide details of mainstreaming of gender and environmental issues and also details on the development of intra-regional trade and the type of support provided for its development.
Mr Van Der Goot said the current Identification Fische will need to be modified before it can be submitted to the Quality Support Group.
Meanwhile, the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) Secretariat has expressed its disappointment that the MSG proposal— RG 12: Capacity Building and Institutional Strengthening—had been excluded in the prioritisation process. This is despite the fact that all MSG countries had ranked the proposal amongst their five priorities.
PNG and Solomons had ranked this as their second priority while Fiji and Vanuatu their fourth.
In its letter to the Forum Secretariat, MSG secretariat’s director-general Rima Ravusiro, based in Port Vila, had outlined five reasons why the MSG proposal should be included in the AfT proposals:
• Criteria used in the prioritisation of proposals is flawed since ranking by a simple majority would automatically exclude the MSG proposal since MSG comprises a minority of four members within the 14 PACP states. The ranking ignores the fact that MSG members account for a significant proportion of PACP trade, market and population.
• One of the key principles of the ACP/EU Economic and Trade Cooperation under the Cotonou Agreement is to foster global economic integration. In the context of the Pacific, these initiatives include MSG trade integration through the MSG trade agreement. This is the same principle that justifies EDF funding to support PICTA and by extension other trade integration initiatives forged by PACPs whether initiated within or outside of the Forum should be eligible for EDF resources.
• MSG’s important role as a regional integration organisation is clearly documented and accepted within the region including the Pacific Plan and the Pacific Regional Strategy document for EDF 10.
• The AfT assistance would assist MSG explore opportunities to diversity their trade in non-traditional exports and with non traditional markets such as Asia given their close proximity.
• The MSG was not given an opportunity to defend its proposal as the process appeared to be rushed and taken out of PACPs’ hands.
Perhaps the Forum Secretariat should take heed of the members’ concerns rather than alienating the very people it is supposed to work for. Already the Forum Secretariat has been accused of working for the interests of the two major funders, Australia and New Zealand.
Here’s a New Year resolution for the Forum Secretariat: Remember you are not there just to achieve Australian and New Zealand objectives. Your core goal is supposed to be working for the development of the islands members and in their best interests.
Happy New Year.