Michael Lodge

Michael Lodge, the inaugural head of the new Pacific Tuna Commission, says the commission changes the political dynamics of the region quite radically.

“It brings together the rich and poor, the smallest and the largest countries in the world, independent and non-independent. Unlike other Pacific regional institutions, Australia (particularly) and New Zealand will not be the biggest players.

“I suspect Australia might struggle with this (New Zealand less so). We will see the emergence of a far more active confluence of interest between Asian nations and the Micronesians which will have a knock-on effect on the relationship between the 'old' Pacific and the 'new' Pacific.”

Lodge says Pacific Islands countries will have to engage far more actively with France and its territories, and the European Union (EU).

“The EU wants fishing access and I suspect will soon play hardball to get it in a big way. Then there is China, whose main objective has been to keep Taiwan in check. But it has also clearly signalled its intention to expand its fishing interests.

“One trend that has been highly disappointing is that, so far, the PICs have not demonstrated much of a willingness to expand alliances and forge interest groups with other developing countries, e.g., Indonesia, Philippines and the French territories.

“Instead, they have tended to act as a Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA) bloc and to focus their efforts on increasing their recognition for special dependence on aid.

“This is counter-productive in my view and is trending towards a downward spiral of aid dependence. Within the FFA, there is extreme and growing tension between the Nauru Group (Micronesia and Papua New Guinea) and the 'old' South Pacific. I foresee the development of an increasing culture of aid dependence and a race to give away fishing access (competing with one another). This has not happened before, but FFA seems unable to act collectively for the common benefit-only for the common detriment.”

Lodge says faced with political and sustainability challenges, the commission would have had a hard time wherever it was based.

“To put it in one of the most inaccessible, expensive, remote and inconvenient locations in the Pacific, with wholly inadequate infrastructure, is a very odd decision. It is going to make life very, very difficult for the commission and creates tremendous obstacles to its effectiveness.

“The precedents (UNEP in Nairobi, International Seabed Authority in Kingston, Jamaica, FFA in Honiara) clearly demonstrate that a bad location can cripple an organisation through failure to attract good staff, lack of participation, ineffectiveness, etc. It remains to be seen whether these obstacles can be overcome, but it will require a tremendous effort of goodwill (and financial support) to do so.”

He said it would need a solid and secure funding base with all countries, including Japan and the United States, acceding to the convention without delay and paying.

“A well-funded organisation in Micronesia might be able to overcome the obstacles and succeed. An organisation starved of operating funds, including funds to secure the full participation of developing countries in its work, will simply be stillborn.”