The Pacific Governance Network and recent developments in the Pacific

Graham Hassall

Governance Program

14 WSSD “type II” networks

1. Ocean 2. Energy 3. Adaptation to Climate Change4. Capacity Building 5. Governance6. Mainstreaming Nature

Conservation 7. Health8. Water and Wastewater

9. Land Resources 10.Information and

Communication Technology (ICT)

11.Sustainable Tourism12.SIDS Developing capacities

to reduce vulnerability13.Community Development14.Waste Management

Institutional Arena

Purpose of Rules

Socializing Civil Society To shape the way citizens raise and become aware of public issues

Aggregating Political Society To shape the way issues are combined into policy by political institutions

Executive Government To shape the way policies are made by government institutions

Managerial Bureaucracy To shape the way policies are administered and implemented by public servants

Regulatory Economic Society To shape the way state and market interact to promote development

Adjudicatory Judiciary To shape the setting for resolution of disputes and conflicts

Pacific Examples of contemporary networks

• Commonwealth Local Government Forum Technical Advisory Panel• Emerging Pacific Leaders Dialogue• The Global Development Learning Network• The Global Development Network and the Oceania Development

Network• International Council for the Study of the Pacific Islands• Network of Pacific Educators• Pacific Network on Globalization• Pacific Economic Governance Agencies Seminar Series Pacific Partnership Initiative on Sustainable Water Management• Pacific People Building Peace – (Global Project for the Prevention of

Armed Conflict)• Pacific Human Resources for Health Alliance• Pacific Islands, Australia and New Zealand Electoral Administrators

Network• Pacific Islands Law Officers Meeting• Pacific Leadership Development Network

Suggested functions for the Pacific Governance network

• Supporting work on key integrity institutions such as audit, ombudsman, leadership codes, anti-corruption institutions and departments of attorneys general;

• Supporting the Forum Principles of Accountability and Good Leadership;

• Enhancing governance mechanisms and resource management; • Upgrading of country and regional statistical information systems

and databases;• Ratifying and implementing regional and international human rights

conventions, covenants and agreements;• Participatory democracy, consultative decision-making (including

NGOs, youth, women and disabled), and electoral process;• Developing common approaches to regional financial regulations;

and• Establishing an accountable and independent technical assistance

mechanism to strengthen treasury and finance functions.

Characteristics of successful networks

Successful partnerships and networks were due to several factors. These included the use of a dedicated facilitator, oversight by a coordinating committee, communication by email/web to keep costs down and limiting the number of meetings for the same reason. Partnerships only worked if they were credible and showed real results e.g. the work on disaster risk reduction. There was a need for strong high-level mandates with common goals. To achieve credibility all partners must play an active role to make it work and to build trust. It was also important to have timely reporting and to be visible through public awareness of activities. The setting of priorities needed to be open and demand driven by Pacific countries, and the partnerships should be able to adapt to change and have adequate resources.

Council of Regional Organizations of the Pacific (CROP)

• Fiji School of Medicine (FSM)• Forum Fisheries Agency (FFA)• Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS)• Pacific Islands Development Programme (PIDP)• Secretariat of the Pacific Community (SPC)• Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Agency

(SPREP)• South Pacific Applied Geoscience Commission (SOPAC)• South Pacific Board for Educational Assessment

(SPBEA)• South Pacific Tourism Organisation (SPTO)• The University of the South Pacific (USP)

Function Status Founding Document

Membership

General Sectoral

PIFS Forum Communique (1971) 16 PIF

PC Community Agreement (1947) France, USA, A, NZ, 8 PICTs

PIDP Program USA (Hawai’i)

FFA Agency Convention (1979) 16 PIF + 1

SPREP Programme Agreement(1993)

PIF + France, USA

SOPAC Commission PIF + 4 others

SPTO Organization PIF (excl.Austr., NZ) + China

USP University Agreement (1968) 12 PICTS (excl. Aust & NZ)

SPBEA Board n.a. 10 PICTs + NZ

FSM School Fiji only(b) Autonomous Other Regional Bodies

OCO OCO = Oceanic Customs Organization  

 Police  (chart by Kennedy Graham - Future architecture of pacific regionalism)

CROP “working groups”

• Sustainable Development

• ICT

• Lands

• Energy

• Health and Population

• Marine Sector

• Human Resource Development

Regional Institutional Reform

Political & General Policy

Sector-focused Technical

institutions

Academic & Training

organizations

PIF Secretariat Pacific Community USP

FFA (political-legal) FFA (technical) FSM

SOPAC PIDP

SPREP

SPBEA

SPTO

1. Which CROP working groups have met in the past year, and with what result?

2. Which Pacific states are working on alternative sources of energy?

3. What is the current status of the regional institutional reform process?

4. How is the Pacific Plan progressing? Is it heading in the right direction? With adequate levels of ownership at all levels?

5. Which Pacific states have shown the best economic performance in recent times?

6. What steps can be taken to increase the meaningful participation of women in public life and decision-making in the region?

7. What strategies are having most effect in combating public sector corruption?

8. Which states are working toward Freedom of Information Legislation?

1. What is the status of trade negotiations between the Pacific States and such partners as the European Union, and Australia and New Zealand?

2. To what extent is “human security” being mainstreamed in policy making?

3. How effective are democratic institutions and processes at local level in the Pacific?

4. Could Pacific states make better progress toward the MGDs, and how?

5. Are political leaders as well as bureaucrats responding as rapidly as required on issues of climate change?

6. Are policy makers networking adequately with civil society, to ensure that all available expertise is being brought to bear on pressing problems?

7. Can we say that the Biketawa principles are working as well as required?

8. Which Pacific states have satisfactory laws and policies for intergovernmental arrangements?

About the network

• What should the network seek to accomplish in 2009?

• How should the network be governed?

• With what resources?