An important
p. 58 · Read in the full issue
50 years
By the time this is read, delegates to the South Pacific Commission’s (SPC) meeting of the Committee of Representatives of Governments and Administrations (CRGA) would have long put away their documents and would probably be preparing to attend the organisation’s annual conference in October.
But this is not to downplay the importance of the CRGA in the SPC calendar of meetings as it plays a major role, as the organisation’s governing body, in monitoring SPC programme delivery. In a report to the meeting, SPC Director-General Dr Bob Dun said the organisation was riding the crest of a wave since the last South Pacific Conference in Saipan, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands (CNMI), last November.
He said much of the executive’s energy had been directed to follow-up action, including the planning and writing associated with decisions requiring further input from the CRGA following the SPC’s organisational review last year.
These include: relating the appointment sequence and terms of employment of the director-general to the change to biennial meetings of the annual conference; devising transitional arrange ments in reshaping and renaming SPC’s top structure; reassess ing burden sharing amongst members in funding SPC’s core bud get; and creating a new name for the organisation acceptable to all members.
This year has been important for the organisation in terms of its 50th anniversary celebrations, and the meeting heard that a street survey by the SPC in February indicated some confusion in the minds of many Noumeans between the comission’s local ly used acronym CPS (Commission du Pacifique Sud) and the local garbage collection service. “Well,” said Dun. “Now, there are many thousands who appreciate the SPC... as an interesting and valuable part of their community and which, through its ser vice, brings the whole Pacific to their doorsteps rather than just the humble trash can.”
Director-General Dun registered his concern at the marked change in the proportional mix of islanders against those of European and Asian decent in the commission’s professional staff over the past 12 months. “When I commenced work in January 1996, professional staff recruited from Pacific Island
countries made up nearly half our complement. This is now down to one-third.
“Looking for explanations, some substantial part is obviously due to the acquisition of new programmes into the SPC which were either staffed by non-islanders or which required appointees with skills hard to find in the Pacific.” Dun also said there has been a major change in the SPC’s staff selection system with preference being given to islanders if rankings were equal.
“[But] because competition for positions has been intense, it has been difficult for islanders to win,” Dun said.
“I am alarmed that if this trend were to continue, SPC mem bers might find themselves with a well credentialled and effi cient staff but its social ambience as a Pacific organisation could be damaged. We obviously have to do more to attract islanders to apply for positions.” As always, the critical issue of funding received much more attention, with Dun saying: “Commenting generally, we continue to note the media projecting the occa sional criticism of donor dominance in the Pacific and no doubt this flows from major concerns about money as power and the wish of island countries to be fully independent eonomically as soon as possible.
“In this respect, it was heartening to see the ready acceptance by island members of an increase in their overall contribution to the core funding of the SPC. However, it’s worth remembering that our metropolitan members and other donors still provide about 96 per cent of the the SPC’s total budget, counting project contributions as well as core, and they do so despite their lack of any effective capacity to control the organisation’s policies,”
Dun said.
“The islands have the numbers. There is some real altruism lurking there. Without donors, SPC’s capacity to address region al priority issues in resource management and social engineering
would largely disappear.
“Despite its own budgetary problems, the government of France continues to give very strong support to the SPC. Both New Zealand and Australia carried through their 1997 budget discussions in the latter half of last year again helping with strong programme support combined with substantial advance pay ments.
“It is impressive to see the strengthening of the NZ economy being reflected in their overall aid volume. Our two other large donors, the European Union and the United Nations Development Programme, have also proved extremely helpful at a time when they have been much concerned with programme review and prioritisation.”
In addition, Great Britain recently provided the SPC with a £lOO,OOO (SUS 172,500) contribution to mark the organisation’s 50th birthday and provide a kickstart to its Small Islands Development Fund. Taiwan continues to support funding of the SPC’s fisheries network and Japan recently funded a lecture the atre for the Community Education Training Centre (CETC) based at Narere in Fiji.
“Certainly, for the SPC, I’d like donors to think that when their money comes to us it is spent wisely and cost effectively and that for our island members there will be an appreciated island service to talk about. It would be great if an island-con trolled organisation like the SPC could deliver its essential regional programmes without donor support - but that goal is still some years away,” Dun said. ■
Debbi^Siggli