Page 31 - IB June 2020

Opinion Opinion

countries have cross membership of two subregions. Only There is also the factor relating to the diversity of size of
the SIS is structurally part of PIF. It can be envisaged that for countries and economies – from tiny Niue, to large PNG; from
these PICTA signatory countries, there would be a tendency to the smaller islands of Polynesia to the relatively larger islands
prioritise subregional issues before PICTA, which transcends of Melanesia. Such diversity can be divisive. It can breed
subregional borders. This is particularly true for the MSG indifference and lack of drive for any regional integration by
members who already have their own Free Trade Agreement way of PICTA, for example, especially if national development
in the MSG Trade Agreement. and economic growth are already proving difficult to sustain.
The same can be said for PICTA signatory countries that This can only raise questions as to whether this wider engage-
have strong bilateral relations. The three Micronesian signa- ment will be cost-effective – PICTA being the first Free Trade
tory countries, for example, have the Compact agreement Agreement for the PICs concerned. The status of the private
with the US; The Cook Islands and Niue enjoy a special politi- sector development in the region and its lack of concerted
cal arrangement with New Zealand; Nauru and PNG have influence is perhaps reflective of assumed cost-ineffectiveness
special bilaterals with Australia. Bilateral interests, in these of regional economic integration.
cases, are likely to prevail over any PICTA issues. This can spill The realisation that the twin shortages of capacity and
over to politics. political will are constraining regional economic integration
Another aspect of the ‘rules of the game’ is that Austra- in PICTA signatory countries is perhaps not unprecedented.
lia and New Zealand are PIF members. They also happen to Regional commentators have entertained and affirmed such
be two of the largest aid donors to PICs and are the biggest ideas in the past. For them, such a revelation is nothing to
contributors to the PIF budget. Their influence in regional write home about. What this intimation hopes to achieve
matters can be overwhelming. Add their respective bilateral however is that it may drive the regional planners and strate-
influences on specific PICs, they do indeed represent sizable gists, who are currently formulating the 2050 Strategy for
diversionary forces form PICs’ own regional economic integra- the Blue Pacific Continent, to seriously factor in shortages
tion. Australia and New Zealand’s seasonal labour schemes, of capacity and political will in their planning to the extent
for example, may have contributed to the lack of political will of having to design new, imaginative and enterprising opera-
for PICTA and the prospects for its regional economic integra- tional and structural features of Pacific regionalism, even if
tion benefits. unprecedented, to take us through the post-Covid-19 new
Related also to the ‘rules of the game’ is PICTA’s Rules of world order.
Origin (ROO). This is being modernised. It can be deduced
therefore that such ROO currently lacks concessions such as The author is a former Fijian Ambassador and Foreign Minis-
cumulation that can incentivise value adding amongst the ter and runs his own consultancy company in Suva, Fiji.
signatory countries. This is unlikely to motivate politicians.

Fisheries
From page 23: Fisheries enforced by each one of us through our respected laws and
policies. We invest in our human resource development and
said Pokajam. management of the tuna resources and we should be the one
PNGFIA caused a splash in the region's tuna circles in late benefiting 100%, not the one ninth of the 1% of the 2% benefit
2018 when it cut ties with Pacifical to pursue MSC certification sharing whereas a foreigner invested nothing not even a
on its own. processing plant in any one of our PNA countries and is solely
Pacifical, the commercial entity 50/50 owned by PNA mem- benefiting 50 percent of the 2% benefit sharing on his own.
bers and Netherlands-based Sustunable bv, was created in This is totally unfair and unjust," Pokajam added.
2011 to market PNA's tuna products in the global market. Under the Pacifical deal, 2% of revenue is shared between
The move was seen as controversial as Pokajam accused Pa- Sustunable and the PNA countries; with 1% going to Sustunable
cifical—which is headed by Sustunable founder and CEO Henk and the other 1% distributed among the PNA members.
Brus—of not giving PNA members their fair share from the deal PNA, itself an MSC certified fishery, is known to control the
and of a lack of transparency with its financial accounts. world's largest sustainable tuna purse seine fishery.
"We are still not happy with PNA Pacifical because this Its members are Federated States of Micronesia, Kiribati,
structure has 50% foreign interest and they are riding on us Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, PNG, Solomon Islands and
PNA for personal gain. None of the PNA understand fully how Tuvalu.
Pacifical works. It is controlled by persons with vested interest Earlier this month Pacifical had a run-in with the PNGFIA
using PNA as a conduit," Pokajam claimed. over the removal of fisheries observers from vessels due to
He urged PNA members to follow PNG's lead if they want COVID-19. Pokajam said this endangered PNGFIA’s MSC certifi-
maximum benefits from their fisheries. cation. However in response Pacifical said care for the health
"PNG would like to see all PNA countries move away from and well-being of observers and fishing crews is paramount,
Pacifical to have their own MSC. Conservation and manage- and that PNGFIA is not speaking for the PNG government or
ment measures, compliance and enforcement measures are the country’s National Fisheries Authority.

Islands Business, June 2020 31