Discussion Of Country Presentations
"From our experience, we could define sustainable fisheries as when the
traditional and biological parameters confirm each other. Then the
practice is sustainable; anything outside that isn't."
Capacity
Building and Resource Needs in PICTs
Anon: Can Pacific Island representatives speak
more specifically about the problems their countries face in terms of
capacity building and resource needs?
Guam: We are reliant on our U.S. federal partners. We have
only one National Marine Fisheries enforcement agent between us and our
two neighbours; there is no patrol vessel, so the U.S. Coast Guard
plane must fly from Hawaii. This makes enforcement very difficult.
Fiji: We rely on the Fiji Navy, which has only 3 vessels; the
French and NZ Air Forces assist with aircraft surveillance of illegal
fishing. Fiji is interested in claiming areas beyond the existing 200
nm EEZ, but has missed the first 10-year deadline due to a lack of
resources. NZ shares a common border with Tonga and Fiji, and Fiji may
look to New Zealand for assistance.
Federated States of Micronesia: Enforcement of our EEZ is a
difficulty. We have an arrangement with Palau and the Marshall Islands
to share enforcement assets to police illegal fishing activity.
Cook Islands: Development, mainly of tourism, is an
environmental threat; septic systems, transport are a worry. We are
working closely with other organisations like SPREP to look into these
issues.
Anon: In capacity building, should we be looking beyond
academic degrees, at providing training in analytical methods? Is
capacity building needed at the academic or technician level? Regarding
climate change, in what way do the islands want to be involved?
Marshall Islands: We have identified capacity gaps and
trained people but the problem is retaining them in the islands. Our
trained, highly educated personnel are attracted by better jobs and
salaries overseas. We cannot compete with what the U.S. offers.
Fiji: We have the same difficulty in retaining technical
people. This might be addressed in part through short attachments
abroad (in New Zealand and Australia) for those who show commitment to
the region.
In regard to climate change, we need to change the attitudes
of developed countries, so that they come to regard climate change as a
problem. We need to be active in telling the international community of
the need for mitigation of the problem. Some of our islands will
disappear if nothing is done.
Anon: Look for different ways of doing things; think
"outside the box". Retention of capacity has to take into account the
fact that humans are migratory by nature. Maybe the focus should be on
ensuring continuous training is accessible.
American Samoa: Agree with prior remarks regarding the need
for enhanced education and training opportunities. We would like to
entice the US government to have development projects in our local
community that will train people locally so they do not leave. Another
challenge is to get policy makers to champion what we are trying to do
for the environment.
Climate change needs a regional approach, through which we
share experience, data, and limited resources. Need regional policies
to collectively address concerns most of the islands have. In that
regard, how can we engage with other countries and address this
collectively?
Australia: Australia considers this to be a crucial issue,
and is working on climate monitoring and adaptation projects throughout
the region. We also work at the UN to raise our concerns at the
international level.
Chair: Encourage everyone to consider what capacity building
seeks to address. We need a strategic response, one that is adaptable
to realities in different countries.
Role of Regional
Organisations
Anon: Are regional organisations a plus or a minus? Does
it confuse donors to have so many? Is the present system working well,
or does it need to be fixed?
PIFS: Definitely a plus, from the perspective of the Pacific
Islands Forum Secretariat. For example, we heard from Professor Chandra
about the many programs that USP has to offer.
American Samoa: Regional organisations are important in
capacity building. Need to have a focus on collaborative effort, for
education and training. But we would pose a question: How do we build
capacity at the national level?
Guam: We have a very good university, a marine laboratory,
and good higher education, but school students are not choosing science
careers. We are shifting our focus to the environment curriculum in
schools, to interest students in the environment at an early age. They
already have a love of the ocean, and this should be built upon.
Fiji: There is lack of coordination on the part of the
various regional agencies working in Fiji. We don't have the time or
resources to deal with them. We need to reduce duplication. Time spent
by local focal points needs to be more efficiently utilized; they are
spending their time dealing with too many different agencies. We don't
have time and resources to make up our own Ocean Policy, and we run
from pillar to post trying to keep track of what these regional
entities are up to!
Chair: Agencies need to explain what they can do for you, for
the Pacific Island countries and territories.
Anon: Retention of capacity is an issue in the global
economy. Need a commitment to continue training, not just train one
person and leave it at that. Attachments are a successful way of
providing training.
Fiji: When talking to international agencies, we get a lot of
verbal commitment but not much on paper.
Tuvalu: On cross-cutting issues like capacity building, we
need to think about creating an enabling environment. Need commitment
from the islands themselves to do things for themselves and this
requires leadership. If we build the Millennium Development Goals into
the strategy, this will facilitate attracting international support.
Anon: The role of NGOs is becoming more prominent, in
light of capacity limitations. Is there a potential for more
cooperation between international organisations and NGOs?
Commonwealth Secretariat: Partnership between NGOs and
organisations is becoming more important, and we are moving towards
greater cooperation.
Anon: There are many cases where regional agencies assist
countries to develop plans and laws, and then these seem to get held up
in the countries. Where does it get held up? What are the in-country
constraints?
Vanuatu: Changes of government can lead to delay, with new
ministers wanting further consultation.
Shipping
Anon: What has been done in regards to the issue
of maritime shipping within the region?
Fiji: Fiji has been called upon to update its maritime
legislation, but we do not have the resources to fulfill this obligation.
Anon: SPREP gave a statement that there were more than
1500 warships in the ocean between Melanesia and Micronesia, and that
it was not a question of whether oil is going to leak but when. What is
the progress on that issue?
SPREP: A report about wrecks is circulating here. This is an
issue between the flag state (of the ship) and the coastal state.
Culture
and Traditional Management
Anon: What about culture? Groups from other
countries could come here to see the Pacific Island example of how we
conserve natural resources. Look at the science behind the cultural
practices. What are countries doing to resist the erosion of culture?
Tourism is contributing to cultural erosion.
Chair: Teaching needs to bear in mind the concept of
stewardship. A lot of traditional strategies have been lost. Culture
needs to be found again.
Fiji: Fiji is enacting legislation for traditional knowledge
and folklore, aimed at strengthening traditional indigenous culture.
UNESCO: No presenter has really emphasised how well you've
done so far. There are moves abroad to come to the Pacific and see your
good example. People turning wholly to technology find it doesn't
always work. There are signs that culture has eroded; why? Is there a
move to cull out the science in the traditional methods?
Chair: Stewardship was effective in the Pacific. Many things
have been lost, and a strategic direction needs to be found again.
Anon: We should move away from simply looking at drawing a
line in the ocean to delimit boundaries. We need agreements that
address management of shared resources. A common characteristic of the
region is that the resources are subject to customary custodianship.
How can we empower these customary custodians to contribute to
effective management of these resources?
Commonwealth Secretariat: Countries are motivated by their
own national interests. That is the reality, in terms of maritime
boundary limitation.
Budgets
Question: What portion of national budgets
is ocean related?
Guam: Local government spending on ocean issues is very low.
Guam depends on U.S. federal funding for most of our environmental
issues.
Cook Islands: Believe it is very low.
American Samoa: Low and maybe not enough, but this may be due
to poor marketing. The onus is on us to be candid about what we
require. We need to know what's there (in terms of resources), so that
budget people can price the deliverables on conserving the resources.
Defining
Sustainable Fisheries
Question : Has any country attempted to
define sustainable fisheries in the local context?
Samoa: The term should be long-term sustainable fisheries.
From our experience, we could define sustainable fisheries as when the
traditional and biological parameters confirm each other. Then the
practice is sustainable; anything outside that isn't.
Papua New Guinea: The definition proposed by Samoa isn't
suitable for legislation, and is probably better expressed through
policy. We had varying success when trying to weave this concept into
local government; fortunately we have a strong connection with NGOs and
they have been able to take the concept forward into the community.
Hopefully our actions can define what sustainable fisheries are.
Vice-Chair: Trying to define sustainable fisheries is akin to
defining sustainable development … both are nebulous by nature.
Kiribati: Fisheries management is challenging: "You may think
you're doing it right, but then fish may be dying and you are left
trying to work out why they are dying, because you don't know."
PIFS: A starting point for answering the question could be
Article 61 and 62 of UNCLOS on offshore EEZ regimes, which require
states to determine maximum sustainable yields. Stock assessment should
be carried out. The precautionary approach applies, once the maximum
sustainable yield is known. Most Pacific Islands are party to the
conventions that govern this, yet it is easier said then done. There
seems to be some success in offshore fisheries but not in nearshore
waters. There is no legal definition but a reference point that one
could start from does exist.
Chair: Aside from Article 61 of UNCLOS, what about Principle
2 of PIROP? How do we determine the parameter that influence how much
is too much; what is unsustainable? What we are doing is the equivalent
of mining; if what comes out is more than what goes in, it is not
sustainable. And impacts are not limited to fishing; we need to
understand the other environmental impacts. A sustainable fishery is
one that lasts into the future.
CNMI: Speaking as a non-fisheries person, we have a lagoon
where most tourists go, and tourism is an economic driver for our
economy. We regulated fishing because we noticed fish numbers were
dropping. Even if we lack information or hard numbers, we may still
have to act to save fisheries that are clearly disappearing.
Comment (Randy Thaman, USP): We have studied tuna
extensively, and good information exists, but it is not necessarily
widely available. Local villagers often have good ideas, and should be
consulted. We have to make information available through partnerships.
We need to take action now based on the information we have now. Found
it refreshing to see that Palau spoke of things they were doing for
themselves because they perceived a problem with sustainability.
Comment (Bill Mansfield, New Zealand): Fisheries science is
not an exact science, and a lack of agreement regarding fish stocks is
common. But there is no excuse for not making management decisions
based on precautionary approach. Difficulty is to convince distant
water as well as coastal fisheries that you are making the right
decision. It is important to remember that you cannot manage one fish
stock without reference to the ecosystem it is part of.
PIFS: An example of the questions that come up when
addressing sustainability are seen in the decline in the albacore
catch. Some have attributed it to overfishing, and others to
environmental change.
Vice-Chair: Repeating Randy's point: we can't wait for the
statistics to come in before we manage.
Palau: We try to integrate traditional practices that were
effective in the past with new technology and scientific approaches.
Samoa: Regarding oceanic tuna resources, agree with the
speaker who spoke of stock assessment results that showed the stock was
healthy, when the evidence of their eyes said otherwise. Although
albacore is said to be healthy on a worldwide basis, there are local
deficiencies. Fisheries become overcapitalised, overcapacity leads to
overfishing. Traditional reef fisheries involve many species and are a
complex issue. Need to deal with these on a case by case base; there is
no regional solution. There can be a conflict between the precautionary
principle and traditional management.
Panel
Discussion: Improving Understanding of the Ocean
"Data is not information, information is not knowledge,
and knowledge is not wisdom."
Howard Diamond: Made reference to Dr Desa's presentation, and
highlighted the opportunity provided by the 1st Earth Station
Observation Platform, which is now available and collecting data. He
identified it as a unique opportunity and said that data collection was
now on the agenda of ministers and chief of states, and encouraged
Pacific Island countries to also make it a priority. He encouraged
those present to visit the website: www.earthobservations.org
Enele Sopoanga: Acknowledged that the presentations
highlighted the enormity of the issues, and referring to Dr Desa's
presentation agreed that it was knowledge that made it easier to get
into partnerships (e.g. with donors). He raised the question of how to
develop linkages between knowledge and policy, or to translate the
knowledge we already have into policy. Using climate change as an
example, he said that although we know about causes and impacts, how do
we transfer this awareness into policy? This is a challenge at both the
regiuonal and global level.
RandyThaman: Translating from knowledge to policy can happen
at any level. Regrading climate change, there is much new data that can
help in making a much stronger link between global warming and coral
bleaching. This can be made locally and nationally, but also
internationally.
Ehrlich Desa: Everyone's knowledge is important, and we
should view everyone as a peer. Sharing is important. Too much of one
type of knowledge reduces diversity.
Chair: Observed that data is not information, information is
not knowledge, and knowledge is not wisdom.
Hugh Govan, FSPI: Stated that an area not addressed so far in
any of the presentations is the need to understand the aspirations of
the communities being served. Sustainable development is dependent on
community aspirations being met. Partnerships should regard communities
as equal partners; stated that he has not heard about partnerships of
peers where communities are treated as peers with experts.
Drew Wright, SPREP: Raised the question of what are the
critical emerging issues? Suggested one critical issue is climate
variability and sea level rise; another is how to integrate TK with
contemporary management systems. He spoke of the need for a better
understanding of fisheries and oceanographic issues, and of land based
processes. Where are there gaps?
At the close of
the panel discussion participants broke into eight randomly selected
groups to discuss issues relating to the day's theme. Two facilitators
and a rapporteur were selected in each group; the groups provided a
summary of their discussions to the general plenary (see Group
Outcomes: Improving Our Understanding of the Ocean). Following these
presentations, a discussion ensued.
<>Discussion
Relating to Group Outcomes on Improving our Understanding of the Ocean
"We have heard about building capacity of the communities,
getting the knowledge of the elders, and empowering communities. That's
great - it's happening here in Fiji."
Anon: It is important to consider the issue of connections
between work within the region and that at the international level (UN
processes, such as the consultative process on UNCLOS). The
participation of Small Islands Developing States (SIDS) is facilitated,
but this opportunity is hardly being used. This process of integrating
with activities at the international level needs, in particular
regarding large issues such as climate change, needs to be included as
an element of the process.
Ehrlich Desa (IOC): UNESCO is now working to build awareness
of the legal issues relating to UNCLOS and the definition of
continental shelf boundaries with a group of countries (20) in Africa.
If the Pacific Islands are interested in establishing a similar
process, IOC would be happy to broker that; IOC has funding from
Canada. We are working on the issue of awareness, explaining the UNCLOS
process, so that affected countries know what they have to do.
Drew Wright (SPREP): What is the timeframe of this effort?
Some of these actions are obviously long-term undertakings. In relation
to that, but a larger question: how are we going to monitor and
evaluate this framework for action? Tuvalu has suggested an annual
consultation or review of progress for the PIROF-ISA.
Chair: That's an issue that should be addressed by CROP, as
they have the political mandate to act.
Anon: One thing the discussion groups could finish was to
provide a substantive overview of the data that is available in the
region on specific issues, such as minerals, fisheries, and so on. The
working papers prepared for the meeting contain a wealth of information
about that .Those should be mined to provide an overview of on which
issues there is good information already and on which there is not. We
have to be thinking about the marine ecosystems within the region and
define them. Three billion USD have been spent on the large marine
ecosystem work as part of the GEF international waters program. We
should involve GEF in this region, and use some of their methodology
and resources.
Anon: In relation to developing a connection to the
international system: should we be asking our leaders to send a message
asking members of the UN system to help us with getting accurate and
relevant information? We need to put pressure on the UN system - we
don't govern it well. Our ability as a group to influence work at the
UN level is simply not there. We need to think about what we should ask
our leaders to ask the UN to do for us.
Chair: How do
Pacific Islanders view this?
Anon: Regarding improving our understanding of the ocean: I
wonder whether we could embrace stakeholders at all levels and place,
those that may have the capacity to be custodians of the ocean in
different places. We have heard about building capacity of the
communities, getting the knowledge of the elders, and empowering
communities. That's great - it's happening here in Fiji.
Randy Thaman (USP): By recording information from traditional
communities we can empower them. This knowledge is being lost. In many
cases the knowledge of men and women who really know what the fish are
- traditional taxonomists - has been lost forever. In Kiribati no one
will tell you where they fish for eels or what kind of bait they use.
But they understand they are losing a lot of their traditional
knowledge, and are interested in recording it.
We need to protect taxonomic knowledge at community level. I
have been working on recording traditional medicinal knowledge in the
Marshall Islands, as it is disappearing very quickly. I went there to
talk to older people, to listen to them tell about what they know. We
are getting increasing numbers of students at USP who know local
languages, and we need to involve them in efforts to record the
knowledge of their elders. Partnerships and collaboration should be
encouraged.
Panel
Discussion: Maintaining the Health of the Ocean
"We will define
what the projects are…"
Chair: Acknowledges Mr Takesy, for his extremely wise words
and guidance, which provided a reminder of "what we are here for, the
priority that we need to understand the human element."
Anon: Speakers touched on the difficulty of having a
regional ocean management body that lacks legal authority, which is a
common problem faced by all of the organisations working in the
Pacific. Can someone address the Australian experience in this regard?
Australia: The problem in Australia is miniscule compared
with the situation here, as customary landholders must be engaged in
the Pacific Islands. In Australia, we have six states, and a strong
central government. In Fiji alone there are 400 qoliqoli areas. That is
the challenge.
Anon: For the national ocean office in Australia: what are
the challenges and opportunities that governments here can learn from?
How feasible is it to have a National Ocean Office in Pacific Island
countries?
Australia (National Oceans Office): We have tried to develop
a very consultative process. A high level advisory group represents all
levels of stakeholders, including indigenous people. Regional marine
plans are developed, through regional consultations. Within the federal
government all sectors are represented on a ministerial-level oceans
board; the national ministerial council includes state representatives.
It has been very hard to get engagement across all sectors,
particularly as we lack adequate resources and have a short time frame.
So it's not been easy. But it is much more difficult here!
But in many respects it is an advantage that Pacific Island
people retain their local land tenure. In Australia, we have state and
local government but the people are not engaged in the way people are
engaged in the Pacific.
American Samoa (Lelei Peau): We have a relationship with the
US Federal Government that stretches back over 10 years. But only in
the last four or five years have we been given the status to sit at the
table with the 22 Federal Agencies to discuss issues relating to the
environment in American Samoa. We confronted the Federal Government,
making it clear that priorities have to be set a local level, saying:
"We will define what the projects are, you as federal government can
finance it." This requires coordinating such efforts among island
communities. We asked the US Government for a secretariat to coordinate
these efforts. Palau and Federated States of Micronesia have asked for
observer status, so we in fact involve other island countries.
We do not want to compete amongst ourselves. Whatever
resources we receive we share among all of us. For example Hawaii,
although a much larger land mass, receives the same amount of money as
American Samoa.
<>
Plenary Discussion on
Creating Partnerships and Promoting Cooperation
"We want to make sure that we do this better than we ever have before."
The discussion opened with the reading of a statement by
several NGOs (WWF/South Pacific, The Nature Conservancy, Wildlife
Conservation Society, and Conservation International). The statement
addressed a roundtable through which 45 representatives of SIDS
governments, NGOs, intergovernmental organisations, and donor partners
launched a partnership for Marine and Coastal Protected Areas in SIDS.
The four NGOs asked that the partnership, responding to country needs,
be seen and recorded by the Forum as a mechanism that could put into
action the principles and priorities of the Regional Ocean Policy.
Facilitator: Would like participants to provide additional
ideas regarding partnerships, focussed first at the national and
regional levels.
Anon: The Coral Reef Coordinating Committee (for US
territories) has been a very good initiative, and is a potential model
that has worked very well. It is based upon sharing all resources
equally.
Fiji: With respect to funding, it would seem prudent to look
at what has been successful and is already working in the region.
Rex Hori (FSPI): Twelve regional NGOs (including Greenpeace
and WWF/SP) have signed an MOU about a year ago defining what their
role will be. That is an existing mechanism through which capacity
building etc. is being targeted. The regional NGOs are also negotiating
with PIFS for accreditation.
Facilitator: It is important to use existing mechanism
that provide a springboard for engaging with governments at both the
regional and national level. Does anyone have a reactions to the idea
of participating at the CROP level?
Lionel Gibson (FSPI): We hoped that the round table would be
a mechanism to implement the action strategy, but a difficulty was that
it did not include Pacific Island NGOs, national NGOs, or Pacific
Island governments. So it effectively excluded the Pacific; this was
the major shortfall. We talked about partnerships but did it without
the critical stakeholders. Pacific Island NGOs and Pacific Island
governments are important interests. To take PIROF forward we might
want a Forum with wider membership than exists for the present forum.
Facilitator: Any reaction to that?
Guam: I am a community representative. I represent the
fishermen. We have collaboration and we educate our fishermen. We have
meetings. But we can't afford to have NGOs - NGOs cost money. We have
to protect sea turtles. The harvesting, the preparation and the eating
of the sea turtles is part of our culture. We need to address why we
protect sea turteles. Is it so that tourists can see them, or so I can
eat? Why are we setting up MPAs? Why do we protect resources? This is
about partnerships; but for whom?? Why do we do these things? Our
priority is to put the community first.
Facilitator: Partnerships for what, for whom? Clearly, the
community must come first.
Randy Thaman (USP) This is very important. Alliances and
partnerships are very important. Networks involve everyone. These are
kinds of partnerships that we need to build. The partnership I was
talking about, the Integrated Coastal Management Network, is a network,
involving all the stakeholders. We have done arrangements with FSPI on
sharing staff. That works. Don't look at who owns it, but look at a
network, and energize it. If hiring someone, make it a joint
appointment. Try some innovative arrangements, and share staff. Big
NGOs may divide up niches, but the focus should be on problems. USP now
functions as an NGO. Our students are working with us. To me we need to
think above partnerships, write joint projects that include the
government.
Facilitator: What we're hearing is the need to be more
collaborative … can I pick on someone at the national level: how could
one move something along?
PNG: We have a Marine Science Research Committee. When the
need came for interagency cooperation we saw that one department
couldn't address ocean governance issues; thus we formed an interagency
committee. It showed us we can't find room for everyone in meetings; we
educate ourselves on new issues an are getting much out of hearing
about specific concerns from agencies. It gives us a new spin on
practical deficiencies: how policy is brought down to the local and
national level. Often NGO systems don't interface with government
mechanisms. Local government councils are not interacting well with
village councils; money dries up everything stops. We need to develop
local level interaction. TNC developed a local level initiative that
brought tangible results. To summarise: national government agencies
have to take a collective approach. NGOs are often the ones working on
the ground. One purpose of PIROF is to strengthen communication: if we
all talk, we will develop new directions.
Facilitator: We need partnerships at both the national and
regional levels.
Canada: We had similar problems with our salmon resources;
salmon habitat includes both the river and the ocean. The government
looked at the damaged watersheds, and their initial reaction was that
we just needed more enforcement. We said no, we need habitat stewards
for the 10 most endangered watersheds. We gave funding to communities,
and hired indigenous auxiliaries, who received training. This worked
very well.
Facilitator: This is an important point: this is a
complicated process. It takes time to come up with the right solution.
Samoa: Speaking as a Samoan (not on behalf of the government)
it is important that we recognise that although we are united as a
region, we are very different at the country level. The Samoa village
management project started 1995, but in order to sustain that the
government had to take it over. It remains to be seen if FLAMMA in Fiji
will be self-sustaining.
Transfrom (PIFS): So far we have not heard from church
groups, or women's groups within the churches. We make an assumption
that only NGOs that work w/ communities advocate for the environment.
But in many PICTs the most influential institutions are the churches.
Wen need to look at working within churches and with the women.
CNMI: We have no NGOs doing sustainable work, and invite
anyone who wants to work with us o come to CNMI. We do have a small
grants program for NGOs or communities or individuals for projects that
benefit the coasts. People get very creative when some funding is
offered for unusual partnerships. There Is lot of untapped capacity and
energy, especially in the private sector.
Facilitator: Think - give us something about partnerships
with regional level players. We had a suggestion from Rex about
consultative groupings, and NGO accreditation to CROP working groups.
Here there is a MSWG. Any ideas?
Western Pacific Fisheries Management Council (WestPac): We
have a council made up from the national governments and local
communities. It gives an equal balance to both sectors. WestPac gets
information from its advisory panel, which includes community members.
We also have a scientific group. Guam requested that the Federal
government prohibit bottom fishing by larger vessels. The proposal went
to the council. At the same time it went to the scientific group. At
the end all the responses go to the management council. Before a given
species can be harvested there has to be a go ahead from the council;
they have responsibility for managing the resource.. I recommend the
approach to every island group.
Rex Hori, FSPI: Suggested extending a proposal he made in his
presentation. Said that the Guam model is good, but we need something
bigger. Perhaps we have not gotten the full potential from CROP, which
includes SOPAC, SPC, SPREP, FFA, and USP. Is CROP a legal entity? The
MSWG is now a loose working group. Can we charge them with something?
Can we use their full potential? How can CROP be extended and enhanced
further to extend what we have started this week?
Anon. Hydrologists in the region have come up with action
plan which the region is taking up, alongside Caribbean and other
regions. We must go back and revisit existing action plans, and include
other groups (hydrologists, climatologists, oceanographers). Resource
sharing and information gathering are vital. We need to get all those
parties together to come up with an agenda.
Facilitator: Regarding that point (about taking this
home), we need to move beyond this time in Fiji and develop make
partnerships at the national and regional level.
Australia (Krista ) Partnerships have been ongoing. Due to
WSSD, partnerships have come to the attention of the international
community, which is a good thing. Regionally we can link into the
Global Programme of Action on Land Based Activities. Also, the World
Bank, ADB, and GEF have good programs at the international level that
the region may be able to tap into to. PIROF is part of a partnership
for us. We are looking for ways to implement this policy.
Randy Thaman (USP): Donna spoke previously of how some
Canadian partnerships have a mentoring aspect. That's very important.
We could use CROP and an extended CROP mechanism for expanded
partnerships.
Biliana: The regional situation is analogous to what occurs
inside countries; we have specialised regional agencies that are doing
work related to oceans. They are all specialised in their own realm.
How can we achieve regional integration? At the national level, when
agencies come together without direction, there are often turf battles
as a result. Should there be focal point, someone who speaks for
oceans? A focal point that provides political direction higher up and
coordinates the actions of regional organisations?
Transform. What about accountability? To insure the things
that we say we will do actually get done. All CROP organisations answer
to PIFS. Ho about a biannual report on the oceans? The CROP MSWG can be
a conduit through which the report can be submitted.
Facilitator: We've heard a lot about accountability,
partnerships, and the need for funding. Some of the big funders
(AusAID, FAO, USAID, NZAID, etc.) have a tendency to throw lots of
money into an area; when the funding is gone the projects stop. I
wonder - in terms of accountability and feedback - if there can there
be more upwards feedback? CROP and other groups should have feedback
going that way.
France: In the field of research we are about to organise a
conference of research institutions that (in Noumea) and aim for this
meeting to not be a self-congratulatory exercise, but instead hope to
attract many PICT representatives, especially people who have interest
in research. We will address oceanography and marine research.
Randy. When we write proposals we should do so as joint
proposals; partnerships need to start there. This is the intent of WSSD
Type II initiatives.
Facilitator: We want to make sure that we do this better
than we ever have before.
